期刊投稿等待审稿人回复

期刊投稿等待审稿人回复

投稿结束之后，要是文章格式没有问题且编辑觉得文章符合期刊范围，接下来就进入了漫长的等待。急需文章的人不免会经常登录系统查看当前稿件状态，有些系统会把每一个状态更改都记录下来，非常详细，而有的期刊则长时间只显示一个“正在审稿”（under review）的状态。

· 下面放了一个期刊的审稿状态，并且翻译了一下。

采 月/日/年 时间排序

· 其他期刊的状态显示会有出入，但是大致都差不多。都分成投稿（submit）、编辑处理稿件（with editor）、审稿（under review）、修改（revise）和审稿结果（accept or reject）。

· 一般来说，编辑处理稿件（with editor）这个状态出现得很快，而且一般最多维持2周。如果文章投稿之后2个星期内都没有出现with editor或者在这个状态超过4周，可以考虑发个邮件询问一下主编，看是不是被遗忘了或者系统没有更新状态。

· 审稿（under review）这个状态持续最久，从一个月到一年都很正常，跟期刊关系很大。一般期刊网站会提供大致的审稿周期。如果没有，也可以下载几篇最近的文章，摘要页上一般都会注明submit的日期跟accept的日期，这样就算的出来大致需要多长时间。

通常情况下，编辑会等待两个审稿人提交意见后才开始评估一篇论文。这是因为两个审稿人的意见能够提供更准确和全面的反馈，有助于编辑做出更好的决定。然而，也有一些情况下，其中一个审稿人提交了评审意见可能就足以使编辑做出决定。在任何情况下，编辑都应该基于审稿人的评审意见和自己的判断来做出最终的决定。

编辑一定会等两个审稿意见不返回，不一定。有的期刊只需要一个审稿人的意见就可以做决定，一锤定音。有的期刊编辑要两个审稿人的意见做决定，但是如果两人审稿意见有差异，如果编辑比较熟悉该领域，也可做决定，如果编辑比较谨慎，可等第三个审稿人。

审核中 审核通过，退稿，需要修改。

期刊投稿复审已审回

请回答这个到底什么意思？我们的稿件到底有没有戏？有没有可能被录用？

这是三审制，有初审，复审，再复审，已审回证明审稿结果已经出来了，具体是通过与否就看审回结果了，这是一个流程问题。说明你的文章已经通过了前两次审核。希望很大，也得恭喜恭喜。

明显不是退稿的意思。是复审结束，意见已回到编辑部，但是还等待编辑的下一步操作。退稿的话就会标明“建议另投他刊”。

个人认为你投的期刊审稿应该有两步：第一步是初审；第二步是复审。复审就是外审，复审已审回说明外审已给出了审稿的意见，编辑会根据审稿的意见给主编审核。过不了几天就会给出你的结果：是退修、退稿或直接录用，复审已审回是最后的决定阶段，耐心等几天就会有结果。如果你要是急，可以直接给编辑部打电话，问问你的稿件有没有录用，这样更快些！

期刊投稿回复审稿中

具体问题具体回复，SCI常见的问题优助医学来说一下。编辑们一般会在decisionletter中阐述清楚他们是否认为稿件经修改后足够发表。如果你不确定编辑在信里说的是什么意见，那么不妨回信询问。编辑的工作就是与读者沟通，说明怎样的修改会使文章足够发表（如果他们认为该文章有机会发表到该期刊上），或者为什么作者的文章无法发表（如果他们认为文章没有机会发表）。如果编辑或审稿人认为你的文章当前无法发表，他们其实会指出了你的研究中还有什么需要补充的（或者如果你的文章是理论性的，还有哪些问题你需要阐述得更清楚）。如果你是向实证性期刊投稿，那么只要你增加了足够的数据，便可以再次投稿。当然，当你这样做的时候，最好直接能解决decisionletter和审稿意见中的建议和问题。在大多数情况下，写一封CoverLetter来说明之前decisionletter和审稿意见中提出了哪些问题，并说明新修改的稿件是如何解决这些问题的，会很有帮助（或者如果你没有解决这些问题，阐述清楚为什么这些问题不是阻碍文章发表的原因）。

