CVPR 2021 评审回复已发，收到邮件怎么回？
Hi~各位小伙伴们收到评审人回复邮件了吗？
CVPR 2021 评审回复在2021年1月18日（太平洋时间）陆续发送，大家一般会收到四种情况之一的回复：
-
接收（Accepted with or without minor revision）
-
修改后可接收 （Conditional acceptance upon satisfactory revision）
-
可以修改后再投
-
拒绝
-
第一种情况，作者会收到投递最终稿的指南。
-
第二种情况，应按照评审意见修改论文。提出拒绝修改某些部分的理由。将修改部分单独写成报告提供给编辑。一般来说编辑比评审者更具同情心。因此，一般可以期望收到象第一种情况那样的论文接收信。
-
第三种情况，看看评审意见，这种决定一般是由于论文需要补充材料，编辑希望继续修改提高。不要轻易放弃。修改后被接收的机会还是很大。对于高质量的杂志，多数论文第一次投稿时都会被按这种情况退回来。作者应根据评审意见认真修改。当然也可以提出对某些部分不修改的理由。
-
最后一种情况的答复，应根据评审意见修改文稿，然后投往其它刊物/会议。你可以选择转投其他刊物/会议，或是大修之后，下次再战此刊物/会议！
大家在回复审稿人意见的时候，除了写清修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。对审稿人的意见提出不同的看法也应该讲究一定的技巧。首先，不论审稿人提了什么意见，你在回复的时候，第一句话一定要说：“谢谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常的重要，它们对我的论文写作和科研工作都具有重要的指导意义！！”其次，在回复信的结尾最好写上“再次谢谢您的建议，希望能够从您哪里学到更多的知识。”这句话最好用黑体，要显眼。再次，如果审稿人提的意见你暂时无法做到（比如，要你增加实验或改进实验等）。那么，为了论文尽快发表，你必须拒绝这样的要求。但是，你不要摆出一大堆理由来证明这个意见是不好实现的。你应该说：“谢谢您的建议，它非常的重要，由于您的建议，我发现了我目前工作中的不足之处，我会在以后的工作中按照您的建议提高研水平，取得更多成绩！”这样就委婉的拒绝了评审意见，又让评审人觉得你很看重他的意见。第四，如果审稿人的意见明显有问题。那么没办法了，你必须据理力争。但是，你一定不能说：“审稿人先生，我认为你的意见是错的！”你不必对他的意见发表任何的评论，只需要列出你的理由和证据就可以了，结尾也不要强调你的观点是正确的。简单说就是“既不说你对，也不说我对，证据说话”。第五，如果审稿人的评价比较傲慢，而且有失公平。那么，不用客气，直接写信给编辑，痛批审稿人。（以上回复内容英文都比较简单所以这篇文章里表述时就不进行翻译啦）
下面就让我们看看几个实例吧~
投修改稿1.：
Manuscript number: BXXXXXK MS Type: Article Title: "XXXX" Correspondence Author: XXX Dear Editor: Thank you for your kind letter of “......” on November **, 2005. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments. Part A (Reviewer 1) 1. The reviewer’s comment: ...... The authors’ Answer: ..... 2. The reviewer’s comment: ...... The authors’ Answer: ..... ... ... Part B (Reviewer 2) 1. The reviewer’s comment: ...... The authors’ Answer: ..... 2. The reviewer’s comment: ...... The authors’ Answer: ..... ... ... Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised. All the lines and pages indicated above are in the revised manuscript. Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice. Sincerely yours, ***
一个回复的例子(该论文已接收)
Major comments: 1. The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMP secretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive control progenitor cell population i.e. enriched human CD34 cells obtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a more clinically relevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown to secrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 enriched cells from steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs are also of interest. 2. In fig 1C please specify which cell line represents MMP-negative cells. This needs to be clarified, as well as a better explanation of the method of the protocol. 3. The ELISA results are represented as "fold increase" compared to control. Instead, we suggest that standards shouldbe used and results should be presented as absolute concentrations and only then can these results be compared to those of the zymography. 4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguish clearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration. Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained with cord blood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34 enriched cells and discussed. 5. The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed to determine the optimum concentration for inhibition ofMMP activity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however they should clarify that this assay can only determine thetoxicity of the inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations. Minor comments: 1. There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in the results and discussion, which need correction. a. Of special importance, is the percent inhibition of migration, which is described as percent of migration. i.e. pg7:"Migration of CB CD34 was reduced to 73.3%?" Instead should read "Migration of CB CD34 was reduced by 73.3%?" b. The degree symbol needs to be added to the numbers in Materials and methods. 2. It would be preferable to combine figure 1A and B, in order to confirm the reliability of fig. 1B by a positivecontrol (HT1080). Answer to referee 1 comment: 1. Mobilized peripheral blood is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it is necessary to compare the MMP-9secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn't obtainenough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’tcomplement the study on PB CD34+ cells in this paper. Results obtained by Janowska-Wieczorek et al found that mobilized CD34+cells in peripheral blood express MMP-9. Furthermore, Domenech’s study showed that MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSFinduced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusionfrom our data is that freshly isolated CD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9. 2. MMP-9 negative cell used in fig 1C was Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis, MMP-9 was not detected in the mediumconditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, wescreened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. Thisresult may be confusion. Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml (since thepurities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion bedetected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cellsonditioned medium is due to the contamination by MNC. 3.In this revised paper, we have detected the MMP-9 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System,sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Recombinant MMP-9 from R&D System was used as a standard. The results are expressed in the absoluteconcentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectablein both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higherin CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium than in BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium (0.406±0.133ng/ml versus 0.195±0.023ng/ml).Although gelatinolytic activity was not detected in media conditioned by CD34+ cells from BM, sensitivity of ELISA favors thedetection of MMP-9 antigen in the BM CD34+. 4. In our study, to establish the direct link between MMP-9 and CB CD34+ cells migration, we only determined the role ofMMP-9 in spontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoieticstem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay betweenadhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that notonly the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison toCD34+ cells from BM and peripheral blood. 5. CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. It is not enough to screen the inhibitorsconcentrations to select the optimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations usedy others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicityof the inhibitors in that concentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay. Minor comments: 1.The spelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected. 2.Since the results in figure 1A and B were obtained from two separated and parallel experiments, it is not fitness tocombine two figures.
