我们发表SCI论文往往需要经历艰辛的修稿过程，甚至反复修稿后才能发表，毕竟一投即中的情况还是少数。作为科研菜鸟，我刚开始连投稿都不会，更别提修稿了，幸运的是，我得到科室两位客座教授的指导并顺利发表了第一篇SCI论文。后来，我都是自己修稿，除了一篇投给AVS修稿后被拒外，其余均顺利发表了。在此，谈谈SCI论文修稿的一点个人心得，以供分享交流。
意见不同，据理力争
国外审稿人一般是由杂志写信邀请的，他们审稿是出于对研究的热爱，一般没有任何报酬，可以说是一群非常专业而且有独到见解的专家，常常提出不一样的意见或看法。即使同样是国外审稿人，他们之间的意见分歧也不小。因而，遇到不同意见时，我们需要做的只是据理力争，无需盲目听从审稿人意见。只要回答有理、有据、有节，最好多引用已经发表的论文作为证据加以论证，能够让审稿专家信服就行。
比如，有审稿人提出我的研究不足之一是采用经耳缘静脉DSA随访动脉瘤大小，无法了解腔内血栓情况。我引用文献解释说，“这种随访方法早有报道，且是可行的，这是我们这么的做的依据。但正如您所指出的那样，它无法评价血栓情况，然而，与以往报道研究类似，我们的模型很难看到附壁血栓”。最后加上一句，“未来我们会采纳您的宝贵意见，以更好地了解血管壁和血栓情况”，至于是否真的采纳那是以后的事，但如此一说至少尊重了审稿人的意见。
例：Aneurysms are usually found on abackground of aging atherosclerotic vessels, I don’t understand the use of normal healthy animals in these models. ……, Other studies in which aneurysm hasbeen generated have used animals cholesterol fed prior to aneurysm formation, which seems more appropriate. The authors shouldcomment in this.
Answer:Thank you for theopportunity to clarify our animal model. Atherosclerosis is the mainpathogenesis of human AAA, however,most elastase-induced aneurysm models in rabbits are performed using a normalhealthy animal.Hypercholesterolemia was induced by using a high cholesterol diet when thestudies were focus on the relationship between this risk factor and aneurysmformation.18,19 In our study, all rabbits were fed a chow enrichedin cholesterol (1%) after the procedure for mimicking as much as possible the hypercholesterolemia in AAApatients. We did notinduce hypercholesterolemia prior to aneurysm formation, as the main purpose of this study was to modify the method for creating abdominal aortic aneurysm in rabbits, rather than to study the relationship between atherosclerosis andAAAs. In future studies, we would like to follow your good advice to betterexamine the relationship between high cholesterol diets and aneurysm formation.
赞美之词，溢于言表
SCI论文审稿一般不给专家任何报酬，他们出于热爱，花费大量时间和精力去审稿。相比于国内开学术会议都会发讲课费之类的，这种无私奉献的精神和信托责任的任命感，就足以令人敬佩！因而，我们对审稿专家的赞美之词，理应溢于言表。多说“Thank you”既是对审稿人付出的肯定，也容易获得他们的青睐，至少不至于因为我们“出言不逊”或者“态度傲慢”之类，让审稿反感，枪毙掉辛苦总结出来的论文。这些感激之言，最好放在回答的第一句，让审稿人心情舒畅，更有耐心地看完我们的回复。
比如，“Thank you for theopportunity to clarify our animal model.”，“We are pretty appreciated for your earnestwork.”“We appreciate youroverall appraisal on our work.”。当提出问题时，说句“Thank you for your kindly questions.”，“Thank you for the helpful clarifying question.”；当给出建议时，说句“Thank you for yourhelpful suggestion.”，甚至提出尖锐问题时，还可以说“Thank you for your critical and good comments.”。尊重和感激是相互的，我们的对审稿人尊重、感激，换来的往往是专家对我们论文的最终认可。
细节问题，用心对待
国外审稿人往往十分敬业，他们会提出一系列细节问题，甚至会指出单词拼写、标点符号错误之类的“小事”。对于这些细节问题，我们应当逐一修改、用心对待。“细节决定成败”，如果在我们看来是“小事”的细节，没有引起足够重视，认真对待，很可能让审稿人觉得我们不够“专业”，进而否定我们的研究成果，使得很好的研究得不到发表。换个角度思考，细节问题提得越多，说明审稿人越是感兴趣，越是没有太大根本性、原则性错误，这样的论文只要认认真真修稿接受的可能性很大。
例：Detailed evaluation of specificdeficiencies with suggestions for improvements
B.1.Abstract: the words selection is strange: what do the authors mean when theystudy "durability and value"of the model? Also, the key aspect of the model, the topical application ofelastase should be mentioned already in the materials and methods section. Theword “incubation” is notappropriate in this context. Also, it is not clear, what the authors mean bysaying "the process was repeated in twelverabbits".
