医学论文修改意见怎么回复

保持正确的语调，做出回应。

说明

（1）在回复审稿人意见的时候，除了写明修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。这个其实也可以归纳为礼貌用语，大家一般也都会注意到。但是，有些时候还是容易“放飞自我”。实验室的一位师兄，花了很长的时间搞出来一个很有idea的文章。

（2）在回复审稿意见的时候，前面还是客客气气的回复，一读到关于自己核心idea的时候，立马心态就炸了，言辞什么的就有点过激了，最后当然直接被拒了。其实能作为审稿人，一般都是这个领域的专家或者有一定贡献的人，既然能指出你的问题，就说明还是存在不合理的地方，那就认认真真去修改就好了，千万不要太持才傲物。

（3）里很多人都会轻易犯错，尤其是刚发论文的时候，总觉得自己一定要根据审稿人的每一条意见都做出修改。我以自己的亲身经历发誓，这样做只会使你的论文变得支离破碎，可读性变差且言之无物（因为我自己曾改出过这么一篇不忍直视的论文，连我自己都读不下去）。论文上署的是你的名字，你得对所有内容负责。

（4）不妨想想审稿人的审稿动机和职责，他们才不会去想这些审稿意见对你的论文究竟有没有用。如果你不同意某些意见，或者觉得一些意见并不能提升你论文的价值的话，那就把握好回复的分寸，对这些意见予以一定反驳，并且反驳时尽量使用参考文献，使之有理有据。

方法/技巧

1、套话

在回复审稿人意见的时候，除了写明修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。这个其实也可以归纳为礼貌用语，大家一般也都会注意到。但是，有些时候还是容易“放飞自我”。实验室的一位师兄，花了很长的时间搞出来一个很有idea的文章。

在回复审稿意见的时候，前面还是客客气气的回复，一读到关于自己核心idea的时候，立马心态就炸了，言辞什么的就有点过激了，最后当然直接被拒了。其实能作为审稿人，一般都是这个领域的专家或者有一定贡献的人，既然能指出你的问题，就说明还是存在不合理的地方，那就认认真真去修改就好了，千万不要太持才傲物。

比如在回复的时候，前面加上类似“谢谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常的重要，它们对我今后的科研工作都具有重要的指导意义”；结尾也可以写上“再次谢谢您的建议，希望能够从您那里学到更多的知识。”像这种类似的套话一定要有，时刻保持谦逊。

2、审稿人意见暂时无法实现

第一种是需要你增加实验或改进实验的时候。.原则上尽量满足，实在是不行的，可适当用能说明原理的替代实验满足。当然如果为了论文尽快发表，需要拒绝这样的要求，也不要列出一堆理由来证明这个意见是不好实现的，这样只会让审稿人认为你在逃避。

还有一种就是评价创新性不足。这种几乎是没法改的。原则是需要准确地概括出本文的核心创新点。当然，首先还是要肯定审稿人说的对，他提出的方法或者已经存在的方法也很好，但本文的核心创新点在于balabala，和已经存在的方法不一样。适当的情况下可以比较下优缺点，加一些这方面的总结（觉得自己归纳的不好就别加了，以防能巧成拙）。

注意！对于这类关于创新不足的意见，一定要好好回复。一旦不被认可的话就会评判为文章没创新点，一个没有创新的文章，很难被录用。

3、审稿人意见有问题

坦白说，概率真的很小，但也不是没有。如果真的遇到了，那也不要太过于激动。大家都是有棱有角的年轻人，血气方刚，自己辛辛苦苦做出来的结果被人否定了当然不爽，尤其是对方还是错误的情况下，发几句牢骚就算了，千万别带到邮件里。子还曾经曰过：人非圣贤孰能无过。要注意言辞，一定不能在文中带有“审稿人的意见是错的”这样的句子。

