根据本人的一些投稿和审稿经验，英语水平在整个论文写作中所占的比重最多占到三成，剩下的七成则是一些极易被忽略的格式或形式上的细节，而往往正是这些细节真正决定着一篇文章的走向。
从审稿人的角度看，一片文章的命运往往在审稿人打开它的一瞬间就决定了。一个熟练的审稿人会在接到文章后用几分钟的时间通读一遍，从而对作者和文章的情况有一个初步的判断。在这里，审稿人最喜欢两个极端：一是通篇充满了细节上的小错误，可以直接reject的那种，再就是所谓的well written，提几条不痛不痒的意见就可以放过的那种。为什么呢？因为这两种最节省审稿人的时间，编辑那也能交待的过去。当然审稿人不会直接告诉你拒稿的原因是这些小细节，他会告诉你文章创新性不够，研究没有意义，方法老旧，更不要说那些他都懒得一一指出的小错误了。从这个意义上讲，为了躲过审稿人的这头一板斧，我们即使做不到well written，也要尽可能的减少文章里的细小错误，从而给自己的文章增加机会。
我试着总结了一些这类小细节，总结如下：
1、标题永远不要出现novel, new等字眼。从逻辑的角度讲，写科技文章的目的就是报道新的进展，如果不新的话那也没有发表的必要了。从审稿人的角度讲，他首先不会因为你写了个new就会觉得你的文章非常有新意，有时候还会适得其反，让审稿人觉得你在挑战他的经验以及智商，于是乎千方百计找你文章里不new的地方……
2、Abstract里不要充斥大量数字。做实验的一些朋友有时候可能非常得意自己测出的某些最新数据，于是乎恨不得都塞到Abstract中以示强调，殊不知在审稿人眼中这些仅仅是一串串毫无意义的阿拉伯数字而已。
3、参考文献和引用一定要规范，最好用文献管理软件（如endnote）来编辑，不要手工制作，费力且不讨好。有关参考文献格式方面的文章网上一堆一堆的，小木虫也有很多，在这就不再赘述了，只强调几点。第一，格式要统一，不要张冠李戴，用Author-year格式那就有author-year的样子，用数字格式那就规规矩矩的标出个1，2，3，4。第二，人名的拼写一定不能出现错误，因为某篇文献的作者就是你的审稿人，你都不怕错拼了，人家还能怕错拒你不成。第三，用et al.要慎重。有些兄弟图省事，所有文献仅列第一作者，其他作者一律et al.，殊不知审你文章的大佬很可能就在其中哦，：）
4、节标题的拼写一定要准确。经常看见的错误就是Conclusions，Acknowledgments不带s。这两个标题估计99％的人都要用到，而且孤零零就那么一个词，字号比一般的字还要大那么几倍，写错了话还真是着实扎眼。
5、切忌超长段落。一般一个段落以3到5个句子为宜，千万不要追求一气呵成的感觉而堆在一起，那种动辄一页纸的大段落任谁看了都眼晕。如果要表达的内容确实多，可以适当的使用enumerate和itemize，可以让文章看起来简洁清爽。
6、图表切忌模糊不清。在审稿阶段图表和正文一般是分开的，图和表都是一页一个，图还会被放大到A4纸的大小。这就要求图的质量要高，如果是矢量图那问题还不大，如果不是的话那分辨率一定要高，最好自己先放大打印出来看看。
7、科技写作常识要知道。科技写作是有着自己的一套规则的，不讲规则只能是让审稿人觉得你是个新手或者杂牌军，这样拒起稿来几乎毫无心理负担。因此大家在写作的时候还是要稍微注意一下，比如名词缩写第一次出现注明，阿拉伯数字1到12出现在文中的时候要用text，数字不能做为一个句子的开头，等等。
8、文章的格式要符合规则。一般来讲通篇双倍行距，段落之间留出空行，正文跟参考文献字体要区分开。
当然一篇文章的成功与否取决于很多因素，好的写作不一定能够保证它一定被录用，但是至少可以避免它过早的被reject，或者本来应该是minor revision的稿子给批成了major revision。以上只是本人总结的一些细微之处，但这些也是最容易做到的，希望跟大家多多交流。
文章投出去，审稿人要求修改，那应该如何回复呢？
基本原则：
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。
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）
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：
Dear Professor xx:
Thank you very much for your letter dated xxx xx xxxx, and the referees’ reports. Based on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, we attached revised manuscript in the formats of both PDF and MS word, for your approval. A document answering every question from the referees was also summarized and enclosed.
A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.
Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.
然后再附上Q/A，基本上逐条回答，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
Dear Editor:
Thank you for your kind letter of “......” on November **, 2005. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.
Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments.
Part A (Reviewer 1)
1. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
...
...
Part B (Reviewer 2)
1. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
...
...
Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised.
All the lines and pages indicated above are in the revised manuscript.
Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
***
一个回复的例子(已接收)
Major comments:
1. The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMP secretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive control progenitor cell population i.e. enriched human CD34 cells obtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a more clinically relevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown to secrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 enriched cells from steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs are also of interest.
2. In fig 1C please specify which cell line represents MMP-negative cells. This needs to be clarified, as well as a better explanation of the method of the protocol.
