文献泛读：回复审稿人的十条原则

Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers

文献泛读：回复审稿人的十条原则

You recently submitted your first manuscript for publication, and you were pleased when the editor decided to send the manuscript out for peer review. Now you have gotten the reviews back, and the editor has asked you to revise your manuscript in light of the reviewers' comments. How should you tackle this task?

参考译文：您最近提交了第一份手稿供出版，当编辑决定将手稿发给同行评审时，您感到很高兴。现在您已经获得了评论，编辑已经要求您根据评论者的评论修改稿件。您应该如何处理此任务？

Ideally, the reviewing process can significantly improve your manuscript by allowing you to take into account the advice of multiple experts in your field. Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that papers that have undergone multiple rounds of peer review fare better in terms of citation counts than papers that are quickly accepted . However, in practice, the review process can be emotionally charged as you grapple with comments that may seem to you to be ill-informed, biased, or otherwise problematic.

参考译文：理想情况下，通过您所在领域的多位专家的建议修改稿件，外审过程可以显着改善您的稿件质量。确实，经验证据表明，经过多轮同行评审的论文比被迅速接受的论文在引文计数方面表现更好。但是，实际上，当审稿人对您似乎不了解、有偏见或其他问题的评论时，审核过程可能会引起困扰。

A well-crafted "response to reviewers" document is a critical part of your response. This document is submitted alongside your revised manuscript, summarizing the changes that you made in response to the critiques. Too frequently, authors focus on revising the manuscript itself and spend too little time making the response document clear and compelling. The result can be misunderstandings between the reviewers and the authors and ultimately, the possible rejection of a high-quality manuscript. Following are 10 simple rules that can help in formulating an effective response to reviewers.

参考译文：精心设计的“对审阅者的回复”文档是您回复中的关键部分。该文档与您的修订稿一起提交，总结了您对评论所做的更改。作者经常将精力集中在修改稿件本身上，而花费很少的时间使响应文件清晰且引人注目，结果可能导致审稿人和作者之间的误解，最终可能是拒绝高质量的手稿。以下是10条简单的规则，可以帮助您对评论者做出有效的回应。

Rule 1: Provide an overview, then quote

the full set of reviews The response letter will typically begin with a summary of changes, pointing out new data and new analyses performed in response to the most essential criticisms of all the reviewers. Note that, at your discretion, the response may include figures and tables that are for the reviewers' benefit but will not go into the manuscript or supplement. These additional results can be mentioned in your Introduction. If a criticism is raised by multiple reviewers, this can also be pointed out in the summary. Thereafter, the response letter should contain the complete set of reviews with your responses interleaved.

参考译文：规则1：提供概述，然后在回复全部评论

回复信的开头可以加上一部分概述，指出针对所有审阅者的最基本批评进行的分析内容。请注意，您可以自行决定是否在回复中加入一些图表和表格，这些表格和表格是供审阅者使用的，但不包括在手稿或附录中。具体的修订内容可以在概述中提及。如果有多位审阅者提出批评，则也可以在摘要中指出。此后，回复信中应包含完整的外审意见和您的修改意见。

Rule 2: Be polite and respectful of all

reviewers Even if you are convinced that the reviewer lacks intellectual capacity, it is certainly not in your interest to convey this impression to the reviewer. Keep in mind that if the reviewer failed to understand something, the fault likely lies, at least in part, with you for not making the point clear enough. If the reviewer does not seem to be an expert in the area, remember that this level of expertise (or lack thereof) may be representative of many readers of the journal. Your goal is to make the work clear and accessible to all readers, not just to experts.

参考译文：规则2：对所有评论者保持礼貌和尊重

即使您确信审稿人缺乏审稿能力，将这种印象传达给审稿人当然也有损您的利益。请记住，如果审稿人无法理解某些内容，那么错误至少可能部分在于您，因为您没有清楚地说明要点。如果审稿人似乎不是该领域的专家，请记住，这种专业水平（或缺乏专业知识）可能代表该杂志的许多读者。您的目标是使作品清晰易读，不仅对专家而且对所有读者开放。

Sometimes you will need to work to understand a particular critique. In some cases, the question the reviewer asks reveals a deeper misunderstanding about the overall study or some of the assumptions therein. When specific comments seem off-base, and especially when a single reviewer has many such comments, this may be because the manuscript does not sufficiently explain the hypothesis it aims to address.

