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，makingareferenceisnotcharity！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majorrevision，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与时检查出的小毛病，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ListofActions,ResponsestoEditor,ResponsestoReviewers。第一部分ListofActions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：ListofActionsLOA1:Therevisedmanuscriptisdoublespaced.

LOA2:AdiscussiononnoveltyofthisworkandacomparisonwithAandBhavebeenaddedinpage3.

LOA3:Aparagraphhasbeenaddedinpage5tofurtherexplainthealgorithm***.

LOA4:ExplanationsofthelegendofFigure3havebeenaddedinpage7.

LOA5:Figure2hasbeenenlarged.

LOA6:Alltyposhavebeenremoved.==================分页=======================ResponsestoEditor请在修改稿中用双倍行距。Wehavedoublespacedthetextthroughouttherevisedmanuscript,seeLOA1.==================分页=======================ResponsestoReviewersToReviewer1: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。Thankyouforpointingthisout.AandB’sresearchgroupshavedoneblablablabla.However,thefocusofourworkisonblablablabla,whichisverydifferentfromAandB’swork,andthisisalsothemajorcontributionofourwork.Wehaveaddedthefollowingdiscussiononthisissueinourrevisedmanuscript,seeLOA2.“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。Wehaveaddedthefollowingdiscussiontofurtherexplainalgorithm***,seeLOA3.“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。WehaveaddedthefollowingexplanationsofthelegendofFigure3,seeLOA3.“blablablabla（图3图例的解释）”==================分页=======================ToReviewer2:意见1：图2太小。WehaveenlargedFigure2,seeLOA4.意见2：第3页有个错别字。Wehaveremovedalltypos,seeLOA5.==================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。

来源：pitlord999@小木虫如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见如何回复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。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，呵呵。Dearreviewer:Iamverygratefultoyourcommentsforthemanuscript.Accordingwithyouradvice,weamendedtherelevantpartinmanuscript.Someofyourquestionswereansweredbelow.1）2）引用审稿人推荐的文献的确是很重要的，要想办法和自己的文章有机地结合起来。至于实验大部分都可以不用补做，关键是你要让审稿人明白你的文章的重点是什么，这个实验对你要强调的重点内容不是很必要，或者你现在所用的方法已经可以达到目的就行了。最后要注意，审稿人也会犯错误，不仅仅是笔误也有专业知识上的错误，因为编辑找的审稿人未必是你这个领域的专家。只要自己是正确的就要坚持。在回复中委婉地表达一下你的意见，不过要注意商讨语气哦！我得回复格式是这样的：DearProfessorxx:Thankyouverymuchforyourletterdatedxxxxxxxxx,andthereferees’reports.Basedonyourcommentandrequest,wehavemadeextensivemodificationontheoriginalmanuscript.Here,weattachedrevisedmanuscript.intheformatsofbothPDFandMSword,foryourapproval.Adocumentansweringeveryquestionfromtherefereeswasalsosummarizedandenclosed.Arevisedmanuscript.withthecorrectionsectionsredmarkedwasattachedasthesupplementalmaterialandforeasycheck/editingpurpose.Shouldyouhaveanyquestions,pleasecontactuswithouthesitate.然后再附上Q/A，基本上嘱条回答，写的越多越好（老师语）。结果修改一次就接收了：）我的回复，请老外帮忙修改了DearEditor:Thankyouforyourkindletterof“”onNovember**,2005.Werevisedthemanuscript.inaccordancewiththereviewers’comments,andcarefullyproof-readthemanuscript.tominimizetypographical,grammatical,andbibliographicalerrors.Herebelowisourdescriptiononrevisionaccordingtothereviewers’comments.PartA(Reviewer1).Thereviewer’scomment:Theauthors’Answer:2.Thereviewer’scomment:Theauthors’Answer:

PartB(Reviewer2)1.Thereviewer’scomment:Theauthors’Answer:2.Thereviewer’scomment:Theauthors’Answer:Manygrammaticalortypographicalerrorshavebeenrevised.Allthelinesandpagesindicatedaboveareintherevisedmanuscript.Thankyouandallthereviewersforthekindadvice.Sincerelyyours,***

[精华]如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见(2)

一个回复的例子(已接收)Majorcomments:1.TheauthorsneedtostrengthentheirresultsbyincludingMMPsecretion,andtran-matrigelmigrationbyapositivecontrolprogenitorcellpopulationi.e.enrichedhumanCD34cellsobtainedfrommobilizedPBL,sincethisisamoreclinicallyrelevantsourceofCD34cellswhichhasalsobeenshowntosecretebothMMP-9andMMP-2(ref.11).CD34enrichedcellsfromsteadystateperipheralbloodwhichalsosecreteMMPsarealsoofinterest.2.Infig1CpleasespecifywhichcelllinerepresentsMMP-negativecells.Thisneedstobeclarified,aswellasabetterexplanationofthemethodoftheprotocol.3.TheELISAresultsarerepresentedas"foldincrease"comparedtocontrol.Instead,wesuggestthatstandardsshouldbeusedandresultsshouldbepresentedasabsoluteconcentrationsandonlythencantheseresultsbecomparedtothoseofthezymography.4.Whendiscussingtheresults,theauthorsshoulddistinguishclearlybetweenspontaneousmigrationvschemotacticmigration.Furthermore,thehighspontaneousmigrationobtainedwithcordbloodCD34cellsshouldbecomparedtomobilizedPBLCD34enrichedcellsanddiscussed.5.TheauthorsclaimthattheclonogenicassaywasperformedtodeterminetheoptimumconcentrationforinhibitionofMMPactivitybyphenanthrolineandantiMMP-9mAb,howevertheyshouldclarifythatthisassaycanonlydeterminethetoxicityoftheinhibitorsandnottheiroptimalinhibitoryconcentrations.Minorcomments:1.Therearemanyspellingandsyntaxerrors,especiallyintheresultsanddiscussion,whichneedcorrection.a.Ofspecialimportance,isthepercentinhibitionofmigration,whichisdescribedaspercentofmigration.i.e.pg7:"MigrationofCBCD34wasreducedto73.3%?"Insteadshouldread"MigrationofCBCD34wasreducedby73.3%?"b.ThedegreesymbolneedstobeaddedtothenumbersinMaterialsandmethods.2.Itwouldbepreferabletocombinefigure1AandB,inordertoconfirmthereliabilityoffig.1Bbyapositivecontrol(HT1080).Answertoreferee1comment:1.MobilizedperipheralbloodisamoreclinicalsourceofCD34+cells,soitisnecessarytocomparetheMMP-9secretionandtrans-migrationabilityofCBCD34+cellswiththatofmobilizedPBCD34+cells.However,wecouldn'tobtainenoughmobilizedPBtoseparatePBCD34+cellsanddeterminetheMMP-9secretionandmigrationability,sowecouldn’tcomplementthestudyonPBCD34+cellsinthispaper.ResultsobtainedbyJanowska-WieczoreketalfoundthatmobilizedCD34+cellsinperipheralbloodexpressMMP-9.Furthermore,Domenech’sstudyshowedthatMMP-9secretionisinvolvedinG-CSFinducedHPCmobilization.Theirconclusionshavebeenaddedinthediscussion.Inourpresentstudy,ourcentralconclusionfromourdataisthatfreshlyisolatedCD34+stem/progenitorcellsobtainedfromCBproduceMMP-9.2.MMP-9negativecellusedinfig1CwasJurkatcell.Inzymographicanalysis,MMP-9wasnotdetectedinthemediumconditionedbyJurkatcell.ToexcludethatthecontaminatingcellsmayplayaroleintheobservedMMP-9production,wescreenedthemediaconditionedbydifferentproportionofCBmononuclearcellswithMMP-9negativecellsbyzymography.Thisresultmaybeconfusion.Actually,onlybydetectingthemediumconditionedby2X105CBmononuclearcells(MNC)/ml(sincethepuritiesofCD34+cellaremorethan90%),itcouldexcludetheMNCrole.Intherevisedmanuscript,weonlydetectedMMP-9activityandantigenlevelinthemediumconditionedby2X105CBmononuclearcells(MNC)/ml.ThereisnoMMP-9secretionbedetectedinthemediumconditionedby2X105CBMNC/ml.ItexcludedthepossibilitythattheMMP-9activityinCBCD34+cellsconditionedmediumisduetothecontaminationbyMNC.3.Inthisrevisedpaper,wehavedetectedtheMMP-9antigenlevelsbyusingcommercialspecificELISAkits(R&DSystem,sensitivity,0.156ng/ml).RecombinantMMP-9fromR&DSystemwasusedasastandard.Theresultsareexpressedintheabsoluteconcentration.Theabsoluteconcentrationresulthasbeenaddedinthepaper.AsshowninFig2,MMP-9levelsweredetectableinbothCBCD34+cellconditionedmediumandBMCD34+cellconditionedmedium.However,MMP-9levelwassignificantlyhigherinCBCD34+cellconditionedmediumthaninBMCD34+cellconditionedmedium(0.406±0.133ng/mlversus0.195±0.023ng/ml).AlthoughgelatinolyticactivitywasnotdetectedinmediaconditionedbyCD34+cellsfromBM,sensitivityofELISAfavorsthedetectionofMMP-9antigenintheBMCD34+.4.Inourstudy,toestablishthedirectlinkbetweenMMP-9andCBCD34+cellsmigration,weonlydeterminedtheroleofMMP-9inspontaneousmigrationofCBCD34+cells,butnotinchemotacticmigration.Actually,regulationofhematopoieticstemcellmigration,homingandanchorageofrepopulationcellstothebonemarrowinvolvesacomplexinterplaybetweenadhesionmolecules,chemokines,cytokinesandproteolyticenzymes.ResultsobtainedbythegroupsofVoermansrevealthatnotonlythespontaneousmigrationbutalsotheSDF-1inducedmigrationofCBCD34+cellsisgreatlyincreasedincomparisontoCD34+cellsfromBMandperipheralblood.5.CD34+cellsweobtainedineachcordbloodsamplewereverylimited.Itisnotenoughtoscreentheinhibitorsconcentrationstoselecttheoptimalinhibitoryconcentrations.Intheblockingexperiments,basedontheconcentrationsusedbyothersandthemanufacturer'srecommendation,wethendeterminedtheinhibitorsconcentrationsbyexcludingthetoxicityoftheinhibitorsinthatconcentration,whichwasdeterminedbyclonogenicassay.Minorcomments:1.Thespellingandsyntaxerrorshavebeencheckedandcorrected.2.Sincetheresultsinfigure1AandBwereobtainedfromtwoseparatedandparallelexperiments,itisnotfitnesstocombinetwofigures.这是我的一篇修稿回复，杂志是JBMR-A,影响因子3.652,已发表，供参考！ReplytothecommentsonJBMR-A-05-0172Comment:Reference#10ismissingfromtheIntroductionbutusedmuchlaterinthemanuscript.Shouldthesebeinorderusedinmanuscript?Reply:Themissingreferencehasbeenaddedintotherevisedmanuscript.Comment(continued):Whatisthesamplesizeforalltestsperformed?Reply:ThesamplesizefordrugreleaseandPCLdegradationtestswas3.0×3.0cm2,withathicknessofabout0.1mmandaweightofabout40mg.Thisdadahavebeenaddedintotherevisedmanuscript.Comment(continued):Figure7.ThereisnoscientificevidencepresentedintheTEMfiguretoconvincethisreviewerofsub-jets.ThisstatementonPage9cannotbemadewithoutclearevidenceduringthejetformation/separation.Figure7isjustalargefiberandsmallfiberfusedtogether,nootherconclusionthanthiscanbemade.Reply:Necessarychangeinthestatementshasbeenmadeintherevisedmanuscript.aswellasinthereferredfigureaccordingly.Comment(continued):Table3:Needstandarddeviationforallvaluesreportednotjustforaselectfew.EquationafterTable3notnecessary.Justreferencemethodused.Reply:Doneaccordingly.Comment(continued):Page11:"fasterweightloss"Whatwasthesamplesize?Whereisthestatisticalanalysisofthisdata?Thisreviewerdoesnotseeasignificantdifferenceinanyofthedatapresented,thusweightlosswouldbeconsideredequivalent.Reply:Althoughnottoomuchdifferencewasseen,theconclusionthat“theGS/PCLmembraneexhibitedarelativelyfasterweightlosscomparedwiththeRT/PCLmembrane”wasindeedapplicablethrough“one-wayanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)”analysis.Followingthereviewer’scomment,anewsub-sectionhasbeenaddedtothemanuscript.toaddressthestatisticalanalysisforthedata.Comment(continued):Page12:Whatisthesamplesizeforreleasedata?Lookslikeresultsbasedonasamplesizeofone?NeedstanddeviationsonthedatapresentedinFigure11.Whywasn'treleaseperformedandcomparedforallelectrospunconditionsinvestigatedotherwise?Reply:Threerepeatedtestswereperformedforeachsetofmeasurementsandtheresultingdatawereaveraged.Asstatedintherevisedmanuscript,eachsamplehadasquareareaof33cm2withaslightlydifferentthickness.StandarddeviationshavebeenaddedtothedatashowninFig.11.Thepresentmanuscript.aimedtoshowthatmedicaldrugscanbeencapsulatedinultrafinefibersthroughaco-axialelectrospinningprocess.Thedrugreleasedataintendedtoshowthattheencapsulationwassuccessful.Wedidnotconsideranyspecificapplicationinthispreliminarypaper,andinfactthetwodrugswerejustchosenasmodelillustration.Assuch,thereseemednotnecessarytoperform.releaseexperimentsforallofthemembraneselectrospunwithdifferentconditions(i.e.thecoreconcentrations)Comment(continued):Table3:Yang'sorYoung'sModulus(page10saysYoung's).Reply:Correctedaccordingly.Comment(continued):Figure11:Whatisthe%release,notjustconcentration.Whyjustthissmallsampleofreleasedata?Whereisthereleasedatafortheotherconditions?Reply:Unfortunately,wedidnotmeasuretheamountoftheshellmaterialinobtainingthecompositenanofibers.Namely,theflowrateoftheshellsolutionduringtheelectrospinningwasnotaccuratelycontrolledusinganinjectingpump.Hencethe%releasewasnotapplicable.PleaserefertothepreviousreplyrelatedtoPage12andFigure11fortheremainingcomments.Weacknowledgethereviewer’scommentsandsuggestionsverymuch,whicharevaluableinimprovingthequalityofourmanuscript.SCI生物医学英文论文发表成功经验发表成功经验

