1.坦率地说，审稿人的意见本身有问题。这里只是说The inhibition mechanism involved B，并没有说“直接”。而且要我看The inhibition mechanism involved the?the downregulation of NF- B is involved in the inhibition?B（我会用Downregulation of NF-?downregulation of NF- mechanism）比The inhibition mechanism is most likely to involve the downregulation of B更恰当。但为了这无关痛痒的一句话得罪审稿人不值得。所以，我建议删掉第一句，稍微修改最后一句。非原则问题，该让步时且让步。其实，第二句都多余。一句We?NF- accept the reviewer’s suggestion and have revised the last sentence slightly as “The inhibition mechanism is most likely to involve the downregulation of B”足够回答整个问题。?NF-
2.有些作者在回答审稿人的问题时，不是直截了当，一语中的，而是转弯抹角，罔顧左右而言它，加些不大相干的数据，参考文献，甚至图表等。结果，论文2000字，回复信2500，弄得审稿人晕头转向。本人的回复信极少超过800字（有些战友可能已知道800字的含义）。我认为，大幅修改的地方应体现在修改稿中，而不是在回复信中（我强烈建议不要将修改稿中的大段大段修改内容重复在回复信中，否则，会增加很多不必要的工作量）。还有，回复信内容并非多多益善，否则，有可能无意制造新的疑问，所谓“言多必失”。
这期半月谈专题与yeyang1222战友共同主讲。
15 April 2009 （第七讲）给编辑的申诉信
论文题目
：The inhibition of **** prevents angiotensin II induced cardiomyocytes hypertrophic response:involvement of the RhoA/Rho kinase pathway 所投杂志
：Biochemical Pharmacolog 结果
：尽管一审稿人明确建议接受，编辑却直接拒稿。作者决定申诉，结果未知。 编辑信内容（有删节）：
Your submission has been reviewed by our editorial consultants. While they felt this study addresses an issue of topical interest, the priority score assigned to this work was not sufficient for publication in Biochemical Pharmacology. F
ind appended the reviewers' comments and suggestions.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider this work. Although the outcome was not favorable, I trust that you will find the referees' suggestions of value as you continue your research in this area. Sincerely,
Giora Z. Feuerstein, M.D., M.Sc., F.A.H.A. Editor, Biochemical Pharmacology 审稿人意见（有删略） Reviewer #1:
The study investigate ??. The authors demonstrated that (1) ?.., (2) ?.. and (3) ??. The proposed pathways were tested with interventions at each of the different stages and supported by the findings of this study. In addition to measuring markers of hypertrophy, the authors also demonstrated ??. This is an interesting study and should be published. Reviewer #2:
This study uses a well established model of ?? in which ??. Using a range of pharmacological tools the authors confirm the role of ??. Specific comments
1. The concentration of 1.uM AngII, although used in the in vitro assays is on the high side, can the authors repeat their experiments with a range of concentrations of AngII?
2. The authors should also perform dose response experiments for the other inhibitors in the study (XXXX, XXXX etc).
3. The images in Figure 3A are very poor and it is unclear what they are representing?
4. Have the authors compared the responses of their neonatal cardiomyocytes to adult cardiomyocytes as AngII signalling to mediate hypertrophic responses can differ between the two lineages? This would be valuable data more relevant to the in vivo setting in hypertrophy in adults as opposed to cardiac growth in the developing neonate.
5. The cell surface area data would be better represented for interpretation as
actual values rather than percentage of control values. 6. The manuscript needs some careful proofreading. 作者申诉信原文
（原信写得不错，仅有少许语法错误）： Dear editor：
Thank you very much for your letter. After having carefully read your letter and the reviewers' comments, I feel confused as there is positive comment from reviewer one, and the reviewer two appears to suggest revising the version. You say the priority score of this article was not high enough to justify publication in your journal. We understand that the misunderstanding might be caused by the unclear description in our manuscript, but we believe that the results are of merit and the paper is potentially publishable in the journal. Thus, we would ask you to re-consider our research and give us a second opportunity. 作者申诉信建议修改文 ：
Dear Dr. Feuerstein, （在已知编辑姓氏和职称时请不要再泛称editor, 以示尊重） Thank you very much for your letter. We would also like to thank the reviewer 1 for the very positive and encouraging comments and the reviewer 2 for the critical but constructive comments (尤其要提到审稿人和他们的肯定评语和建议). After having carefully read your letter and the reviewers' comments, I feel little bit confused as your decision appears not to be consistent with the recommendation of reviewer 1 and comments raised by the two reviewers(we understand that the reviewer two suggests revision of the manuscript) （confused是因为决定性与审稿意见不符，不是因为审稿人的肯定意见）.
We acknowledge that the overall priority score assigned to our work may be not sufficient, in the present form, for publication in your journal. However, we believe that our work is of merit and can be further improved by incorporating and implementing the comments of the reviewers, especially the reviewer 2 （这里可能没有misunderstanding，但我们需站在编辑角度猜测论文目前的版本可能不宜发表，但相信论文有价值、在按审稿人意见修改后质量将有大的提高）. Also, we will send the manuscript to a native speaker for language proofreading before re-submission.