参考译文：有时，您需要努力理解特定的批评。在某些情况下，审稿人提出的问题揭示了对整体研究或其中的某些假设的更深层的误解。当特定评论似乎不合时宜时，尤其是当单个审阅者有很多这样的评论时，这可能是因为手稿不足以解释其要解决的假设。

In some cases, you may believe that the reviewer is vengeful or is a competitor who has an ulterior motive to delay the manuscript. In such situations, you should not directly confront the reviewer in your response but instead communicate your concerns to the editors in a separate letter.

参考译文：在某些情况下，您可能会认为审稿人是报仇者或竞争对手，他有别有用心的理由来拖延稿件。在这种情况下，您不应在回复中直接面对审稿人，而应在另一封信中将您的疑虑传达给编辑。

In rare cases, you may feel that a reviewer's critiques are simply discourteous. In such situations, it is important to remember that miscommunications are possible. Regardless, a rude critique does not justify a rude response from you, especially because your primary goal is to publish your scientific results.

参考译文：在极少数情况下，您可能会觉得审阅者的评论是不礼貌的。在这种情况下，重要的是要记住可能发生误传。无论如何，粗鲁的批评并不能证明您做出粗鲁的回应是正确的，尤其是因为您的主要目标是发表科学成果。

Rule 3: Accept the blame

If the reviewer failed to understand something, apologize for not making it clear. Even if you are convinced that the text is already clear (i.e., the reviewer simply missed it), consider revising the text and quoting the revised text in your response. In general, even if the requested change seems unnecessary, it is usually better to go ahead and revise with the goal of showing the reviewer that they were listened to and understood.

参考译文：规则3：接受责备

如果审阅者无法理解某些内容，请对未明确说明表示歉意。即使您确信该文本已经明确（例如，审阅者完全错过了它），也可以考虑修改文本并在答复中引用修改后的文本。通常，即使请求的更改似乎不必要，最好也进行修订，以向审阅者显示他们已听取并理解了他们的想法。

Rule 4: Make the response self-contained

When you make changes to the text or to figures, quote the changes directly in the response. If possible, you can refer to the specific line number where the changes were applied, though you should be sure to specify whether you refer to the line numbers from the original or the revised manuscript. A self-contained response letter makes it easier for the reviewer to understand exactly what you did without having to flip back and forth between your manuscript and the response. Furthermore, by making your response self-contained, you reduce the likelihood that the reviewer will read the full manuscript and find new things to complain about. The only exception to this rule is when a large chunk of modified text (e.g., a new section) is too long to quote. Such changes can simply be alluded to explicitly (e.g., giving the title of the new section) in the response.

参考译文：规则4：回复建议内容独立出来

对文本或图形进行更改时，请直接在回复中引用更改。如果可能，可以参考应用更改的特定行号，但应确保指定是引用原始手稿还是修订稿中的行号。独立的答复信使审阅者更容易准确地了解您所做的事情，而不必在稿件和答复之间来回切换。此外，通过使您的回答独立，可以减少审阅者阅读完整原稿并发现有新问题要投诉的可能性。该规则的唯一例外是，很大一部分修改后的文本（例如新节）太长而无法引用。可以将这些更改简单地暗示在回复中（例如，给出新部分的标题）。

Rule 5: Respond to every point raised by

the reviewer A frequent complaint from reviewers is that the authors failed to respond at all to several points raised in the review. In some cases, the reviewer may disagree with your response, but you should not try to avoid a difficult point by simply ignoring it.

参考译文：规则5：回应审稿人提出的每一点

审稿人经常抱怨说，作者完全没有对审稿中提出的几点做出回应。在某些情况下，审阅者可能不同意您的回答，但您不应通过简单地忽略它来避免遇到困难。

Often, reviews will be organized into bullet points, but the reviewer may raise 2 separate issues within 1 bullet. In such situations, be sure to respond explicitly to both critiques. It is fine for you to interleave your responses in such a way that you break up 1 bullet with multiple responses. It is usually better to do this than to try to respond to multiple points in 1 block of text.

