revised manuscript that you have carefully checked for errors. If you have questions or do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please contact me at bahl@u.arizona.edu Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences 作者回复信原稿： Dear Dr. Bahl,
I’m （注：正式信函不要简写）very appreciate （注：不适合作为给编辑回信的开始，同时有语法错误）for your comments and suggestions. I （注：实际上是学生做的）have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments again （注：要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作）. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic slices （注：用词错误）were calculated（注：用词不当）. Production of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-γand TNF-αwere （注：语法错误）measured by RT-PCR. I have revised this manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comments and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE. Title of manuscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth.
Answers to Reviewers’ questions were as follows: （注：可附在给编辑的回复信后）
Reviewer #1: XXXXX
Reviewer #2: XXXXX
Editors note and suggestions:
Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English
Answer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth（注：多处语法错误）.
Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.
Answer: I have revise the abstract carefully to make it more smooth and informative（注：语法错误）.
The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.
Answer: I have paid attention to this question and it is clearer （注：不具体）. Introduction:
some sentences can be made less passive.
Answer: I have revise the whole paper to make sentences less passive and obtained help of my colleague proficient in English （注：语法错误，句子不通顺）. The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors
Answer: I’m very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spelling errors （注：不必道歉，按建议修改即可）. I have carefully corrected them.
The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)
Answer: I changed the style of references.
Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.
Answer: （注：作者请编辑公司帮回答）
reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardiac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).
I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those misspelling and confusing statements （注：一般不是延误或人为失误，不必轻易道歉，按建议修改即可）. Your comments and suggestions really helped me a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can be satisfactory.
If there’s （注：正式信函不要简写）any information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Thank you again for your time and patience. Look forward to hear （注：语法错误）from you.
Yours Sincerely
Xxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名) 建议修改稿： Dear Dr. Bahl,
Thanks you very much for your comments and suggestions.
As suggested, we have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. Mortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.
We have revised the manuscript, according to the comments and suggestions of reviewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the comments as listed below. Since the paper has been revised significantly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlight the amendments in the revised manuscript （正常情况最好表明修改处）.
The revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by a medical editing company in Hong Kong.
I would like to re-submit this revised manuscript to Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal. Looking forward to hearing from you soon. With kindest regards, Yours Sincerely
Xxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)
Replies to Reviewers and Editor
First of all, we thank both reviewers and editor for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions. Replies to Reviewer #1:
Xxxxx （略）
Replies to Reviewer #2: Xxxxx （略）
Replies to the Editors note and suggestions:
Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contmeporary English
Answer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine against Coxsackievirus B3 and its pharmacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.
Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.
Answer: I have rewritten the abstract to make it more informative and read more smoothly.
The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.
Answer: I have paid attention to this issue, and they are now used appropriately throughout the abstract and text in the revised manuscript. Introduction:
some sentences can be made less passive.
Answer: I have revised the whole paper to make sentences less passive with the help of the editing company.
The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors Answer: This has been done by us as well as the editing company.
The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002) Answer: I have changed the style of references according to the journal.
Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to ament the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables aremeans +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.
Answer: SD has been used throughout the text, and shown in the Figs. 3 and 4 in the revised manuscript.
reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satified by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.
Answer: Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have added pictures of cardiac pathologic changes in the revised manuscript (Fig. 2).
31 January 2009 （第二讲）给审稿人的回复信
论文题目： Clinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancer 所投杂志：BMC Cancer. 结果：这次大修后被接受发表（同时编辑在接受信中提出课题是否得到伦理委员会同意的问题。作者在论文适当地方加上了有关陈述） 审稿人内容（有删节）： Reviewer's report
Clinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancer Version: 1 Date: 12 June 200X
Reviewer: XXXX XXXX (A Japanese Reviewer) Reviewer's report: General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before a decision on publication can be reached) 1. XXXXX. 2. XXXXX. 3. XXXXX.