SCI生物医学英文论文发表成功经验共享系列一（ClinicalChemistry）将自己近10年的科研工作中有关论文整理总结发表方面的一些信息贡献出来，与大家共享！如有时间，我拟将一些已经发表的文章，按照撰写与发表的实际经历与过程，即通过案例分析每一个杂志的特色，审稿偏好，review意见与答复要点等逐一分析。可能包含的杂志系列有：naturemethods，clinicalchemistry，analyticalchemistry，J.Clin.Immuno，Biomed.Microdev，Front.Biosci，Mol.Cell.Biochem，J.Expert，Rev.Proteomics，Jbiochemistry等。本章先讲解美国ClinicalChemistry杂志，一个临床化学界的王牌杂志，近年其影响因子逐年攀升，现为7.7分。ClinicalChemistry由美国AACC每月出版，接受的文章包括与人体疾病相关的实验室研究，分析与分子诊断，仪器，资料处理，数据分析，临床研究等投稿。ISSN：0009-9147网络版ISSN：1530-8561【URL】【镜像URL】【出版者】AmericanAssociationforClinicalChemistry(AACC)【收费情况】免费,全文【内容简介】ClinicalChemistryisaninternationaljournaloflaboratorymedicineandmoleculardiagnostics.ClinicalChemistry--Thishighlyrespectedandoften-citedscientificjournalispublishedmonthlyandcontainspeer-reviewedmethodology,researchpapersandotherarticlesrelevanttoclinicalchemistryandrelatedlaboratorysciences.Itscirculationismorethan15,000.DavidE.Bruns,MD,Editor,(CharlottesvilleOffice)SandraWeaver,SeniorEditorialAssistantDonnaBrandl,EditorialAssistantShaneP.Cyr,EditorialAssistantMacFancher,Publisher,(WashingtonOffice)MiriamGonzalez,PublicationsCoordinator【目录、摘要或全文上网等情况】FreeTOC,1965-FreeAbstract,1975-FreeFulltext,1997-1999Fulltext,1997-

