SCI录用的最后一步——答复审稿人的策略和答复信的写作技巧

★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★

dmfang(金币+5,VIP+0):谢谢分享经验8-20 18:49

cxksama(金币+3,VIP+0):感谢楼主在次分享好的经验~ 8-20 21:08

cxksama(金币+10,VIP+0):升级为一级精华，奖励！8-21 12:47

cxksama(金币+5,VIP+0):升级为二级精华，奖励9-24 14:03

cxksama(金币+5,VIP+0):升级为三级精华，奖励9-24 14:03

一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。

首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。

第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？

第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。

第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。

上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。

写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不同字体分别标出，比如“意见”用italic，“argue”正常字体，“修改”用bold。下面举例说明各部分的写法和格式。

编辑意见：请在修改稿中用双倍行距。

审稿人1：

意见1：置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过。

意见2：算法表述不明确。

意见3：对图3的图例应做出解释。

审稿人2：

意见1：图2太小。

意见2：第3页有个错别字。

很显然，根据上面的答复策略，我们准备对除1号审稿人意见1之外的所有意见进行相应改动，而对1.1采取argue为主的策略。答复如下：

List of Actions

LOA1: The revised manuscript is double spaced.

LOA2: A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have been added in page 3.

LOA3: A paragraph has been added in page 5 to further explain the algorithm ***. LOA4: Explanations of the legend of Figure 3 have been added in page 7.

LOA5: Figure 2 has been enlarged.

LOA6: All typos have been removed.

==================分页=======================

Responses to Editor

请在修改稿中用双倍行距。

We have double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.

==================分页======================= Responses to Reviewers

To Reviewer 1:

意见1：置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过。

Thank you for pointin g this out. A and B’s research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and B’s work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. We have added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manuscript, see LOA2.

“blablablabla(此处把A和B的工作做一个review，并提出自己工作和他们的区别之处)”意见2：算法表述不明确。

We have added the following discussion to further explain algorithm ***, see LOA3. “blablablabla（此处进一步解释该算法）”

意见3：对图3的图例应做出解释。

We have added the following explanations of the legend of Figure 3, see LOA3. “blablablabla（图3图例的解释）”

==================分页=======================

To Reviewer 2:

意见1：图2太小。

We have enlarged Figure 2, see LOA 4.

意见2：第3页有个错别字。

We have removed all typos, see LOA5.