给范文：Response to commentsDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:Comments:（列举提问题切忌要遗漏任何项）1. ......... Please check and revise.2. .......... Please revise.3. ..........Response:（表示遗憾谢并且详细说明改进程/或解释审稿疑惑要详细题号要应面问题编号）1. We are very sorry for our unclear report in......2. It is our negligence and we are sorry about this. According to comment, related content have been improved. .......3. As the Reviewer's good advice, .......Special thanks to you for your good comments.20xx-xx-xx国外审稿人是义务的，可以根据文章质量和自己的看法自由地提出意见和建议。国外审稿人绝大多数治学严谨，很注重reputation，可以说拿信誉当生 命。当他们接到审稿要求时，如果很忙或不懂你的专业或领域，他们会decline。但只要答应审稿，一般都是尽职尽责的完成审稿任务。因此，当你接到审稿 人的意见时，首先要摆正心态，保持冷静。不要用偏见的心态去断定审稿人有偏见、歧视。做研究的确很辛苦，发表文章也确实很不容易。但审稿人同 样也很辛苦，也很不容易。他们认认真真地阅读你的文章，给你提出中肯的意见，甚至很好的建议。如果还被你措辞强硬的怪罪一阵，换着谁也会生气。要知道，找 理由拒绝一篇文章并不是一件很难的事情。因此，这个时候，你一定要好好的静下心来，好好分析sci论文发表审稿人的意见，找出问题的所在。1.所有问题必须逐条回答；2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验；3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由；4。对于你不认同的意见，也要委婉有技巧地回答，做到有理有据有节；5. 审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并加以讨论。