4) The clinico pathological parameters examined are reported in Table 1. Among the primary tumor characteristics, the Authors consider the diameter, but ignore T stage. Consequently the T parameter is not considered in the multivariate analysis. In other studies, T stage has emerged as an independent factor. The Authors should therefore state the reason for their unusual choice. Nor is the number of metastatic nodes reported in this table. Moreover, for tumor differentiation, the Authors distinguish between two groups (differentiated vs undifferentiated), instead of between the usual 3 categories (G1, G2 and G3). I have never heard of the histological classification used by the Authors (massive, next and diffuse). They might therefore state their reasons for choosing it, providing a reference, if available. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) XXXXX.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore) (None)
What next?: Reject because too small an advance to publish Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before being published [b]Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the statistics.
作者原答: T stage is considered in the multivariate analysis, and some modification has been made in tumor differentiation and histological classification.
建议改答： We accept Dr. XXX comment (表明你对审稿人的欣赏和赞同). In the revised version of the manuscript, T stage has been added in the multivariate analysis, and description of tumor differentiation and histological classification has been modified; the histological classification in the original manuscript has been replaced by the generally accepted classification (Page 6, line 15; Table 4) (同意审稿人的建议，并根据其建议进行修改。同时指出在何处做了修改。).
加注：作者原回答与修改后的回答并无本质差别，正文中的修改也是一样的。但作者原回答会给审稿人“不太乐意”或“轻描淡写”的印象。因为审稿人花了122个单词来就此问题发表建议，而作者只用了20个。
修改后的回答，相信一开始就赢得审稿人的好感。你的回答不光是给审稿人看的，杂志编辑也会看（至少审稿人会这么认为），所以，审稿人会有种满足感（国外审稿人没有酬劳，得到作者和编辑的认可是他们审稿最主要的目的）。建议得到认可（当然，这里审稿人的确是正确合理的），而且作者还按其建议对文章进行修改，相信绝大多数审稿人是不会（不好意思）再拒绝修改稿的（所谓伸手不打笑面人）。当然，这篇文章起死回生、二审通过审稿关，关键是杂志编辑手下留情，给了作者再投(Re-submission)的机会。
有时，审稿人的建议得到作者认可，但作者无法按建议修改，尤其补做试验。这种情况将在以后举例说明。 如何回复审稿人的尖锐提问？
论文题目：Misdiagnosis of A (一种先天性疾病) as 某某 tumor: a case report 所投杂志：Neuro-Ophthalmology 投稿结果：大修
注：前段时间投了一个影响因子较低的杂志（2006IF0.06），内容为某某先天性疾病在门诊被误诊为肿瘤而收入院，住院时经过详细检查而确诊。今天刚刚收到大修通知：
其中，Referee 2提的意见非常尖锐。认为我们可能是诊疗措施不够规范，这样的误诊报道interesting但是不适于发表。虽然的确是我们门诊没有认真而详细的检查造成（门诊病人太多，而且这种先天性疾病太罕见，收入院除了为手术的目的，另一个也是为了详细的检查）。该如何回复Referee 2的意见？
另外，Referee 2意见如此尖锐，肯定给的意见是拒稿，但主编给了大修的通知，不知道他的潜在意思？我该从哪方面着手修改？Question
不知道跟贴求助是否合适，如果不合适，请版主通知我，将另开新帖，谢谢。同时也希望前辈们出手相助，感谢了 审稿人意见如下： Referee: 1
Comments to the Author On PDF file
Page 4 line 17 -- should read: \Page 4 line 43 -- should read: \----------------------------------------------------------
Introduction mentions - the conditon frequently requires no treatment--
On your reference #3 the authors mention patching to try to improve vision -- one patient had a good outcome, multiple not done, and few failures. Was patching attempted (recent papers have advocated patching even older children)?
Did the retinal specialist who referred the patient performed a full exam including dilated fundus examination before performing a CT of the orbits? Color photo would be a plus.
Was B scan ultrasonography of the eye performed? This would have helped to support a clinical diagnosis of a dilated retinal examination with less cost. Referee: 2
Comments to the Author
The authors try to caution eye specialists and neurosurgeons not to do major orbital surgery on children without doing a dilated fundus examination with an indirect