==================分页=======================

总之，写答复信的宗旨就是用最少的时间和工作量达到论文被接收的目的。这里权当是抛砖引玉，希望和大家多多交流。

SCI 回复整理

暑假中了2篇SCI文章，影响因子都在IF=1.5-2.0之间。其实，在此之前，本人已经发表了若干SCI，而且已经是两个期刊的Reviewer。但尽管如此，随着文章积累越多，对SCI写作的认识也有所熟悉和深入。下面谈谈一些体会，与大家分享。第一篇：去年12月份投稿，7月份返回意见。结论是：“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”实际上，这个结论已经非常好了。我看了以下审稿意见，然后就逐条的进行了Response。其中Response letter的格式我是参考了我审稿过的一篇德国学者的回复模式（我认为非常好）。但是，在审稿意见中，有一条意见要我对实验过程做一描述。我认为完全没有必要，所以没有改此项。很快，R1版文件被主编审回。我认为应该“Complete Accept”了，但意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”不出所料，主编的意见就是R1中没有改的那条，而且比较客气，认为“Probably the authors did not notice this requirement. Howev er, this issue is critical: to judge the value of the reported methodological development;”没有办法，我又认真对意见进行了修改。R2版文件我认为没有问题了，就等Accept了。可是R2返回后，主编的意见还是意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”这次一看，原来意见是“The paper requires careful editing for use of English.”我想应该不会啊。我又仔细审查了Text，结果还是发现了几个不应该的拼写错误。我的Word的拼写可能出问题了，前几次竟然没有发现。这次，我不敢大意了，俗话云：事不过三。如果再有问题，主编的大斧可能就来了。于是，我认真的检查了全文，写了Resonse letter: Dear the Editors and reviewers: We appreciate again your valuable comments very much, which are helpful to improve the quality of our present study. According to the comments, we have revised our paper as follows: 1）Comment s: "…….. ." According to the reviewer’s suggestions, we have checked again our spelling and rewriten or modified a number of expressions in the abstract, text, figures, and tables. Thanks ***, a reviewer of International Journal of ****, for his kind help on the text modifications(这是我表示诚意，特意加上去的). Especially, in the Acknowledgement, we added our thanks for anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on the quality improvement of our present paper. 果然，R3版文件当天就被主编接受了。意见：“It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the reviewers have accepted your paper for publication.The proofs will be sent to you within three months of receipt of this email.” 通过上面的来回反复，我发现SCI回复意见一定要态度认真，逐条回复。对于中国作者，及时主编不说，也要对English进行认真核对，认真决定一切！这次，我真的学了很多经验教训。就在我改动之间，我又准备了另外一篇，而且把这篇Accept 的文章也引用上了。第二篇：这次准备的非常充分，尤其是语法方面画了大量功夫，内容也比较新。就是把实验数据反过来了。不是直接报数据，而是先给了模型，而后用实验去验证。我感到满意的是Introduction。这里，我充分参考了木虫上Fudanmazhen的经验，尽量在“讲故事，而不是讲历史”。结果，7月29日投出，8月5日主编返回意见：直接接受，而且说无需任何进一步改动。目前，此篇文章已经上网了。与此同时，主编还发给我一篇西班牙作者的文章，让我当Reviewer。我肯定欣然接受了。因此，我本来就是这个期刊的审稿人。当然，这是我SCI运气最好的一次，估计也是最后一次了，因为直接接受的情形确实很少，我也不奢望每篇文章都这样，除非自己当主编。但是，通过这个假期的SCI较量，

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集

SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全修改稿回答審稿人の意見（最重要の部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿號). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。逐條意見回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏針對不同の問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...

sci修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

sci修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Realtime Monitoring of Xylitol Fermentation by Micro-Raman )Spectroscopy”(LANL-2014-0001. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: 1. Response to comment (Reviewer 1): (The proposed method was established with the lack of the process of the optimization. The curve was adopted to illustrate the changes of absorption peak in the process of fermentation, but the absorption peak couldn’t be confirmed the identical to the reference peak of xylitol. It needs more data to prove the reliability of the method) Response: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, the experiment of high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is added to verify the reliability of the

回答SCI审稿人的方法

如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不同字体分别标出，比如“意见”用italic，“argue”正常字体，“修改”用bold。下面

SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧

SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...

SCI论文全攻略之审稿回复实例

SCI论文全攻略之审稿回复实例.txt精神失常的疯子不可怕，可怕的是精神正常的疯子！附1：SCI扩展版和SCI核心版收录期刊的区别 SCI扩展版（以下简称SCIE）和SCI核心版（以下简称SCI）收录期刊还是有区别的，SCI期刊论文全部被SCI收录，SCIE期刊论文只是部分被SCI收录，这就是有的SCIE期刊一年有几百篇论文，却只有几十篇甚至十几篇论文被SCI收录的原因。具体到SCIE期刊上的一篇论文能否被SCI收录，还是要看美国ISI发布的报告，现在科技部信息研究所也公布这一报告，很多图书馆的SCI检索机构也可以查。不过在国内，很多单位都把SCI期刊论文和SCIE期刊论文一视同仁，只要发表在SCI期刊或SCIE期刊上，该论文都当作SCI收录，这是管理者的无能抑或无为就不得而知了。但就我们单位而言（国内TOP10高校），这两者还是区别对待的，论文是否SCI收录还是看CISI的报告或SCI检索机构的证附2：[精华]如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见(1) 1.所有问题必须逐条回答。 2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。 3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。 4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。续两点经验： 1，最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事； 2，绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想该投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story”了。以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。