科研人想要成功发表一篇SCI，往往要经历写作、投稿、等待这一系列漫长的过程，当在收到一篇文章返修意见的时候心里别提有多激动了。 收到返修意见说明文章已经被审稿人初步认可，为了让自己的心血不被浪费，文章能顺利发表，我们要花时间和经历去回复审稿意见，这就要求大家除了具备专业性之外，还要注意回复的语气、格式等细节 本篇文章笔者 手把手教各位科研人如何高情商回复 Reviewers ，很纯的干货，认真读完相信你一定有所收获！ 1. 阅读返修意见 首先要认真阅读全部审稿意见，一般每篇文章会有 2-3 个审稿人的意见，每位审稿人的意见数量可能一两条到十几条不等。每位审稿人的意见一般会逐条列出。在阅读退修意见的过程中，我们要清楚目的，首先是弄懂每一条意见，充分 get 审稿人的要求。 其次要对所有意见有一个归纳整理，分清主次。 最后要注意除文章内容之外的一些要求，如文章修回的 deadline，补充完善作者信息等。 2. 制定回复策略 当认真读完审稿人意见之后，建议大家将所有意见复制粘贴到 word 文档，对所列意见逐条分析。根据笔者经验，所有意见可以根据难易程度分为简单、复杂、困难这三种。 下面笔者将以一些既往文章收到过的退修意见为例来向大家说明： 简单的一般是改正错别词、语法，规范格式，补充缩写词全称，提高图片质量，等等。如图 1： 图1 复杂的一般指我们通过查阅文献之后即可用事实依据解答审稿人的疑问，比如为什么选择某个药物、某个实验对象等，因为审稿人有时不一定是你所研究领域的专家，所以我们用事实说话解开审稿人的疑惑也就成功回答了这类问题。如图 2： 图2 困难的一般是指审稿人对文章涉及到的方法、结果、结论等的质疑，这些就需要各位认真斟酌，谨慎回答，切记要有理有据。如图 3： 图3 3. 编辑回复内容 分析过审稿人意见之后，我们就可以着手回复了，下面几条划重点啦： （1）我们注意要对所有的退修意见逐条进行回复 在每条意见下面写上相应回复内容，一般回复的结构为：感谢审稿人的意见+已修改的内容。可以写感谢审稿人善意的提醒/严谨的态度/专业的意见等等，表达出我们虚心学习的态度。 （2）在回复的正文内容的首和尾要分别有一段前言和一段总结 回复的语气一定要诚恳且礼貌，在内容中除了要说明修改的内容之外，还要体现感谢编辑和审稿人对文章的认可以及辛苦的工作。 （3）在回复内容的最后写上「如果有任何问题请随时联系」类似的话 这样既显示了我们认真的态度，也间接表达了我们期盼回复的心情。 （4）如有引用文献回答审稿人问题的，需在回答内容后面附上所参考文献的 DOI 编号，论点+论据会更能使审稿人信服。 下面图 4 为笔者常用的回复审稿人意见的模板，提供给大家参考。 图4 虽然每个人的稿件情况不同，回复信也都是千差万别，但多多少少还是有一定模板性的，尤其是对于第一次遇到这种情况的研究生朋友们，可以先从模板开始熟悉一下此类回复信的大体内容和形式。 模板1：精简版本 下面这个是我自己以前写的一个模板，拿出来分享给大家。 Dear Editor XX and Reviewers, Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files. （这一段基本上是套话） Thanks again! 下面就开始回复文章的审稿意见了，一般首先是回复期刊编辑的整体意见： SUGGESTIONS FROM EDITOR（注意这一段要把编辑原始的建议粘贴在这里，不能只有回应）  Your response to the general comments from the editor 接下来是逐条回应审稿人的建议： COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR: Reviewer #1: Response to the questions one by one Reviewer #2: Response to the questions one by one 模板2: 完整版本 这个模板是完整版本，保留了很多逐条回答审稿人的常用短语和句式，值得收藏和学习！ Dear Editor, Dear reviewers Thank you for your letter dated February 22. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in Journal, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Accordingly, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all the changes highlighted by using the track changes mode in MS Word. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red). We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in the Journal of Mountain Science. Sincerely, XXXXXXX （同样是套话，这个模板写了这么长。。。虽然我不是很喜欢，但是适合拿来逐句学习，为己所用）  Reviewer 1：   Comments to the Author 这个审稿人的意见分为两部分： 第一部分是一般性的评论和修改建议（多为比较大的问题）。 Here are the general comments from the reviewer...  We thank the reviewer for the very interesting comment. In fact… Regarding the suggestion about the methods, we changed this part… Another issue on the methodological section is that...  We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clear and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we have added a brief description as follows: “ 接下来是第二部分“小的建议”，也就是需要逐条回复的那种，一般是用词用句的修改。 Minor comments: The title is too long, I suggest shortening.  Modified throughout the text according to the comment (Line 20, page 1).Thank you for the title suggested. The precedent version of the title has been replaced, becoming... Line 25, page 1… Modified throughout the text according to the comment (Line 20, page 1). Line 18, page 2…  We have modified the sentence according to the previous comment (Line 30, page 2).  Line 33, page 3…  Thank you for underlining this deficiency. This section was revised and modified according to the information showed in the work suggested by the reviewer (Line 41, page 3).  Line 59, page 5…  This phrase was modified according to the comment (Line 30, page 5).  Lines 9-24, page 6…  Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 6-28, page 6).  Line 11, page 6…  This sentence was rephrased according to the comment (Line 8, page 6).  Line 35, page 13: “exit section”->”outlet” (please check also throughout the text, e.g. at line 54, page 13)  We have modified this expression throughout the text according to the comment. 论文的发表终究还是取决于科研硬实力，以上技巧和经验都只是锦上添花，在论文发表方面助大家一臂之力，让我们的稿件更容易被录用。最后祝每个科研人科研丰收，生活美满！