修稿回复
Reply to the comments on JBMR-A-05-0172 Comment: Reference #10 is missing from the Introduction but used much later in the manuscript. Should these be in order used inmanuscript? Reply: The missing reference has been added into the revised manuscript. Comment (continued): What is the sample size for all tests performed? Reply: The sample size for drug release and PCL degradation tests was 3.0×3.0 cm2, with a thickness of about 0.1mm and a weight of about 40mg. This dada have been added into the revised manuscript. Comment (continued): Figure 7. There is no scientific evidence presented in the TEM figure to convince this reviewer of sub-jets. This statement on Page 9 cannot be made without clear evidence during the jet formation/separation. Figure 7 is just a large fiber and small fiber fused together, no other conclusion than this can be made. Reply: Necessary change in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript as well as in the referred figure accordingly. Comment (continued): Table 3: Need standard deviation for all values reported not just for a select few.. Equation after Table 3 not necessary. Just reference method used. Reply: Done accordingly. Comment (continued): Page 11: "faster weight loss" What was the sample size? Where is the statistical analysis of this data? This reviewer does not see a significant difference in any of the data presented, thus weight loss would be considered equivalent. Reply: Although not too much difference was seen, the conclusion that “the GS/PCL membrane exhibited a relatively faster weight loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane” was indeed applicable through “one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)” analysis. Following the reviewer’s comment, a new sub-section has been added to the manuscript to address the statistical analysis for the data. Comment (continued): Page 12: What is the sample size for release data? Looks like results based on a sample size of one? Need stand deviations on the data presented in Figure 11. Why wasn't release performed and compared for all electrospun conditions investigated otherwise? Reply: Three repeated tests were performed for each set of measurements and the resulting data were averaged. As stated in the revised manuscript, each sample had a square area of 3?3cm2 with a slightly different thickness. Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11. The present manuscript aimed to show that medical drugs can be encapsulated in ultrafine fibers through a co-axial electrospinning process. The drug release data intended to show that the encapsulation was successful. We did not consider any specific application in this preliminary paper, and in fact the two drugs were just chosen as model illustration. As such, there seemed not necessary to perform release experiments for all of the membranes electrospun with different conditions (i.e. the core concentrations) Comment (continued): Table 3: Yang's or Young's Modulus (page 10 says Young's). Reply: Corrected accordingly. Comment (continued): Figure 11: What is the % release, not just concentration. Why just this small sample of release data? Where is the release data for the other conditions? Reply: Unfortunately, we did not measure the amount of the shell material in obtaining the composite nanofibers. Namely, the flow rate of the shell solution during the electrospinning was not accurately controlled using an injecting pump. Hence the % release was not applicable. Please refer to the previous reply related to Page 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments. We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.
引用审稿人推荐的文献的确是很重要的，要想办法和自己的文章有机地结合起来。
至于实验大部分都可以不用补做，关键是你要让审稿人明白你的文章的重点是什么，这个实验对你要强调的重点内容不是很必要，或者你现在所用的方法已经可以达到目的就行了。
最后要注意，审稿人也会犯错误，不仅仅是笔误也有专业知识上的错误，因为编辑找的审稿人未必是你这个领域的专家。只要自己是正确的就要坚持。在回复中委婉地表达一下你的意见，不过要注意商讨语气哦！
大家想要了解更多顶会及论文相关信息，欢迎加入AI研习社顶会交流群，这里超多小伙伴在等你~
添加助助好友，回复“顶会加群”即可
文章部分内容来自网络资料（侵权删）
