如何回复SCI审稿人的意见

2019.04.17 17:13
1490 13 0

  SCI论文在修改时需要根据审稿人的要求来,在回复SCI审稿人的意见时,我们不能敷衍。我自己也是个发表有3、4篇的人了,给大家说说我当时一篇SCI论文的审稿意见,以及对待审稿人意见的一些建议。

  我投的那本SCI期刊影响因子是2.918的,审稿人给的意见大概有30个问题,我自己回复就有4000多英文字。说实话这么多的问题自己也是很烦很累的。下面就给大家分享实验相关的问题。

  1.问题: On p.8, top para, first sentence seems out of place, as it describes an open field but the rest of the para deals with the elevated plus maze. Under 2.3.4, near the bottom of the page, what pulse? Additionally, the way the shock is arranged, being delivered only through the drinking spout, seems peculiar. Wasn't the grid floor also electrified? On the next page, foot shock is mentioned, so I think this was an oversight in describing the procedure.

  我的回答:我给他引了一篇非常经典的参考文献。里面就谈到他们的实验表明,在进高架前,让动物在新奇环境中放一放能提高动物在高架中总的活动性,也能提高在开臂中的探索性。

  In a quite classical literature that named "Validation of openclosed arm entries in an elevated plus-maze as a measure of anxiety in the rat" published in (PMID: 2864480), it mentioned, "Pilot studies had also shown that animals placed in a novel environment before exposure to the +-maze tended to increase the overall activity in the +-maze, and to increase the likelihood that the open arms would be explored". In our previous study and exploration of relative field, we also observed that this "Before testing, rats were allowed to freely explore in the open-field" indeed could increase the overall activity in the EPM as well as open arms.

  2. 问题:On p.14, full para, why is a novel environment considered aversive? And I don't understand the last sentence, having to do with effects seeming to be more anxiolytic than antidepressant.

  我的回答:这是我表述不对,把新奇环境描述为厌恶环境,其实应该表述为不熟悉的环境。这之间差别还是很大的。

  To be exact, indeed, as you mentioned, this novel environment should not be considered aversive. Thus we changed it into "unfamiliar".

  3.问题: Also it is unclear what point is being made on page 14: "In this study, subchronic exposure produced an anxiolytic effect at the magnitude of anxiolytic treatment, rather than the effect of chronic treatment of antidepressants."

  我的回答:那篇经典文献指出慢性给予抗焦虑药,急性给予抗焦虑药,慢性给予抗抑郁药和急性给予抗抑郁药,在新奇-抑制摄食实验中表现出的效应是不同的。我们的结果观察到的是64-85%这么大幅度的降低,表明这个药物发挥的是抗焦虑药效应。

  As for this comment, it is really an interesting discussion. Please see the reference of "The effects of chronic antidepressant treatment in an animal model of anxiety " (PMID: 3137614). In the Fig.1, acute antidepressant treatment did not alter latency in NSFT, but anxiolytic did. Moreover, chronic treatment of both antidepressant and anxiolytic significantly reduced the latency (Fig. 2a & 2b). However, by comparison of Fig. 2a and 2b, you will find this magnitude of reduce was quite dramatic (see Fig. 3), since % of controls of chronic treatment of antidepressant was far more than that of chronic treatment of anxiolytic, as stated in our paper that "Chronic benzodiazepine treatment produced a 64-85% decrease in latency (Bodnoff et al., 1988), while chronic antidepressant treatment only produced a 33-51% decrease in the first latency to eating.". As for our study, we found it can significantly reduce latency to 64%-85% of controls, in the magnitude of anxiolytic. That is what we exactly mean in our discussion. We wish this explanation could make the last sentence clearer.

  以上就列出这几个问题了,希望能给大家一些思路。现在再来说说审稿人意见的建议如何对待。

  审稿人意见很重要不可怠慢,但是并不是审稿人说什么就要做什么。我们应该做到这几点:

  (1)所有问题必须逐条回答,不要遗漏。

  (2)尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验,满足不了的也不要回避,说明不能做的合理理由。

  (3)审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用,并讨论透彻。

  推荐阅读:

  《如何回复审稿人问题(二)》

  《论文投稿时需要用到的八种沟通信件模板》

投诉文章 ?着作权归作者所有
喜欢??|??13
0/200字
没有更多评论了~
悬赏问题
给科研问题设置一定金额,将更容易获得关注与回答哦~
  • 1元
  • 3元
  • 5元
  • 8元
  • 18元
  • 自定义
选择支付方式
  • 微信支付
  • 支付宝支付
  • 余额支付

关于晟斯qq发红包最多的群号

晟斯qq发红包最多的群号- 临床医生学术科研发展平台 2014-2019 晟斯qq发红包最多的群号版权所有
Copyright ? 2014-2019 晟斯qq发红包最多的群号 All Rights Reserved. 备案号:苏ICP备11037034号-5 版权所有:南京孜文信息咨询有限公司