对各位科研作者来说，写回复信这个阶段是比较难熬的。但是也代表了文章发表有希望啦！本期小编以写作原则+案例分析+写作模板的形式，给大家梳理一下回复信的写作知识点，希望可以帮到各位小伙伴们~
小编总结了以下常见拒稿原因:
接下来就是本次分享的重点啦:
常见问题
首先大家需要知道，无论稿件是哪种情况的返修状态（文章小修或者大修的情况），我们都是需要对所有审稿人提的问题进行point-to-point回答的，这种点对点回答的文档就是Response to reviewers。最后需要提交给期刊的文件则需要包括：
1.修改后的manuscript（带修改标记的版本以及不带修改标记的版本）；
2.修改后的Supporting Information、Response to reviewers文档以及新的cover letter。
回复过程则需要牢记以下几条原则：
1.回答问题尽量做到层次分明，直面审稿人提出的问题并抓住问题的重点，不要妄想着搪塞审稿人的问题。
2.在对应的reply里面做出有理有据的解释，不要试图摸鱼，但也不要直接暴露缺点。回答问题不是光嘴上说说就好，要有理有据。比如审稿人提出，需要补充实验，可以补充的，列出实验结果。不可以补充的，要表达作者充分认识到这个实验有所帮助，但目前条件不允许，未来可以针对开展，这次的话我们已经增加了相应的文献，可以帮助支撑论点。
3.尽可能节省审稿人和编辑的阅读时间，哪些地方做了哪些修改，都要在response letter里面依次列出。Comments按照顺序排列，comments和response采用不同颜色或斜体字体以区分。文章中的修改使用蓝色/红色/黄色字体，使审稿人和编辑可以一目了然看到修改。如果对正文或者SI里面的图表进行了修改，在response letter里面也要同步贴上去，不要将审稿人的时间浪费在帮你找文件当中；应该适当地使用粗体斜体或者下划线，帮助审稿人抓住你回答问题的重点。
4.审稿人的意见并不总是对的，所以不要别人说啥就是啥，科学原则不能违背。如果审稿人的意见有误，应该委婉地利用充实的证据来坚持自己的观点，但请不要使用过激的语言。
下面跟着小编进入实例解析环节~
实例解析
对于第一次写回复信的小伙伴们，可以先从模板开始熟悉一下此类回复信的大体内容和形式：
例子一： General response
在逐条回复每个审稿人的意见之前，先总体回复一下，感谢编辑和审稿人对文章提出的宝贵意见，同时对response letter的格式进行简单说明，具体如下：
General response: We sincerely thank the editor and all reviewers for their valuable feedback that we haveused to improve the quality of our manuscript.The reviewer comments are laid out below in italicized font and specific concerns have been numbered. Our response is given in normal font and changes/additions to the manuscript are given in blue text.
请注意：这里在格式上非常明确的一点就是：将审稿人的意见一条条编号，并用斜体标记出来，这样一目了然，审稿人可以很轻松地区分问题和回复意见；此外，对于文章中做出的标记，用不同颜色的字体标记出来，这样审稿人不需要再回到论文中去找，非常方便。这里还是重申一下这个基本原则：你替审稿人省事了，他才会让你省心！
例子二：Point-to-point response
将审稿人的意见（斜体）一条条编号，然后逐一回复（正常的字体），回复时，以Author reply或者response等字眼开头：
这里举一个例子（论文：Chem. Mater. 2015, 27, 8011-8020）1. The authors suggest that a bimetallic Au-Feoxide/hydroxide forms at the electrode interface leading to enhanced OER activity.Characterization of the bimetallic system would add strength to this argument.
Response: We agree that more study would be useful to understand the details of interaction and enhancement. At this point, we do not have the necessary toolset to study the structure/interaction in the proposed amorphous bimetallic (hydrated) oxide. We hope, in the future, to employ synchrotron X-ray techniques to determine the local coordination of Fe in the putative mixed Au-Fe oxide phase. This study is beyond the scope of this report which focuses on answering critical questions regarding the activity of the FeOOH phase itself. We note also that since the submission of our manuscript, there has been a publication by Alex Bell and Martin Head-Gordon at Berkeley showing that Fe on Au2O3 has enhanced OER activity with DFT calculations (Ref. 79). We have added this citation and reference to the manuscript. We added to pages 25-26:We also note that this data is consistent with the experiments and density functional theory calculations by Klaus et. al.(published during the review process of this manuscript) that show Fe cations on the surface of Au2O3 have enhanced OER activity relative to FeOOH.79
格式解析：这里所采用的格式在General response中已经做出了说明，重点就是通过字体，颜色将不同的内容区分开来，这样一目了然。还有一点值得注意的是：如果文章中添加了新的参考文献，在response里面提到的时候，应该注明"Ref. 79"等字样，提醒审稿人你已经将相关内容加入到正文中。
内容解析：这里之所以列出这一条回复是因为里面有很多值得关注的东西，这里一并做出解析。
咱们接下来再看这个实例:
例子三：审稿人要求补充实验，但客观条件上不允许怎么办？
A. 首先，应该对审稿人的意见表示赞同：
We agree that more study would be useful to understand details of interaction and enhancement.
