CVPR 2021 評審回復已發，收到郵件怎麼回？
Hi~各位小夥伴們收到評審人回復郵件了嗎？
CVPR 2021 評審回復在2021年1月18日（太平洋時間）陸續發送，大家一般會收到四種情況之一的回復：
-
接收（Accepted with or without minor revision）
-
修改後可接收 （Conditional acceptance upon satisfactory revision）
-
可以修改後再投
-
拒絕
-
第一種情況，作者會收到投遞最終稿的指南。
-
第二種情況，應按照評審意見修改論文。提出拒絕修改某些部分的理由。將修改部分單獨寫成報告提供給編輯。一般來說編輯比評審者更具同情心。因此，一般可以期望收到象第一種情況那樣的論文接收信。
-
第三種情況，看看評審意見，這種決定一般是由於論文需要補充材料，編輯希望繼續修改提高。不要輕易放棄。修改後被接收的機會還是很大。對於高品質的雜誌，多數論文第一次投稿時都會被按這種情況退回來。作者應根據評審意見認真修改。當然也可以提出對某些部分不修改的理由。
-
最後一種情況的答覆，應根據評審意見修改文稿，然後投往其它刊物/會議。你可以選擇轉投其他刊物/會議，或是大修之後，下次再戰此刊物/會議！
大家在回複審稿人意見的時候，除了寫清修改內容外，還有一些話是必須要寫的。對審稿人的意見提出不同的看法也應該講究一定的技巧。首先，不論審稿人提了什麼意見，你在回復的時候，第一句話一定要說：「謝謝您的建議，您的所有建議都非常的重要，它們對我的論文寫作和科研工作都具有重要的指導意義！！」其次，在回複信的結尾最好寫上「再次謝謝您的建議，希望能夠從您哪裡學到更多的知識。」這句話最好用黑體，要顯眼。再次，如果審稿人提的意見你暫時無法做到（比如，要你增加實驗或改進實驗等）。那麼，為了論文儘快發表，你必須拒絕這樣的要求。但是，你不要擺出一大堆理由來證明這個意見是不好實現的。你應該說：「謝謝您的建議，它非常的重要，由於您的建議，我發現了我目前工作中的不足之處，我會在以後的工作中按照您的建議提高研水平，取得更多成績！」這樣就委婉的拒絕了評審意見，又讓評審人覺得你很看重他的意見。第四，如果審稿人的意見明顯有問題。那麼沒辦法了，你必須據理力爭。但是，你一定不能說：「審稿人先生，我認為你的意見是錯的！」你不必對他的意見發表任何的評論，只需要列出你的理由和證據就可以了，結尾也不要強調你的觀點是正確的。簡單說就是「既不說你對，也不說我對，證據說話」。第五，如果審稿人的評價比較傲慢，而且有失公平。那麼，不用客氣，直接寫信給編輯，痛批審稿人。（以上回復內容英文都比較簡單所以這篇文章里表述時就不進行翻譯啦）
下面就讓我們看看幾個實例吧~
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, ***
一個回復的例子(該論文已接收)
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.
修稿回復
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.
引用審稿人推薦的文獻的確是很重要的，要想辦法和自己的文章有機地結合起來。
至於實驗大部分都可以不用補做，關鍵是你要讓審稿人明白你的文章的重點是什麼，這個實驗對你要強調的重點內容不是很必要，或者你現在所用的方法已經可以達到目的就行了。
最後要注意，審稿人也會犯錯誤，不僅僅是筆誤也有專業知識上的錯誤，因為編輯找的審稿人未必是你這個領域的專家。只要自己是正確的就要堅持。在回復中委婉地表達一下你的意見，不過要注意商討語氣哦！
大家想要了解更多高峰會及論文相關資訊，歡迎加入AI研習社高峰會交流群，這裡超多小夥伴在等你~
添加助助好友，回復「高峰會加群」即可
文章部分內容來自網路資料（侵權刪）