通常，外审专家会用项目符号标注问题，其中可能会在1个项目符号内提出2个独立问题。在这种情况下，请确保明确回应这两条建议。您最好以一种将多个项目的答案分开的方式插入您的答案。通常，这样做比尝试响应1个文本块中的多个点要好。

Rule 6: Use typography to help the

reviewer navigate your response Use changes of typeface, color, and indenting to discriminate between 3 different elements: the review itself, your responses to the review, and changes that you have made to the manuscript. You can explain these typographical conventions in the introduction to your response.

参考译文：规则6：使用不同文档版式帮助审稿人浏览您的回复

使用字体，颜色和缩进的更改来区分3个不同的元素：审阅本身，对审阅的答复以及对稿件所做的更改。您可以在响应的简介中解释这些排版格式。

Rule 7: Whenever possible, begin your

response to each comment with a direct answer to the point being raised You can provide background information, but you should do so after giving your primary response. Provide a “yes” or “no” answer whenever possible. When the reviewer is correct, state so in your response. Your goal is to show the reviewer that you took their comments seriously, and you should quickly convey what you did in response to their critique.

参考译文：规则7：只要有可能，就直接回答提出的问题

您可以提供背景信息，但是您应该在给出主要答复后这样做。尽可能提供“是”或“否”的答案。当审阅者正确时，请在您的回复中注明。您的目标是向审稿人表明您已认真对待他们的评论，并且您应该快速传达您对他们的批评所做的事情。

Rule 8: When possible, do what the

reviewer asks In general, you should avoid giving the impression that you couldn't be bothered to carry out the additional experiments or analyses that the reviewer asks for. Even in cases in which you believe the reviewer has requested an analysis that you don’t find informative, or is otherwise flawed, you will often be in a stronger position if you do what the reviewer asked, report the results in your response, and then explain why you believe the results do not belong in your manuscript.

参考译文：规则8：在可能的情况下，执行审稿人的要求

通常，您应该避免给人以这样的印象，即您可以不厌其烦地进行审阅者要求的其他实验或分析。即使在您认为审稿人要求进行的分析中您没有发现有用信息或存在其他缺陷的情况下，您按照审稿人的要求进行操作，在回答中报告结果，然后解释为什么您认为结果不属于您的手稿。

In some cases, if the reviewer makes detailed or very insightful suggestions that get incorporated into the revised manuscript, it may be appropriate to add to the Acknowledgments section an explicit "thank you" to the reviewer. Indeed, many authors routinely include an acknowledgment of the reviewers in all of their publications. Note, however, that some journals (including PLOS Computational Biology) do not allow reviewer acknowledgments.

在某些情况下，如果审稿人提出了详细或非常有见地的建议，并将其纳入修订后的手稿中，则可以在“致谢”部分中添加对审稿人的明确“感谢”。确实，许多作者通常在所有出版物中都包含对审稿人的感谢。但是请注意，某些期刊（包括PLOS计算生物学）不允许审稿人致谢。

Sometimes reviewers simply ask for too much. It is certainly acceptable to say that the requests go beyond what you perceive to be the scope of the current work. However, it is also important to recognize that the scope of a given manuscript is often difficult to define precisely. If the reviewer asks for 10 things, and you say that 9 out of 10 of them fall outside the scope of your work, then you are not likely to satisfy the reviewer. In such a situation, you may need to do a few things that you think fall outside the scope of your original work.

参考译文：有时审稿人要求太多。你可以肯定地说，这些请求超出了您认为当前的工作范围。但是，认识到给定稿件的范围通常很难精确定义也很重要。如果审稿人要求提供10件事，而您说其中10项中有9项不在您的工作范围之内，那么您就不可能使审稿人满意。在这种情况下，您可能需要做一些您认为超出原始工作范围的事情。

Occasionally, it may be necessary to fall back on the discretion of the editor. For example, editors often ask that authors shorten their manuscripts, whereas reviewers often ask for additional details, experiments, or analyses. If, for example, a reviewer asks you to move some content from the supplement to the main manuscript, you may want to say that you are willing to do so if the editor concurs.

