教你审稿意见回复信怎么写

来源：医学论文——达晋医学编译

达晋医学编译小编知道大多数的稿件在被期刊接受前需要经历至少一次修稿，作者在收到大修或小修的决定后，必须根据审稿意见修改论文，然后将修改稿重新递交给期刊，同时附上逐点回复，在返还修改稿的时候，还需要递交 cover letter，这封信通常称为 response letter(回复信)或 rebuttal letter(反驳信)。

写封好的修回信(response letter，rebuttal letter)很重要，一般有两种写法：

1. 单独写回复信，然后将给同行评审的逐点回复附加在后

2. 将反驳信分成两部分，第一部分写给期刊编辑，第二部分包含给评审意见的详尽回复。

信的开头要提供论文题目和投稿编号，用一小段篇幅感谢审稿人的宝贵时间与贡献，谢谢他们提供的意见，这些肯定能帮助改善论文云云，从感谢开始的修回信能让整封信传达正面的信息。

如果打算把逐点回复分开来放，可以简短列出根据评审意见进行的主要修改是哪些，然后说明会将逐点回复另外附加;如果是将逐点回复放在信里，可以说回复在后。

回复审稿意见有时候是艰难的任务，尤其是意见又多又长的时候，以下是撰写回复信 / 反驳信该注意的事项：

1. 不要漏掉任何期刊编辑或审稿人提出的意见：将所有的意见完全复制到信里面，然后在每一点意见后面提供清楚详细的回复，一定要确认编辑和审稿人所有提出的点都回复了，即使有不同意或是没有修改的点，也要说明原因。

2. 提供逐点回复：将评审意见编号，顺序回复，将论文中的修改处标示出来或是指出论文修改前后的个别行数，可以将审稿意见加粗，与回复内容做区别。

3. 分类审稿意见：如果意见很多，可以试着将它们进行分类，例如将方法相关的意见分在一起、语言相关的一组等等，如果将意见进行分组，记得在信里提及“I have separated my responses to the reviewers’ comments according to several categories in order to achieve an integrated approach in my responses”。

4. 如果评审意见是以段落方式呈现，将它们拆成点列式：如果评审员的意见是长长的段落，可以将之分离成点各别回应，如果不确定某项意见的意思，可以先解释自己对该意见的理解，然后再进行回复。

5. 如果觉得评审员有所误解，可以礼貌地厘清：同行评审员通常是领域内的专家，如

果认为审稿人误解了论文里的任何段落，有时候很有可能是因为表达不够清楚，这种情况下，可以礼貌性的指出误解然后提供必要的说明，可以这么写“I am sorry that this part was not clear in the original manuscript. I should have explained that (详细说明). I have revised the contents of this part”。

6. 如果无法处理任何意见，记得说明原因：如果有无法处理的意见，比如说审稿人要求提供更多数据或是补做实验，而你认为没有必要，还是要说明为什么不做，避免像是经费不够或是没有时间这种私人理由，也不要表现出负面的态度，回复中要表现出对意见的重视和尊重，首先感谢评审员的深度分析和实用的意见，然后说明无法完全同意审稿意见，回答必须要清楚有逻辑并有证据支持。

7. 若添加任何新的数据或图片，要提及它们在论文的什么位置：如果在修改过程中加入了新的数据、表格、图片等资料，记得指出它们的所在位置，必要的话，夹带补充资料给审稿人和编辑，如此他们可以直接对照，不用一个一个搜寻。

8. 回复语调必须尊重有礼：请记住，审稿人花费了大把的时间评估论文，即使有些意见不是那么正面，也不要认为审稿人是在针对自己，审稿人评论的是工作，而不是个人，他们的意见为你的工作带来附加价值，或有你认为不好或是无理的意见，回复的时候语调要维持尊重有礼。有时候审稿意见可能会互相冲突，但记住他们都会看修回信，所以对每一位审稿人都要有礼貌，信的语调是非常重要的。

9. 做出适当的总结：注意反驳信的结尾，像“Since all the corrections have been made, we hope the manuscript will now be accepted without any further changes”这样的结尾可能会过于自负，如果要直接又不失礼，可以这么说：We look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have，这样的结尾正式有礼也表达了愿意在必要的情况下进行更多修改的意愿。

 

第二篇：审稿意见怎么写

审稿意见怎么写

一般审稿意见至少要包含三条：

（1）简要描述论文的研究内容和意义，并作出评价。对于其比较好的部分，要给于肯定。

（2）针对文章中的内容和结果，指出其具体的不足之处，并谈谈你的看法。文章的不足之处有三种层次：第一，论文结果不正确或有重大失误；第二，论文缺乏重要的结果；第三，论文的结果不够完善。

（3）最后，给出你的综合评价，接受，修改，还是拒收。

英文论文审稿意见汇总

以下关于英文投稿过程中编辑给出的意见,与大家一起分享。12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。

1、目标和结果不清晰。

It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.

2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。

◆ In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods used in the study.

◆ Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.

3、对于研究设计的rationale:

Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.

4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：

The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show

if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.

5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：

A hypothesis needs to be presented。

6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：

What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?

7、对研究问题的定义：

Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,

write one section to define the problem

8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:

The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.

9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:

There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.

10、严谨度问题：

MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.

11、格式（重视程度）：

◆ In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.

◆ Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.

12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：

有关语言的审稿人意见：

◆ It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.

◆ The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.

◆ As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are pro

blems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.

◆ The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We str

ongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed i

n English or whose native language is English.

◆ Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matte

r of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ?

◆ the quality of English needs improving.

来自编辑的鼓励：

Encouragement from reviewers:

◆ I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has be

en edited because the subject is interesting.

◆ There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you subm

itted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomat

erials.

◆ The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.