| 查看: 73262 | 回复: 671 | |||||||||||||||||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||||||||||||||||
liurenmingok新虫 (职业作家)
|
[交流]
大修后文章直接录用，谈点经验与虫子们共勉 已有244人参与
|
||||||||||||||||
|
回复审稿人，态度决定一切 也许说的有点过，但个人觉得还是很有道理的。 最近我的一篇SCI接受了。这篇文章花了我大半年时间，于今年暑假完稿并投出。投的杂志是美国的******杂志。一个多月前受到编辑的通知：要求大修！三个审稿人，一个建议积极，说只是语言问题，并没提有关内容的问题；第二、三审稿人都提了很多问题，总共14个大问题，有的大问题里面还有小问题。三个审稿人得第一个问题都是语言问题（一般中国作者投英美杂志大都会遇到此问题，当然，我的看来比较严重）。拿到这个通知，说实在的，头都大了。有几个问题直指文章的死角，回答不好的话，文章的立意直接会受到怀疑。不过，我决定修改！本着态度诚恳，认真、严谨求实的原则，我花了22天的时间把所有问题回答完毕，该补充的实验进行了补充，该分析的数据又进行重新分析，基本是严格按照审稿人的建议意义修改。最后整篇文章的80%左右进行了大修，当然结论不能改动，只能从补充的那个实验中得到进一步的加强。语言问题，本来想请修改公司润色，后来在小木虫上求助, 绝大数虫友建议自己修改, 只有这样不能达到锻炼和提升自己的目的,于是决定完全自己修改。于是乎，就找了十几篇******最近发表的论文（英美作者写的）进行仔细研读，论文语言格式可以套用，加上自己的论述对象就OK了。最后回答问题15页，补充实验3个，原文章80%的修改最终于10月31日提交。后来经过半个月的再审，就直接录用了！ 现在回想起来，感触颇多，本打算着再次小修，然后才能接 受（一般都这样），没想到还算顺利。后来，自己总结一下认为：回复审稿人的意见是很讲技巧的，说不好就完了，特别是对于要求大修的文章！更是如此。谦逊、谨慎、认真、求实的态度最为重要。对于不太清楚的地方也不能回避，要本着自己理解给以回答，最后最好在征求一下审稿人的意见，谦虚的染提起对着干问题给以指导，总之要给审稿人以最好的印象，这是文章录用的关键所在。 下面列出审稿意见和我的回复，以期与朋友们问共勉：（由于帖子限制长度，部分问题与回答略） Dear Editors and Reviewers. Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A simple method for preparation of ****** used as active, stable and biocompatible SERS substrate by using electrostatic self-assembly” (ID: ******-09-1602). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: Reviewer 1# Response to comment: The review is complete and the main objection lies with the English language. I point out a few sentences only from the ABSTRACT and Conclusion. The rest corrections have to be done by the authors. I encourage the authors for small sentences. ABSTRACT - A new SERS-active ****** on the surface of glass slide has been prepared by a low-cost electrochemical strategy at a proper voltage and polyvinyl alcohol (******) concentration in electrolyte is performed. With scanning electron microscopy, the morphology of the Ag nanofilm is a two-dimensional structure with nano-scale regions should read as A new SERS-active ****** on the surface of glass slide has been prepared by a low-cost electrochemical strategy using polyvinyl alcohol (******) at a proper voltage. The two dimensional morphology of the ****** has been examined by scanning electron microscopy. Conclusion -- ... The morphologies and SERS activity and stability of the ******s are characterized by SEM and SERS measurement, respectively. SERS spectra of ****** and ****** obtained from these ******s compare with those from Ag colloids, which reavals an excellent enhancement effect of the ******s as SERS-active substrates. should read as The morphology, stability and SERS activity of the ****** have been studied. The excellent enhancement of SERS spectra for ****** and ****** from the ****** is observed in comparison to the Ag colloid system... The whole MS needs to be edited before it is accepted for publication. Response: As the Reviewer's good instruction, we have tried our best to revise the English of the whole MS carefully. In order to make the whole MS better understanding, we have revised some long sentences into short sentences and edited the whole MS according to the Reviewer’s instruction. Meanwhile, we also have asked some colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to help us for checking the English (see the revised MS). We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review process. Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer 3# 1. Response to comment: English should be checked throughout the text by a native English speaker. Response: According to the reviewer's good instruction, we have revised the whole manuscript carefully and tried to avoid any grammar or syntax error. In addition, we have asked several colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English. We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review process. 