背景：最近，NeuroImage主编、澳大利亚纽卡斯尔大学神经科学教授Michael Breakspear在推特上发布了自己作为编辑和投稿作者在修改稿件时的心得。
在征求Breakspear教授同意后，我们将原文翻译如下，以期帮助更多科研工作者。
"How to revise:
As an editor and author I have seen many revised papers return to journals. Given effort, most go well (ie step toward acceptance).
Some go pear-shaped. I’ve slowly improved and have an approach known by my group as the ‘Breakspear method”. Here is its essence"
如何修稿：
作为编辑和作者，我有很丰富的投稿、修稿经验。通常来说，只要付出努力，文章的进展大多数都很顺利（即，最后被接受）。
当然也有一些修改稿不幸以失败告终。基于此，我慢慢总结出了一套修稿方法，被我实验室的同事们戏称为 Breakspear法 。该法的精髓如下。
"1/ Aim for 1 round of revisions. Make the 1st response a big one. Be prepared to do as much work on the revisions as you did for the paper.
It might be an overshoot, but it’s way better than going back again, which gets messier each time, or even worse, a revision rejected "
一、修改文章争取一轮拿下。重视第一条审稿意见的回复，留下好的第一印象。
尽你所能地准备好对文章的修改工作，有时修稿的工作量并不亚于初稿的工作量。你可能觉得你的修改太过了，但这也也好于二轮、三轮再次返修。
每次的返修会让文章事情变得更糟，甚至“拒稿”。
"2/ Approach the revision as a way of improving the paper, not as a way of placating the editors and reviewers.
Despite it s caveats, IMO constructive peer review followed by careful revisions almost always makes the paper better: More accurate, clearer and better contextualized."
二、将修稿作为改进论文的一种方式，而不是取悦编辑或审稿人的一种方式。
尽管同行评审制度有这样那样的问题，但是优秀的、具有建设性的审稿意见几乎总能让文章变得更好：仔细修改过的文章会更加准确、清晰和流畅。
"3/ Share the decision letter with your co-authors and read all the responses carefully.
Digest over a few days, reading a few times. Then schedule a meeting with the key co-authors to come up with a strategy for the entire response.
Do not get stuck into revisions one by one."
三、与你的合作者分享决定信（包含审稿意见）并仔细阅读所有回复。消化几天，阅读多次。
然后与主要合作者聊一聊，指定全面回复审稿意见的策略。切勿对修改一条条地犯难。
"4/ Decide on & prioritize the new work to be done. *The* key to success on the next round is actually the new work.
Editors + reviewers get happy at its sight. Be prepared to put new material into the main text not just in Supp Inf.
Do the work as thoroughly as the original work."
四、确定要做的新工作并分配优先级。下一轮审稿成功的关键是修稿中囊括的新工作。
编辑和审稿人都会乐于看到修改稿中新的东西。最好把这些新加的内容放到正文里，而不仅仅是补充材料中。新工作要和原始工作一样要做得充分、翔实。
"5/ Treat the reviews as the most careful technical, independent reading you will get. If you think the reviews are off target, don t get mad.
Aim to make something good out of every point. If the reviewer is misguided take this as a sign that the text wasn t sufficiently clear"
五、想象审稿意见是你能获取到的最为仔细、专业、独立的评议材料。
如果你认为审稿意见不知所云或是驴唇不对马嘴，别生气、别抱怨。力求从每一条审稿意见中找到积极的、能够改进文章的地方。
如果审稿人没看懂你的文章，这很可能说明其实是文章本身写得不够清晰。
"6/ Focus on those critiques common to > one reviewer and try to integrate your responses to these.
Cross-reference between reviewers in the response letter ("see also R2.1") but also make sure responses to each reviewer are self-complete (don t let R3 think you ran out of steam)"
六、着眼于审稿人共有的一些审稿意见，并尝试整合对这些意见的回复。
在回复信中，可以对回复意见进行交叉参考，但也要确保对每个审稿人的回复本身都是完整自洽的（不要让审稿人#3看到你的回复意见时觉得你已经懒得写了）。
"7/ Pick your push-back carefully. Often there is some work that can t be done, is truly out of scope or is an error by the reviewer.
The more overall effort, the more leverage to push-back on a few points. Politely state your actual response and the reason you did not go further."
七、谨慎“回击”。
通常，有些工作确实无法在修改稿中完成（如补实验），或者是确实超出文章所论述范围，或是审稿人的意见出现谬误。
但总而言之，你在修稿过程中付出努力越多，你在与审稿人的较量中就越有优势。
（译注：加入你在修改稿中已经尽可能囊括新的内容达到审稿人的要求，实在有一两个达不到的点，审稿人看在你其他回复都认真仔细的份上，可能就放过你了）
如果实在无法在修改稿中加入审稿人要求的内容，请礼貌地回复并给出原因。
"8/ The response letter should be self-complete. Add a brief summary of the main changes at the top of the document and put this in the cover letter.