Answer:We appreciate these goodremarks. Origuchi et al reported that aneurysm induced byadventitial elastolysis exhibits spontaneous healing.8 We followedup our model and found it is still useful after 5 months.Indeed, the phrasing “durability and value” were obscure, we havecorrected them.The word “valuable” was changed into “useful”.We added mention of topical application of elastase in the abstract according to your good advice. Miyake T et al also used the word “incubation” to describe a similar procedure.6,7 However, we may use other words, such as “induction”,instead if agreed. Due to theword limit of the abstract, we used “the process was repeated in twelve rabbits” to summarize the experiment in which twelve aneurysms (Group E) were induced by thesame method mentioned above. Specifically, a 1.5 cm segment of the abdominalaortic artery proximal to the bifurcation was isolated. A piece of sterilecotton gauze was used to wrap the middle part of the exposed aorta. An elastase solution of 10 μL (10 U/μL) was applied to thesterile gauze and the segment was induced for 30 minutes.
合理建议，虚心采纳
审稿人意见有的和我们不同，只需要合理解释就行，而审稿专家提出十分合理的建议，我们得虚心采纳，这对提高论文质量是十分有利的，同时，采纳审稿人合理意见，也是对专家的认同，容易赢得好感。比如，我们的动脉瘤壁中膜缺乏平滑肌细胞，而增生的内膜层却可见大量平滑肌细胞，审稿人认为“this finding should beexplained under the light of a possible endothelial-to-mesenchymal transitiontriggered by the aneurysmatic stimuli.”，我十分乐意地回答说，“We were quite surprised and excited that your pretty valuableremark was helpful for us to explain our findings.”，感谢他提出“内膜-中膜化”的概念，帮助我解释了观察到的现象。
例：Comment that this is 'simpler, safer, and more accessible' has not beenproven by this study.This claim was not tested in this paper and needs to be toned down or deleted.Donotoverstate.
Answer:We were pretty appreciated for your earnest work.It is reallytrue as you pointed out that our comment was overstated. We have deleted suchoverstated statements according to your advice.
有问必答，答必有理
SCI论文修稿时，杂志都会要求作者针对审稿提出的每一个问题、建议进行回复，专家提出的问题，往往也是论文发表后读者希望了解的问题。我们要做到有问必答，知无不言、答必有理，如实、客观、有根据地回答这些问题。比如，“How did the authors determine thatmacrophages were present?”，专家想知道我们是如何证实巨噬细胞存在的，我们引用参考文献解释说，采用RAM11染色就可见鉴定出兔巨噬细胞；“How did the authors come up with thepapain dosage and incubation time? Please, provide references.”，专家想了解木瓜蛋白酶的用量及浸润时间是如何确定的，有何参考文献，这样的问题肯定也是读者想知道的。
例：How did the authors come up with the papaindosage and incubationtime? Please, provide references.
Answer:Thank you for your good question. de Oliveira IA et al (26) successfully formed saccular aneurysms in rabbit carotidarteries by transluminally incubation of one milligram papain (17-40U) for 20min. We assumed that thedosage of 2 mg and 20 min incubation time may effective and safe enough toinduce aortic aneurysms, considering the different dimensions between carotid and aortic arteries.
补充爆料，意外之喜
修稿过程其实就是一个论文手稿不断完善的过程，我有一篇SCI论文投给PLoS one，经过两次大修和一次小修，按照审稿人的意见补充实验，纠正错误，成功发表后的论文与最初的手稿相比，早已脱胎换骨，质量有了很大提升。在修稿阶段，适当补充“爆料”，补充一些重要的数据，补充部分实验，使论文更为完善、科学，会让专家有种“意外之喜”，进而得到其认可有助于成功发表。
比如，我修稿时补充CD31染色以分析内皮细胞，二修时审稿人回复说“Thank you for submitting the CD31staining to complete the histological assessment of the aortic aneurysm.”；审稿人问，“How did the authors measure collagenamount? In most studies picrosirius red is used for this purpose.”，我以前不知道PSR染色可用于检测胶原，审稿的意见十分专业，于是修稿时又增加了PSR染色，使得研究结果更具有说服力。此外，审稿人要求，"almostdisappeared" should be more precise，我认真采纳了意见，同时对其他类似模糊的描述进一步量化，“Similarly, more precise description of MMP-9 and RAM11expression was added in the revised text by quantitative analysis.”，如此举一反三，相信审稿人一定能看得出我们严谨、认真的态度，容易让专家满意。