不要对他的意见发表任何的评论，就在那条审稿意见下，列出你的理由和证据就可以了，也不用刻意强调你的观点是正确的。

4、注意回复时间

把握好回复的时间尺度，原则上是不能让编辑觉得你过于草率，不够重视（更不能超过deadline）。要根据具体的修改意见，掌握好修改时间。即使是minor revision，意见比较少的，只需要花一天甚至几小时搞定的，也不要立刻投回去。

至少一周后再投出去，因为在这一周里你还要充足的时间去检查论文里的小毛病，更重要的是，编辑不会觉得你是在敷衍他。如果是major revision，建议至少三周后再投，修改到尽量符合审稿意见上的要求。否则一旦让你重修，将会浪费更多的时间精力。

觉得自己英语不是很好的童鞋，也不要灰心，其实专业词汇就那些。在这里分享一个简单粗暴提升专业英语水平的方法，直接背。其实看似一篇十几页的论文，文字较多的部分也就开头和结尾多一些（理工科一般这样，其它的不清楚，应该差不多）。注意，背诵的对象一定是大牛或高水平的英文文献。

另外，在我大天朝，有需求就会有市场。不过目前市场上提供论文润色服务的机构鱼龙混杂，挑选的时候一定要独具慧眼。千万别找非专业人员润色，很可能失之毫厘谬以千里，学术论文还是很严谨的。