【杂志被索引的情况】IndexedinChemicalAbstracts.【备注】ForfasteraccesstoClinicalChemistryOnlinefromthesecountriesusethisURL:,Brazil,China,France,Germany,HongKong,Ireland,Israel,Italy,Japan,Mexico,Russia,Singapore,SouthAfrica,SouthKorea,Spain,Sweden,Switzerland,Taiwan,TheNetherlands,UK该杂志是由美国临床化学协会（AmericanAssociationforClinicalChemistry，AACC）主办的，于1948年成立，总部位于华盛顿，拥有1万余会员。先在网站注册，登记，按照提示一步步提供文章名称，摘要，作者姓名，所属领域，关键词，主文，图表等等。转换为PDF后就可以提交，然后给你一个查询号，接着就是等待了。。。等了20多天，查阅状态看到了第一次回信：HomeAuthorAreaReviewerAreaPersonalInfo.ClinChemHomeSignOutSubmitNewManuscript.InformationforAuthorsQueueSummaryFeedbackHelpFAQDecisionLetter[ReturntoQueue]To:作者姓名（电子邮件）From:Subject:ClinicalChemistry--Manuscript.DecisionCc:RE:ClinicalChemistryMSID#CLINCHEM/2002/036332TITLE:DearDr.xxx:Yourmanuscript.hasbeenexaminedbytwoexpertreviewers.Pleasevisit

toviewtheircomments.Forthereasonsdetailedinthesecomments,wecannotacceptthismanuscript.forpublicationinClinicalChemistryinthisform.Also,yourReference28isnotformattedproperly.OurInformationforAuthorswillofferassistancewithjournalstyle;itcanbefoundat

wouldconsiderarevisedversionthattakesthesecriticismsintoaccount.IfyoushouldresubmitthepaperIwouldalsoaskthatyouhaveseveralEnglishspeakingcolleaguesproofthepaperforgrammarandcomposition.Additionally,besuretoprovideadetailedpoint-by-pointresponsetothecommentsofthereviewers.Failuretodosowilldelayconsiderationoftherevisedmanuscript.Priortopublicationwerequirecopyrightreleasessignedbyallauthors.OurAuthorsAssurancesandAssignmentofCopyrightform.canbedownloadedfrom

.

Pleasenotethatallauthorsmustsignbothsectionsoftheform.(asignatureonthelowersectionmeansthatallconflictsofinteresthavebeendisclosedeveniftherearenone).Sendthecompletedform.tousbyFAX(434-979-7599).Sincerely,Dr.xxxnesleyAssociateEditorP.S.Youwillfindyourrevisedmanuscript.canbeuploadedinyour"SubmitaRevision"queueat

.