参考译文：有时，可能需要依靠编辑来判断。例如，编辑经常要求作者缩短稿件，而审稿人者经常要求其他细节，实验或分析。例如，如果审稿人要求您将某些内容从补编移至主要手稿，则您可能想说，如果编辑同意，您愿意这样做。

Rule 9: Be clear about what changed

relative to the previous version When you make a change in response to a reviewer's comment, it can sometimes be difficult to convey to the reviewer exactly what that change consisted of. A common error is for an author to respond to a reviewer's comment by saying, "This point is addressed in the manuscript in the following way…" This response fails to make clear whether the author is simply pointing out text that was already present in the previous version of the manuscript, or the author is describing changes that have been incorporated into the new version. In your response, refer explicitly to the previous and revised versions of your manuscript and explain what changes have been made.

参考译文：规则9：清楚说明与先前版本相比有哪些变化

当您根据审阅者的评论进行更改时，有时可能很难将更改的确切内容传达给审阅者。作者的常见错误是，对作者发表评论时说：“此问题可通过以下方式解决……”。这种回答无法说明作者是否只是指出了已经存在于审稿中的文本。稿件的先前版本，或者作者正在描述已合并到新版本中的更改。在您的回复中，请明确参考手稿的先前版本和修订版本，并说明已进行的更改。

Rule 10: If necessary, write the response twice 

Your initial draft of the “response to reviewers” document may aim to analyze what the reviewer meant while considering different avenues of response and the cost–benefit tradeoff of performing additional experiments. This document can be helpful to you and your coauthors as you decide how to formulate a final response document. The initial document can also be a place to vent your frustration with what you perceive to be unfair or rude reviews. After writing this initial draft, you can begin writing a completely separate document that contains what you actually want the reviewers to see. In practice, it is often helpful to write the "venting" version of the response first, wait a while, and then begin working on the "real" response several days later, perhaps after you have done some of the work to address the critiques raised by the reviewer.

参考译文：规则10：如有必要，将回复写两次

您的“对审阅者的回应”文档的初稿可能旨在分析审阅者的含义，同时考虑不同的回应途径以及进行其他实验的成本－收益权衡。当您决定如何制定最终答复文档时，本文档可能对您和您的合著者有所帮助。初始文档也可以使您对自己认为不公平或粗鲁的评论感到沮丧。在写完这份初稿之后，您可以开始编写一个完全独立的文档，其中包含您实际上希望审阅者看到的内容。在实践中，通常最好先编写回复审稿人的版本，稍等片刻，然后几天后再开始处理“真实的”回应积极版本，这也可能是在您完成了一些解决批评的工作之后由审阅者提出。

In addition to the "response to reviewers" letter, you may in some cases want to write a separate letter to the managing editor. In this letter, you can address issues about potential conflicts of interest. You may also want to point out when the reviewers'requests conflict with one another or with journal policies.

参考译文：在某些情况下，除了“回复审稿人”信外，您可能还想写一封单独的信给执行编辑。在这封信中，您可以解决有关潜在利益冲突的问题。您可能还想指出何时审阅者的请求彼此冲突或与期刊策略冲突。

The process of responding to reviewer critiques can be one of the more stressful parts of the publication process. Throughout the process, it is helpful to keep in mind that, in most cases, the reviewers are well-meaning colleagues who are volunteering their time to help ensure the validity of results that are reported in the scientific literature. In nearly every case, the manuscript that comes out of the review process is improved relative to the original version.

参考译文：对审阅者的评论做出回应的过程可能是出版过程中压力更大的部分之一。在整个过程中，请记住，在大多数情况下，审阅者是善意的同事，他们自愿花费时间帮助确保科学文献中报告的结果的有效性。在几乎每种情况下，与原始版本相比，审阅过程中产生的手稿都得到了改进。

传送门：PLOS Computational Biology |

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730 October 12, 2017