Use distinct text for each of the reviewers comments (R1.1, R1.2 etc), the *brief* responses, and then the new text + results"
八、回复信本身应该是完整的。
在文档顶部添加主要更改的简短摘要，并将其放在cover letter中。
在回复信中针对不同的内同使用不容的颜色或字体，包括每个审稿人的意见（R1.1，R1.2等）、*简要*回复、正文中新加的文字和结果等。
（译注：通常，审稿人的原始意见用黑色，回复内容用蓝色，引用文章中新内容时额外加引号和斜体）
"9/ Let the new work speak for itself and keep the rejoinder as brief as possible.
There is no use in writing a long response to the reviewer with nothing in the revised ms. No reviewer ever writes a critique b/c they want a personal response from the authors!"
九、让新工作为自己辩护，并使新加入的内容尽可能简短。
如果正文没有任何修改的话，在回复信中写再多的内容也是没用的。
没有审稿人写一条意见仅为想知道作者是怎么想的。
"10/ The best type of response is something like;
R2.3: The authors made an error etc
Response: The reviewer is correct. We have performed additional analyses and revised the manuscript accordingly (pX),
Edits: [new text in revised ms together + any new results and figures]"
十、最好的回复方式是：
R2.3: 作者犯了一个错误等
回复：审稿人是对的。我们已经采取了额外的分析并相应修改了正文（第x页）
【正文中新加的文本 + 新的结果与图表】
"11/ I tend to quote most of the new text in the response letter and not just point the reviewer to the edited page/line.
The goal is to allow the reviewer to read the response letter in full, & have a really good (hopefully positive) impression before they read the revised ms"
十一、我倾向于把新加的文字与结果放在回复信中，而不仅仅告诉审稿人去看第几页第几行。
这样做的话，审稿人看回复信就已经足够了，而且也会给审稿人在看修改稿之前留下一个好印象。
"12/ Thank the editors & reviewers once at the top of the response letter, not with every response.
Reviewers don’t write a critique as a favour but rather to improve the study.
The best gratitude you can show is by taking the reviews seriously and revising the paper accordingly."
十二、在回复信的顶部一次性感谢编辑和审稿人，不用每条审稿意见都感谢。
审稿人并不会为了写审稿意见而写审稿意见，而是希望能帮助你改进文章。对审稿人最好的答谢方式是认真对待审稿意见并相应地修改文章。
"13/ Always use impartial language. NEVER get emotive, no matter how mad you feel.
Take a deep breath, feel the good karma and make an objective response. Make changes to improve/correct the manuscript not to placate the reviewer etc"
十三、始终使用公正的语言。无论你看了审稿意见有多生气，都不要情绪化。
深呼吸，往好的地方想，并做出客观的回复。切记，修改文章的目的是让文章更优秀，而不是取悦审稿人
"14/ Make sure the paper keeps its narrative and logic. Don’t drop new material in ad hoc just to placate the reviewers.
Edit it in seamlessly & then read the paper from start to end. Readers will have limited or no knowledge of the various exchanges of the review process."
十四、确保文章的叙述性和逻辑性。请勿仅为取悦审稿人而随意添加新内容。
仔细修改文章，然后从头到尾通读一遍。要知道，读者对审稿过程中的文章版本的反复几乎一无所知
（译注：不要让修改稿有太多修改、拼凑的痕迹，而是要保证行文的流畅性）。
"15/ Make sure you resubmit a manuscript with all the edits clearly marked (say in blue or red text) ,
and a cleaned-up version (depending on journal requirements) + a cover letter with the main revisions (not the original one) + the response letter".
十五、返修时，提交一份所有修改都已清楚标明。
（如用蓝色或红色文本标识）的标记版、以及一份接受所有修订且无标记的清洁版（视期刊要求而定）、一封写明主要修改的cover letter（不要上传原始cover letter）、以及回复信。
"Good luck! I hope this helps with your next revisions, and also helps keep your experience of science enjoyable, constructive and educational, as it is (most of the time!) for me :-)"
祝大家好运！我希望“Breakspear法”对你的下一次修稿有所帮助，也希望它帮你维持良好的科研体验：愉悦性、建设性和教育性，至少对我来说（大多数时间！）是这样的
译者：潘亚峰，瑞典卡罗琳斯卡医学院博士后（emotionlab.se/team/yafe）、张磊，奥地利维也纳大学博士后（lei-zhang.net/）
来源：我爱脑科学网
作者：Michael Breakspear 译者：潘亚峰、张磊
转自“不发表就出局”微信公众号，本文仅作为学术交流分享，如有侵权，请联系本站删除！