Pleasedonotbeginthesubmissionofyourrevisedmanuscript.untilyouarereadytosubmittheentiremanuscript.Achecklistregardingrequirementsforsubmissioncanbefoundat.

FiguresmustbeuploadedasImageFilesin.tifor.epsfilesat600DPI.Alternatively,youmayusePowerPointsoftwareforfiguresbutfontsmustbeembeddedandonlyoneimageperslide,oneslideperfile.Whenuploadingtherevisedversion,pleasebesuretoincludeinthe"ResponsetoReviews"fieldapoint-by-pointlistofallchangesmade,oryourrebuttal,inresponsetoeachofthereviewers?suggestions.P.P.S.Pleasenotethatifyourmanuscript.hascolorfigures,theauthorsareexpectedtobearthecostofprintingthem,exceptinthecaseofinvitedpapers.Thechargesforthesefiguresare$1500forthefirstcolorfigureorpartofafigure,and$500foreachadditionalcolorfigureorpartofafigure.Authorswillbebilledforcolorpublicationcostsunlesstheyrequestthattheirfiguresbeprintedinblackandwhite.该杂志一般为2个审稿人，审稿过程也较严格，都是本领域的大牛。后来我还有幸在一次会议上认识到一个当年的审稿人，但不知道是1还是2，呵呵！一般总是先鼓励一段话，不写了。。。下面问题就来了，共12个，有些很好回答，一句话就可以解释清楚，有些就比较麻烦。还是举例说明把1）实验的有效性和深度（atleastforafewsubstancesofmajorimportancedetectionlimits,cut-offvaluesandspecificityshouldhavebeenstudied.Alsothedescriptionoftheassayprincipleisnotquiteclear）没办法，只有一条路，补充相关实验，然后再投。2）语言问题（TheEnglishtextwouldhavetobesubstantiallyimproved）虽然这是一个美国杂志，但对语言的要求一点都不弱，投之前还是忽略了，没办法，慢慢修改。3）核心的技术问题（Acut-offvalueisgivenforMOLbutthedimensionismissing.Inthediscussionvariousanecdoticreportsaregivenforwhichnodataarepresentedunderresults.）重新验证讨论。本来认为很快就可以接受了，没想到却又等了一个半月（中间发过一次信件询问）才收到回信。原来除了上次2个评委，这次又增加了一个独立审稿人。。。原文如下：Yourrevisedmanuscript.hasbeenexaminedbytheoriginaltworeviewers,plusarecommendedthirdreviewerwithspecialexpertiseinthisarea.Pleasevisit

toretrievetheircomments.Thethreereviewersfindmeritinthework,buthavenumerousconstructivesuggestions（别害怕，其实就是几个小问题）.Pleaseconsiderthesesuggestionscarefullyandprepareanimprovedversionthataddressestheseconcerns.Ihavealsonotedthatthereareseveralcolorfiguresincludedinthepaper,whichseemtobeusefulonlyincolor.Pleasebeawarethat(shouldyourpaperbeacceptedforpublication)authorsareexpectedtopaythecostsforpublicationofcolorfigures.Thechargeforthefirstcolorfigureis$1500;subsequentfigures,orpartsoffigures,are$500each.Ofcourse,ifyouwishtosubmitalternatefiguresinblackandwhite(orgrayscale),youmaydoso.Sincerely,Dr.xxxAssociateEditorP.S.Youwillfindyourrevisedmanuscript.canbeuploadedinyour"SubmitaRevision"queueat

.

Achecklistofrequirementsforsubmissioncanbefoundat

.

Whenuploadingtherevisedversion,pleasebesuretoincludeinthe"ResponsetoReviews"fieldapoint-by-pointlistofallchangesmade,oryourrebuttal,inresponsetoeachofthereviewersuggestions.Also,pleasesubmitcopyrightreleasesforallauthors.OurAuthor