Therefore, we would be most grateful if you could re-consider our work and give us a second opportunity （同样的意思，用we would be most grateful if you could要客气、委婉些，因为我们在求他们）. Looking forward to hearing from you, With kind regards, Yours sincerely, Yours sincerely,
Authors’ names and affiliations 加注 ：
1.该文的特色是两位审稿人中，一位除了给予肯定评语外，没有提出任何实质性的意见，并直接建议接受。另一位在肯定论文之外提出许多颇有建设性但很有挑战性的修改建议。然而，所谓的编辑顾问认为While they felt this study addresses an issue of topical interest, the priority score assigned to this work was not sufficient for publication in Biochemical Pharmacology。所以，作者认为有必要申诉(Appeal)。
2.在看了审稿人意见和编辑决定信后，本人认为申诉有必要，不会损失什么，但成功的机会不大（希望我的判断有误）。首先，第一审稿人建议接受，但除了总结论文的结果和结论外，没有提出任何有价值的实质意见，因而他/她的建议缺乏说服力。第二审稿人的几条意见比较Critical。我想他/她的初衷应该是想让论文修改后更完美。不知编辑出于何种理由直接“毙”了该文。
3.我对申诉信心不足的另一个原因还在于，即使这次申诉成功，补试验、修改论文将是很大的工程。除非作者有足够的时间和经费。还有，谁也不能保证补试验的结果是预期的结果。 4. 综上所述，我建议在申诉的同时，积极按第二审稿人的建议修稿，随时准备投另一杂志（我本人坚决反对一稿两投）。今天花了时间拜读了高人的意见！真是精辟！ 什么时候我才能达到这种水平啊！ 努力...... 努力......
再努力.......！有段时间没来园子里了，感谢夏老师的热心帮助，我上次的文章收了1篇，据了1篇，不过毕业没问题了，呵呵。真心感谢夏老师的帮助！！！夏老师：我想问问在给点对点回答问题时有没有什么固定模式？请夏老师有空帮我看看这两个评审意见，评估一下我文章被接受的可能有多大？请夏老师有空帮我看看这两个评审意见，评估一下我文章被接
受的可能有多大？好帖，留个脚印。。。我想没有什么固定模式。 不过回答的内容、语气等需要有些策略。
请见【共享】发表SCI论文的一些小技巧 (II) http://www.dxy.cn/bbs/post/view?bid=45&id=12767562&sty=1&tpg=1&age=0
我会在本周末就审稿人意见给你答复。我看了两位审稿人的意见，总的印象如下： 1、你的试验做得还不够深入，但不无新意。
2、你应该报告有意义的结果而不是所有结果，否则不能充分表明你论文的新意和价值。 3、论文虽长，但讨论重点不够突出。你应该紧紧围绕你的结果。
4、审稿人2非常kind，为你的论文（尤其每张图）进一步修改提出了很具体的修改建议和意见。无论杂志编辑是否给你修改机会，你都应该按其合理意见尽量修改。
我看了你的论文题目，觉得其不仅显得有些抽象不具体（因而不能反映论文内容），而且有语法错误（i.e. ?cells of after lung injury）。
另外，在这里，我想提醒大家的是，在杂志（英文）上发表的论文不同于我们的毕业论文。我们不应将所有原始的结果图表罗列放在杂志论文里。而是应该将有新意的、能反映论文价值的、往往是有统计学意义的结果精炼后制成图表。一般在杂志发表的论文里很少有超过10张独立的图表的（数个同类性质的图应制成一张合成图）。谢谢您的意见！真是受益匪浅。关于题目语法错误的问题是这样的，这篇文章经过专业的编辑公司改过，这个题目是他改过后的题目，开始我也觉得这个题目的语法不对，曾专门提出来过并修改成...cells after lung injury，可是收到的回复稿件中又把题目改成了原来的形式，我有点搞不懂，所以就按照公司给的题目投稿了，虽然我现在依然怀疑，您是否也觉得应该是...cells after lung injury 呢？
另外，如果我的回复信在贵公司修改不知如何收费？时间呢？期待您的回复。我没有看你的全文，但觉得题目可以更具体些，以便被更多的作者在网络查询到，因而增加你论文被引用的机率。从审稿人意见，我猜想你用了两个模型进行比较，但目的是要看XX在XX-induced XX fibrosis中的变化，从而探讨Fibrosis的发病机理。但题目并没有反映fibrosis。你现在的题目只有12个字（减掉of)，加上7-8个字也不为多。 我认为\肯定多余。
至于修改回复信，我会PM给你，并通知美捷登论文管理人员。你也可以访问我们的网站。 Good luck.主编老师：有问题求助，谢谢！
http://www.dxy.cn/bbs/post/view?bid=45&id=14502010&sty=1&tpg=1&age=0非常精彩美捷登主编老师的帖子，对我帮助很大!