投稿Energy，35天后返回修改，给的大修，求教有经验的虫友如何回复审稿意见比较好。另外，为什么附件里只有一个人的审稿人意见？Dear***, The review of this paper is now complete, and I am including the Reviewers' reports (directly at the end of this email and sometimes as attachments).  As you can see, one Reviewer recommends rejection, and the others recommend possible reconsideration after major revisions.  If you are able to revise the manuscript thoroughly in response to the Reviewers' comments, I believe that it would be suitable for second review.  I should add that, in view of the strong criticisms, anything but a thorough response and revision would just be an unfortunate waste of time. Once you have revised the paper accordingly, please submit with it a note describing in detail your response to these comments and a separate copy of the revised paper marked up to indicate where the revisions were made. NOTE: Upon submitting your revised manuscript, please upload the source files for your article. For additional details regarding acceptable file formats, please refer to the Guide for Authors at: When submitting your revised paper, we ask that you include the following items: Manuscript and Figure Source Files (mandatory) We cannot accommodate PDF manuscript files for production purposes. We also ask that when submitting your revision you follow the journal formatting guidelines.  Figures and tables may be embedded within the source file for the submission as long as they are of sufficient resolution for Production. Refer to the Guide for Authors for additional Highlights (mandatory) Highlights consist of a short collection of bullet points that convey the core findings of the article and should be submitted in a separate file in the online submission system. Please use 'Highlights' in the file name and include 3 to 5 bullet points (maximum 85 characters, including spaces, per bullet point). See the following website for more information Please note that this journal offers a new, free service called AudioSlides: brief, webcast-style presentations that are shown next to published articles on ScienceDirect (see also ). If your paper is accepted for publication, you will automatically receive an invitation to create an AudioSlides presentation. Thank you for your interest in ENERGY. Sincerely, Milorad Lj Bojic, . Editor Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Through a thorough reading and reviewing, the reviewer suggests that the following problems should be addressed and the manuscript should be modified. 1. Keywords should contain "Lauric acid".   2.  XRD results reveal that the IKL and LA/IKL have the same diffraction peak at 2 of , indicating that the LA molecules are mainly located on the IKL surface rather than the inner-layer. Please discuss in more detail. 3. In the FTIR spectra, there are no peaks at 3670 and 3624 cm-1, please check why? 4. The authors note that the LA drives the IKL to exfoliate, which may afford an increase of specific surface area for LA/IKL. However, BET results reveal an obvious reduction of specific surface area. Is there any other reason for this reduction, for example the LA/IKL aggregation? Since SEM images imply that LA/IKL has larger size than IKL. 5. Please check the result of the impregnation ratio of LA in LA/IKL ( wt%), which should be about 58 wt%. Reviewer #2: This manuscript reported a novel form-stable phase change material (FSPCM) for thermal energy storage which was prepared by*******. I have read the whole paper and find that this study is simple and less novelty. The very similar work been published in Journal of Materials Science & Engineering (Preparation and Thermal Properties of Binary Organic / kaolin Composites as Shape-stabilized Phase Change Material for Thermal Energy Storage, 2013, 31, 268-272.) In addition, the Ref. 19 and Ref. 29 have been cited repeatedly. Therefore, this paper in present stage could not be accepted for publication in Energy. Reviewer #3: COMMENTS: (1) The authors need to be careful in their English usage. Therefore, full of the paper should be reviewed. Especially, some sentences in the introduction section are lack of continuity. (2) What is LOI in Table 1? Please clearly write it. (3) On page 4, line 7, "The suspension was ultrasonic at 70 oC for 2 h…." should be corrected as "The suspension was kept in ultrasonic bath at 70 oC for 2 h…." (4) The performances of energy storage and release of composite PCMs are substantially dependent on their thermal conductivity. Therefore, the thermal conductivity of the composite PCM is important parameter in thermal energy storage applications.  Please clarify the why did the authors measure the thermal conductivity value of the composite PCM. It is possible; the authors should be provided the thermal conductivity value of the composite PCM. (5) There are some writing errors in the text. For example; ---On page 1, line 24, "kaolinite is one ….. " should be "Kaolinite is one ….."---On page 1, line 59, "In recently years, ….." should be corrected as "In recent years , …."---On page 5, line 1, "Differential scanning calorimety (DSC) was carried out….." should be     corrected as "Differential scanning calorimety (DSC) measurements were carried out…."---On page 5, line 15, "The morphology and microstructure was….." should be corrected as "The morphology and microstructure were….."---On page 6, line 58, "FTIR spectroscopy and the results is shown….." should be corrected as "FTIR spectroscopy and the results are shown .." ---On page 7, line 19, "The adsorption peaks at 2923 cm-1 and 2854 cm-1 is caused….." should be corrected as "The adsorption peaks at 2923 cm-1 and 2854 cm-1 are caused.." ---On page 8, line 19, "…… of mespores below …..." should be corrected as "…… of mesopores below ……."---On page 8, line 47, "……SEM images were made." should be "…SEM images were obtained. ---On page 9, in the caption of section "thermal properties…..." should be corrected as "Thermal properties……" (4) The following papers can be useful to more clearly understanding the form-stable composite PCM: ---Capric-myristic acid/expanded perlite composite as form-stable phase change material for latent heat thermal energy storage, Renewable Energy  Volume: 33   Issue: 12   DEC 2008 Pages: 2599-2605    ---Preparation, characterization and thermal properties of Lauryl alcohol/Kaolin as novel form-stable composite phase change material for thermal energy storage in buildings, Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 59, Issues 1-2, 25 September 2013, Pages 336-347 ---Structures and thermal properties of fatty acid/expanded perlite composites as form-stable phase change materials Energy and Buildings, Volume 68, Part A, January 2014, Pages 587-592 ---Preparation, characterization and thermal properties of lauric acid/expanded perlite as novel form-stable composite phase change material, Chemical Engineering Journal  Volume: 155   Issue: 3   Pages: 899-904   Published: DEC 15 2009 ---Preparation, thermal properties and thermal reliability of eutectic mixtures of fatty acids/expanded vermiculite as novel form-stable composites for energy storage Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry  Volume: 16   Issue: 5   Pages: 767-773   Published: SEP 25 2010

你按审稿人的建议认认真真地修改，特别是第二个审稿人，说你的论文simple and less novelty，这是很大的硬伤，这个问题不解决，很难录用的。还有你们细节太不注意了，英语写作也要提高。

好好根据审稿意见修改文章，特别是意见不好的那位。每一天都要回复，并说明文章是怎么带的，或者对审稿意见进行解释。