遭到质疑，如实应答
有时，审稿人提出的问题十分尖锐，甚至质疑我们的研究，要求解释。比如，“Authors report resultsmeasured to diameters of 0.01 mm! Must describe convincingly how 0.01 mm wasmethodically measured (e.g. 2.26mm)”，有个审稿人认为测量结果精确到两位小数是不可能的，让我们解释，令其信服。我回答说，直径不是直接测量出来的，为了减少测量误差，我测量了多次并计算其平均值，保留了小数点后两位数值。在修稿时，我加上这部分测量方法的说明。另一个审稿人提出，“The histologicalchanges/differences in Figure 5 are not very clear, while the results weresignificantly different. Please explain.”，我解释说，在高倍视野下可以区别出III型胶原纤维，但其含量较少，且投稿图片显示不清，难以通过肉眼区别其差异，然后提供几张高倍清晰的原始图片，可谓“有图有真假”，不怕任何质疑。
不足之处，虚心承认
我们的论文没有直接被接收、发表，说明还存在一定不足之处，论文存在不足之处，并不可耻，即使发表在顶级杂志上的论文也不是每篇都那么完美无暇的，我们只要正视不足，并客观对待即可。当审稿人很认真地提出这些不足时，我们应当虚心承认，并做相应改正。比如，我们采用氯化钙和弹性蛋白酶联合浸润法建立兔腹主动脉瘤模型，以氯化钙、弹性蛋白酶单独浸润作为对照组，但审稿人一针见血地指出，“No control (shamoperation) group has been used. Could the Authors clarify the reason?”，这显然是个明显且严重的错误，我们必须承认错误，并补充了假手术对照组。审稿人又指出，“Lack of proof of aneurysmstability beyond 21 days must be noted in the limitations paragraph that mustprecede the last paragraph; very important.”，我们意识到这点，并且在Discussion中认真讨论了该不足。
例：No long term follow-up for more than 6 weeks has been performed
Answer:We feel sorry for that we are unable to acquire the long termfollow-up result nowadays. We purposed to find out the possibility to induce anovel rabbit AAA model by periarterial application of papain in the presentexperiment, and a long term follow-up will be carried out on the basis ofvalidity of this hypothesis. We will finish follow-up in the short future, thanks for your goodadvice.
补做实验，可以选择
审稿人有时会要求作者补做实验，以完善结果，使论文内涵更为饱满，更具说明力。如果要求是合理的，而且有时间、有条件完成，当然是最好不过的。可研究生往往没有足够的精力补做实验，而且杂志一般也不会承诺“只要补做这部分实验，就会接收发表”，这就令人纠结。这时，我们可以如实地做出解释，希望得到谅解，并许诺在未来的实验中进一步完善。比如，审稿人建议我“consider gene expression analysis oftropoelastin mRNA”，我一看mRNA和tropoelastin这十分陌生的东西就没信心了，于是长篇大论地做了解释，最终论文还是如愿发表了。
例：As pointed out by the Reviewers, the Authorsshould deeply clarify several aspects related to the novelty of the study and methodological shortcomings. In addition, the authors shouldperform additional experiments in order to provide more data on the matrix turnoverand cell differentiation.
Answer:We feel sorry for that we had not clearly clarifiedthe novelty and methodological shortcomings before, and these points have been taken and elaborated in therevised manuscript.Additionalexperiments were performed to add the control group and provide information on the matrixturnover.
中式英语，无奈之伤
作为非英语母语的中国人，当老外审稿人说我们的英语写得差、错误连篇时，我们顿时会没有争辩的底气，总不能说英语四六级考了高分吧，那就成笑话了。中式英语，是我们十分无奈的伤痛，既然先天不足，我们就虚心承认，并认真纠错，必要时找专业人士进行润色。其实，老外没有直接拒稿，基本明白我们写的是什么，说明英语不至于太差，可能用词和表达不太规范而已，只要认真修改、润色，这都不是事。如果审稿人以语言为理由拒稿，那基本上是借口。我有次帮同事修稿，也遇到语言问题，认真修改后回复说，“we modified the manuscriptby English native speaker to improve its understandability in this revision”。杂志没再要求润色，不知是“将就”了，还是认为我们找的“English native speaker”水平就这样，总之论文顺利发表了。
图文并茂，用心做图
所谓“有图有真相”，真正内行的审稿人，能从图表中看出研究的质量和可信度，进而左右其抉择。人皆有爱美之心，都希望展现自己最好的一面，论文的图表也一样，往往拿出来的都是自己最满意的。如果这样精挑细选的图表，还让审稿人觉得质量差或者不可信，那结果就是灾难性的。我们可以参考权威杂志上的论文图表，进行合理布局、标识，让人赏心悦目，同时看出图表背后研究者十分专业以及态度的科学、严谨。如果是线条图、示意图，则认真制作，不可草草了事，必要时找专业人士完成。
转自尚辑Sagesci论文编辑微信公众号，仅作学习交流，如有侵权，请联系本站删除！