B. 然后，应该对实际情况进行说明：
At this point we do not have the necessary tool-set to study the structure/interaction in the proposed amorphous bimetallic (hydrated) oxide. 请注意，这里仅针对确实没有办法获得相关实验结果的情况，如果有可能，审稿人提出需要补充实验，一定按照审稿人的要求进行补充。
C. 进一步表明态度，指出哪些方法可能可以解决审稿人提出的问题，并表示后期会进行相关研究：
We hope, in the future, to employ synchrotron X-ray techniques to determine the local coordination of Fe in the putative mixed Au-Fe oxide phase.This study is beyond the scope of this report which focuses on answering critical questions regarding the activity of the FeOOH phase itself.
D.实验上暂时无法提供数据来回答审稿人的问题，就一定需要从文献中找到依据来说明：
We note also that since submission of our manuscript, there has been a publication by Alex Bell and Martin Head-Gordon at Berkeley showing that Fe on Au2O3 has enhanced OER activity with DFT calculations(Ref. 79).
例子四：Reviewer： The writing level is not up to the requirements and needs to be improved. （写作水平不够并需要改进）
这时候我们就可以在response letter中这样回复
[Suggestion]: The writing level is not up to the requirements and needs to be improved. （一定要把问题再写一遍，一次revision的时间可能审稿人都忘了他提了什么意见，不要让他再回去翻）
[Reply]: Thanks for your suggestions（感谢他）, the writing skill has been improved. （告诉结果）We discussed the writing problems with a professional English supervisor, and he gave us several suggestions, which have all been adopted and accordingly adjusted in the manuscript.We feel sorry for causing you unnecessary trouble in reviewing, we hope that the revised version may meet your expectations.
例子五：Reviewer： The authors may want to explain the reason why they have chosen to mention some of the methods at the beginning of Section 3.2 rather than mentioning them in subsections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.
这时候我们就可以在response letter中这样回复
[Suggestion]: The authors may want to explain the reason why they have chosen to mention some of the methods at the beginning of Section 3.2 rather than mentioning them in subsections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. （把问题再写一遍）
[Reply]: Thank you for pointing out this problem in the manuscript（感谢他）. We have restructured Section 3 in the revised manuscript. （告诉结果） Some methods mentioned at the beginning of subsection 3.2 have been moved to another subsection. In the revised manuscript, subsection 3.1 is dedicated to describing methods of using unsupervised learning for descriptors. Consequently, the descriptions of methods [63], [65], [69], [70], [71] have been moved to subsection 3.1. Subsection 3.2 focuses on the extraction of sequence features. The descriptions of methods [74], [75] remain in subsection 3.2.
这个例子是在你肯定论文表述没有出错的情况下，审稿人认为你的论文中存在疑点，没有看懂，需要你来解释，那么你可以在response中进行解释，最好是引经据典，让审稿人明白你的意图。如果是因为论文中的错误或者表述不清而造成的疑惑，那我们需要对论文进行修改，然后依据修改的部分进行回复。
例子六：Reviewer： The problem of the fixed-length input sequence (for protein sequences or compound SMILES sequences) for the deep neural network models is not mentioned at all.
这时候我们就可以在response letter中这样回复
[Suggestion]:
The problem of the fixed-length input sequence (for protein sequences or compound SMILES sequences) for the deep neural network models is not mentioned at all. （把问题再写一遍）
[Reply]: Thank you for the above suggestion. （表示感谢） Following your suggestion, we have added a new subsection called “Fixed-length size” in Section 6 to describe the problem of the fixed-length input sequence for the deep neural network models. （告诉结果）
审稿人认为我们并没有提及”固定长度的输入“这一问题。因此，要专门拿出一个段落来描述这个问题，首先分析这个问题产生的原因，然后分析这个问题造成的影响，最后查找文献，列举可行方案。
转自科学指南针服务平台微信公众号，仅作学习交流，如有侵权，请联系本站删除！