(完整版)SCI审稿意见回复模板

List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× ...... 逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……... It is really true as Reviewer suggested that…… We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments. We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion As Reviewer suggested that…… Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have …… 最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见： Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: 同上述 Reviewer #3: ×××××× Other changes: 1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………” 2. Line 107, “……” was added 3. Line 129, “……” was deleted ×××××× We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

(完整word版)回复审稿人意见模板

如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理）如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 1.所有问题必须逐条回答。 2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。 3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。 4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。续两点经验： 1. 最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事； 2. 绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想改投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story” 了。以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。自我感觉总结（不一定对）： 1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势； 2）国内杂志编辑人员认真负责的人不多，稿子寄去后，少则几个月，多则一年多没有任何消息； 3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发； 4）国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而过关，原因见少帖）。还因为：很少杂志编辑把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定一般杂志（影响因子1-5）。欢迎大家批评指正。我常用的回复格式: Dear reviewer: I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below. 1）

sci 投稿回复

SCI 投稿全过程信件模板一览2013-10-31 10:39阅读(12)转载自~~ ?赞(21) ?评论 ?转载(43) ?分享(32) ?复制地址 ?收藏夹按钮收藏 ?更多已经是第一篇 | 下一篇：一步一步教你使用... 一、最初投稿Cover letter Dear Editors: We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be consider Name”. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have enclosed. In this work, we evaluated …… (简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journa The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration: 1) Name A E-mail: ××××@×××× 2) Name B E-mail: ××××@×××× We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments fro queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely, ×××××× Corresponding author: Name: ××× E-mail: ××××@×××× 二、催稿信 Dear Prof. ×××: Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the st titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor” has been lasting for more t to journal three months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been sent to reviewers or not? I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time check the status for us. I am very rev iewer’s comments. Thank you very much for your consideration. Best regards! Yours sincerely, ×××××× Corresponding author: Name: ××× E-mail: ××××@×××× 三、修改稿Cover letter

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板 SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as w ell as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully a nd have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red i n the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ××××××。。。。。。逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing …….. It is really true as Reviewer suggested that…… We have made correction according to the Reviewer’ s comments. We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’ s suggestion As Reviewer suggested that…… Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见： Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: 同上述 Reviewer #3: ×××××× Other changes: 1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………” 2. Line 107, “……” was added 3. Line 129, “……” was deleted ×××××× We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. Thes e changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will m eet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions 以下是审稿人意见和本人的回复。与大家分享。从中可以看出，这位审稿人认真读了文章，提出很多宝贵的意见。这些意见分布在文章的各个地方。我很诧异有人真正读了我的文章。看到这些意见，我觉得很感激，不是因为接收文章的原因，而是这些意见能真正有助于提高文章的质量。

SCI 审稿意见回复范文

创作编号：BG7531400019813488897SX 创作者：别如克* 论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B （一种病毒）所投杂志：Life Sciences 投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表编辑信内容（注：有删节）： Dear Mr. XXX, Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below. If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures. A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission. You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file in the Attach Files area. We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript. To submit a revision, go to https://www.360docs.net/doc/5f3387461.html,/lfs/ and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there. Yours sincerely, Joseph J. Bahl, PhD Editor

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全

SCI 修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全修改稿回答審稿人①意見（最重要①部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers' comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” （ID: 文章稿號）. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corer ctions in the paper and the responds to the reviewer are as flowing: s co Responds to the reviewer ' s comments: Reviewer #1: 1.Response to comment：?（?…簡要歹U出意見） Respo nse: xxxxxx 2.Response to comment: ?（…簡要歹U出意見.） Response: xxxxxx 。。。。。。逐條意見回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏針對不同①問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用： We are very sorry for our negligenee of .. ... We are very sorry for our in correct writi ng ... ... It is really true as Reviewer suggested that ...