MDPI开放科学
如何恰当地回复审稿报告? 精选
2025-2-23 10:43
阅读:3281

How to Respond to Peer-Reviewers?

如何恰当回复同行评审意见

此前的干货分享文章中,我们已经介绍了MDPI的投稿流程,也对同行评审的注意事项进行了解读。在同行评审过程中,如何恰当地回复审稿人是一个学者普遍关注的问题。这不仅关乎稿件能否顺利发表,更体现了学者对待学术交流的态度与专业素养。恰当的回复能化解审稿人的疑惑,展现对研究的深度思考,让审稿人看到文章在专业领域的创新性与严谨性。

因此,本期干货分享将为各位MDPI作者带来关于如何更好地回复审稿报告的建议。

          

01.审稿报告是什么,有多重要? 

所有发表在MDPI期刊上的文章,都需经过同行评审过程。通常情况下,稿件的初次修改决定可能会是“小修“或”大修”;这时,作者应当根据审稿人的意见来修改稿件。当作者完成修改后重新提交 (Resubmission) 修改稿时,需要对审稿人所撰写的审稿报告进行点对点的回复,以阐明稿件的修改情况;如果审稿人的某些评论无法修改,则需作者提供逐点的回应或阐明不予修改的原因。

通过充分倾听审稿人和编辑的意见并进一步优化稿件,能够使同行评审过程成为您投稿过程中愉悦而积极的体验。

          

02.回复审稿报告,具体要求和建议咋应对?

逐点的回复应该始终是回复审稿报告的第一要义。其基本要点涵盖以下几个方面:  

             

礼貌性 (Politeness)

●感谢审稿人花费在同行评审上的时间以及富有洞察力和建设性的意见。

● 始终对审稿人保持礼貌与尊重。

● 对于质疑,须积极且礼貌地澄清。

● 对于审稿人的建议,尽可能予以采纳并执行。

          

对话性 (Dialogue-Type)

● 提供一份具体的对话式“评论和答复”清单。

● 对于审稿人的称呼,请使用第三人称 (The Reviewer) 而非第二人称 (You)。

● 尽可能直接地对每一项评论进行逐条回复,确保没有遗漏。

            

总结性 (Summary)

● 对关键修改进行简短总结,使文档保持清晰、有条理。

● 详细阐述修订前后稿件的差异。

说明修订版中所做的更改,并注明在原版及修订版中的具体位置 (如:文中 XX 页 XX 行),方便审稿人快速定位。

● 确保回复内容即便脱离稿件本身,也能被清晰理解。

每当提及稿件相关内容,应再次引用,从而保证回复具有良好的可读性。

         

03.这几个技巧,帮助你提高重投稿效率!

可在重新提交 (Resubmission) 之前附加一封写给编辑的说明信 (Cover Letter),以总结修改情况;并在必要时为稿件辩护。

当对文本或图表进行更改时,可在回复理由的同时引用这些修改。

用高亮/换行/缩进等排版方法突出修改意见,以帮助审稿人更好地进行阅读。

回复每条评论前,先回复是否赞同审稿人意见。

尽可能先对审稿意见作出“同意”或“不同意”这样清晰的表达,再根据实际情况进行补充说明。

           

04.用于回应审稿人意见的开头句,截图收藏!

03.png

       

05.这些实用示例,助力你攻克各类难题!

1.回复审稿人所提出改进稿件的建议:

We think this is an excellent suggestion. We have [explain the change made, including the exact location where the change can be found in the revised manuscript].

2.当审稿人指出稿件中的错误或疏忽:

Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is correct, and we have [explain the change made]. The revised text reads as follows on [insert the exact location where the change can be found in the revised manuscript]: 

"[updated text in the manuscript]"

3.当审稿人对印刷、拼写或语法错误进行更正:

Thank you for pointing this out. The [describe the correction made] has been corrected on [insert the exact location where the change can be found in the revised manuscript].

4.当审稿人建议对稿件进行大部分的修改,需要在多个地方进行更新:

We agree with the reviewer's assessment. Accordingly, throughout the manuscript, we have revised [explain the widespread change made, for instance, switching the order in which the study variables are presented or replacing a term or acronym in the paper].

5.当审稿人要求修改稿件具体某个部分:

[Specific section] has been updated such that [explain the change made].

6.当审稿人建议对稿件进行具体修改:

As suggested by the reviewer, we have [explain the specific change made, including the exact location where the change can be found in the revised manuscript].

7.当审稿人要求提供额外内容 (例如,在引言中提供关于某个主题的更多背景信息,在讨论部分中对某个发现进行扩展或反思):

We have added the suggested content to the manuscript on [insert the exact location where the change can be found in the revised manuscript].

8.当审稿人指出了该研究的一个未解决的局限性:

We agree that this is a potential limitation of the study. We have added this as a limitation on [insert the exact location where the change can be found in the revised manuscript]:

"Another potential limitation is [briefly describe the limitation and any steps you took to address it in your study or how it could be addressed by future researchers]."

9.当审稿人要求进一步讨论或分析,然而在现有数据的限制下无法实现:

Thank you for pointing this out. Although we agree that this is an important consideration, it is [beyond the scope/not appropriate for inclusion/cannot be analyzed] in this manuscript because [provide a justification for why the content cannot be added to the manuscript].

10.当审稿人要求进一步讨论或分析,但将超出论文或可用数据的范围:

Thank you for this suggestion. It would have been interesting to explore this aspect. However, in our study this was not possible because [provide a clear explanation for why the suggestion was not implemented].

11.当审稿人提出这项研究对文献或科学没有提供有价值的贡献:

While we appreciate the reviewer's feedback, we respectfully disagree. We think this study makes a valuable contribution to the field because [describe the knowledge gained, insights provided, questions answered, etc., by your study and/or its results or findings].

             

如何得体地回复审稿人意见是在学术道路上不断成长与进步的关键环节。通过遵循诚恳谦逊的态度、细致入微的回应以及专业规范的表达原则,学者不仅能够增加稿件被接收的机会,更能在与审稿人的思想碰撞中,完善自身研究,为学术领域注入新的活力与价值。

尾图1.jpg

尾图2.jpg

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权,同时请注明本文来自MDPI开放科学科学网博客。

链接地址:https://wap.sciencenet.cn/blog-3516770-1474217.html?mobile=1

收藏

分享到:

当前推荐数:1
推荐人:
推荐到博客首页
网友评论0 条评论
确定删除指定的回复吗?
确定删除本博文吗?