3. The ELISA results are represented as "fold increase" compared to control. Instead, we suggest that standards should be used and results should be presented as absolute concentrations and only then can these results be compared to those of the zymography.
4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguish clearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration. Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained with cord blood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34 enriched cells and discussed.
5. The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed to determine the optimum concentration for inhibition of MMP activity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however they should clarify that this assay can only determine the toxicity of the inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations.
Minor comments:
1. There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in the results and discussion, which need correction.
a. Of special importance, is the percent inhibition of migration, which is described as percent of migration. i.e. pg 7:"Migration of CB CD34 was reduced to 73.3%?" Instead should read "Migration of CB CD34 was reduced by 73.3%?"
b. The degree symbol needs to be added to the numbers in Materials and methods.
2. It would be preferable to combine figure 1A and B, in order to confirm the reliability of fig. 1B by a positive control (HT1080).
Answer to referee 1 comment:
1. Mobilized peripheral blood is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it is necessary to compare the MMP-9 secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn't obtain enough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’t complement the study on PB CD34+ cells in this paper. Results obtained by Janowska-Wieczorek et al found that mobilized CD34+ cells in peripheral blood express MMP-9. Furthermore, Domenech’s study showed that MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSF induced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusion from our data is that freshly isolated CD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9.
2. MMP-9 negative cell used in fig 1C was Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis, MMP-9 was not detected in the medium conditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, we screened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. This result may be confusion. Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml (since the purities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9 activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion be detected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cells conditioned medium is due to the contamination by MNC.
3.In this revised paper, we have detected the MMP-9 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System, sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Recombinant MMP-9 from R&D System was used as a standard. The results are expressed in the absolute concentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectable in both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higher in CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium than in BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium (0.406±0.133ng/ml versus 0.195±0.023ng/ml). Although gelatinolytic activity was not detected in media conditioned by CD34+ cells from BM, sensitivity of ELISA favors the detection of MMP-9 antigen in the BM CD34+.
4. In our study, to establish the direct link between MMP-9 and CB CD34+ cells migration, we only determined the role of MMP-9 in spontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoietic stem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison to CD34+ cells from BM and peripheral blood.
5. CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. It is not enough to screen the inhibitors concentrations to select the optimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations used by others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicity of the inhibitors in that concentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay.
Minor comments:
1.The spelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected.
2.Since the results in figure 1A and B were obtained from two separated and parallel experiments, it is not fitness to combine two figures.
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！
Reply to the comments on JBMR-A-05-0172
Comment:
Reference #10 is missing from the Introduction but used much later in the manuscript. Should these be in order used in manuscript?
Reply:
The missing reference has been added into the revised manuscript.
Comment (continued):
What is the sample size for all tests performed?
Reply:
The sample size for drug release and PCL degradation tests was 3.0×3.0 cm2, with a thickness of about 0.1mm and a weight of about 40mg. This dada have been added into the revised manuscript.
Comment (continued):
Figure 7. There is no scientific evidence presented in the TEM figure to convince this reviewer of sub-jets. This statement on Page 9 cannot be made without clear evidence during the jet formation/separation. Figure 7 is just a large fiber and small fiber fused together, no other conclusion than this can be made.
Reply:
Necessary change in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript as well as in the referred figure accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Table 3: Need standard deviation for all values reported not just for a select few.. Equation after Table 3 not necessary. Just reference method used.
Reply:
Done accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Page 11: "faster weight loss" What was the sample size? Where is the statistical analysis of this data? This reviewer does not see a significant difference in any of the data presented, thus weight loss would be considered equivalent.
Reply:
Although not too much difference was seen, the conclusion that “the GS/PCL membrane exhibited a relatively faster weight loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane” was indeed applicable through “one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)” analysis.
Following the reviewer’s comment, a new sub-section has been added to the manuscript to address the statistical analysis for the data.
Comment (continued):
Page 12: What is the sample size for release data? Looks like results based on a sample size of one? Need stand deviations on the data presented in Figure 11. Why wasn't release performed and compared for all electrospun conditions investigated otherwise?
Reply:
Three repeated tests were performed for each set of measurements and the resulting data were averaged. As stated in the revised manuscript, each sample had a square area of 3´3cm2 with a slightly different thickness.
Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11.
The present manuscript aimed to show that medical drugs can be encapsulated in ultrafine fibers through a co-axial electrospinning process. The drug release data intended to show that the encapsulation was successful. We did not consider any specific application in this preliminary paper, and in fact the two drugs were just chosen as model illustration. As such, there seemed not necessary to perform release experiments for all of the membranes electrospun with different conditions (i.e. the core concentrations)
Comment (continued):
Table 3: Yang's or Young's Modulus (page 10 says Young's).
Reply:
Corrected accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Figure 11: What is the % release, not just concentration. Why just this small sample of release data? Where is the release data for the other conditions?
Reply:
Unfortunately, we did not measure the amount of the shell material in obtaining the composite nanofibers. Namely, the flow rate of the shell solution during the electrospinning was not accurately controlled using an injecting pump. Hence the % release was not applicable.
Please refer to the previous reply related to Page 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments.
We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.
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！