2. Response to comment: The manuscript is too long. It must be shortened. The authors must be more concise. The introduction takes three pages. In fact, it is very hard to read the paper. There are several sentences that should be changed for a better understanding. Some corrections are done in the margins of the manuscript (pods file). I enclosed a copy of that. Response: We agree the reviewer's good advice. Yes, the manuscript is too long (especially the part of introduction), which is very hard to read the paper. And that, there are several sentences are hard for understanding. Thus, we have revised the original manuscript in order to reduce the length of the manuscript and make it better understanding (especially the part of Introduction). However, due to additional experiments and explanations are added in the revised manuscript according to the other Reviewer′s suggestion, the revised manuscript is still long in some sort. Nevertheless, we have revised the sentences (especially some long sentences) for the whole manuscript in order to make the manuscript more concise. Especially, the corrections done in the margins of the manuscript (pods file) which the Reviewer enclosed are very helpful to us. We are very appreciated for the Reviewers good comments and corrections made for our manuscript. 3. Response to comment: Repetitions and several adjectives should be avoided. For example: authors use ". active, stable and biocompatible SERS substrate." a lot of times through the text. Also, they indicate ".perfect stability of." or ".perfect biocompatible." Well, SERS spectra of SC become weaker when the time goes on thus, no Raman signal will be obtained for a long, long time. It means, that the time deteriorates Ag surface. I think that "perfect" is not a good adjective. Response: It is really true as the Reviewer suggested that some repetitions and several adjectives should be avoided. Thus, we have made corrections according to the Reviewer’s good instructions. We have deleted the repeated words such as "active", "stable" and "biocompatible" in some sentences. Meanwhile, like the Reviewer questioned that we have not studied the SERS spectra of SC for a long, long time. Thus, the using of "perfect" to describe the SERS substrate of Ag nanofilm is inapposite. Considering the Reviewer’s good suggestion, we have deleted this adjective in some sentences of the revised manuscript. 4. Response to comment: About organization of the manuscript. There are too many epigrap****** in section 2. I propose the following points: 2.1. Reagents. Preparation of ****** and ****** (old points 2.1 and 2.2 together) 2.2. Preparation of ******-protected Ag nanoparticles and ******s (old points 2.3 and 2.4 together) 2.3. Experimental equipments (old points 2.5; 2.6 and 2.7 together) Response: Considering the Reviewer’s good suggestion, we have re-organized the epigrap****** in section 2. We have organized three parts for the section 2 of the revised manuscript. The epigrap****** in section 2 are as following: 2.1. Reagents and preparation of ****** and ****** 2.2. Preparation of ******-protected ****** (******-Ag CNPs) and ******s 2.3. Experimental equipments Special thanks to you for your good comments. Dear Editors and Reviewers. We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the manuscript according to the Reviwers′good comments. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the corrections will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We look forward to your information about my revised papers and thank you for your good comments. Yours sincerely, R.M. Liu |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 科研技巧与写作技巧 | わたしの文献 | 化学科研精华 | 电力电子专辑 |
| 科研写作与技巧 | 学习 | 机械 | 科研经验与写作交流 |
| google用法 cpu降温 各类应用软件 经典文章 终有您喜欢的 | Papers＆Univ | 论文 | 论文经验 |
| 反馈 | Mine |
» 本帖已获得的红花（最新10朵）
bhcxjdlxy» 猜你喜欢
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有8人回复
-
国际合作可查了，中了面上
已经有17人回复
-
怎么查啊
已经有3人回复
-
国合可查了
已经有3人回复
-
系统进不去
已经有4人回复
-
系统查不到
已经有3人回复
-
怎么看青基中了没有啊
已经有3人回复
-
国合里面能看到了
已经有6人回复
-
今天务委会开完了，明天出结果吗
已经有23人回复
-
科研孤儿太难了
已经有20人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 呆着没意思 发个帖
已经有11人回复
- 投了一篇Nano Res，审稿意见很奇怪.......
已经有9人回复
- 求助！文章返回大修，提出的修改意见
已经有7人回复
- 求助quantity one
已经有10人回复
- JSCS大修，请各位大牛给点修改意见和经验
已经有28人回复
- 文章大修的一个问题的回答
已经有6人回复
- 投energies的special issue中了，算sci么
已经有10人回复
- 论文大修，修改意见回复
已经有14人回复
- Water Research第二篇又是大修，求有经验虫子解惑。
已经有7人回复
- International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 大修
已经有21人回复
- power source 投稿问题
已经有28人回复
- 三个Reviewer's comment, 如何修改
已经有16人回复
- Number of manuscript pages怎么算？
已经有3人回复
- 文章大修后提交
已经有10人回复
- chemcomm大修，第一次投文章，一些问题不知道怎么回答，虫子们帮帮忙啊！
已经有17人回复
- 修改稿提交都要求写Response to Comment？
已经有12人回复
- 请问reviewer的comments 这样如何回复？
已经有15人回复
- 一篇文章大修后直接录用，散金币56
已经有113人回复
- 文章大修之后
已经有26人回复
384楼2010-03-25 15:52:07
20