参考视频

写一篇高水平的工程类英文论文_7_如何回复审稿人＋总结＋两位牛人的建议

网页链接

sci投稿几个期刊等回复

一一般提交期限-个月，不同杂志，不同回复时间。第二，有的杂志很传统，有的杂志用信件通知，有的用邮件。看投了哪本杂志第三，直接打电话，什么时候，投了什么稿子，标题，作者是谁，是否录用。一般时间长的稿件编辑直接的，但要做被婉言拒绝的准备。第四，多投杂志。那自己掂量吧。因为考虑到投稿周期的题，不可一年都等一本杂志。祝运，希望回答被回答。

每个期刊的审稿周期都不一样。同一个期刊，要看审稿人的进度，接受的很快，一般三个月就，快的话几个星期就接受但是也有慢的，慢的离谱年第一次审稿主要看文章质量。不同期刊的第一次审查通常需要两到三个月。如果文章只需要小修小补，很快就被录用。如果审稿人有疑，需要大修，进行修改。

不同的杂志周期不一样，要有耐心，一月份出来。收费出版物要快，一般三个月左右。不收费出版物主要看论文质量，周期相对较长。如果急需，找一家正规的付费刊物，注意一定是正规刊物。只需查看出版署网站，地址等要一致。中文核心期刊速度相差很大。通知修改或录用需要一个月左右，修改意见需要一个多月。当然，总的来说，退稿还是挺的。一般一周到一个月退稿，以免浪费太多时间在年复一年的普通期刊上发表就业比较快，就业通知一个月左右发出，期刊基本年内年外都发表；评审结果只有在缓慢的月份才得到，但当然，很少有期刊是半年到一年以上才发表的。总的来说，效率高于期刊。

SCI论文投稿时间周期问题并没有统一的数据，投稿4-18个月后没有回复也算是正常的，这也是据以往评职人员反馈回来的结果，因此大家在投稿sci论文时一定要有足够的耐心

投稿期刊回复审稿意见

在回复审稿人意见的时候，诚恳的态度非常关键，最好可以附上一个新的cover letter。当你不同意审稿人的意见时，你可以说“Thank you for your comments. We understand your concern about XXX. However, because YYY. To make this clearer we have changed ZZZ on page/line XX.”首先站在审稿人的角度上去肯定审稿人的意见，然后客观的指出文章的原意，并且做出具体解释。从另一个角度来看，既然审稿人都理解错了，其他的读者更有可能，说明文章的表达还是需要改进的。建议对相关的句子重写，尽量表述得更加清晰。

在这里我们也分享一些常见的回复审稿人模板供题主参考：

当你同意审稿人意见时，可以这样写：

Thank you for your comments. We agree with your suggestion to XXX, because YYY. We have made changes to ZZZ on page/line XX as you suggested.

回复重点要包括以下几项：

你知道怎么回复审稿意见么

1.所有问题必须逐条回答。 2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。 4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。 以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。续两点经验：1. 最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事；2. 绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想改投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的 “story” 了。以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。自我感觉总结（不一定对）：1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势；2）国内杂志编辑人员认真负责的人不多，稿子寄去后，少则几个月，多则一年多没有任何消息；3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发；4）国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而过关，原因见少帖）。还因为：很少杂志编辑把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定一般杂志（影响因子1-5）。欢迎大家批评指正。我常用的回复格式:Dear reviewer:I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.1）2）....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！我得回复格式是这样的：Dear Professor xx:Thank you very much for your letter dated xxx xx xxxx, and the referees’ reports. Based on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, we attached revised manuscript in the formats of both PDF and MS word, for your approval. A document answering every question from the referees was also summarized and enclosed.A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.然后再附上Q/A，基本上嘱条回答，写的越多越好（老师语）。结果修改一次就接收了：）我的回复，请老外帮忙修改了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(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 should be 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 of MMP activity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however they should clarify that this assay can only determine the toxicity 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. pg 7:"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 positive control (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-9 secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn't obtain enough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’t complement 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-CSF induced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusion from 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 medium conditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, we screened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. This result may be confusion. Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml (since the purities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9 activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion be detected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cells conditioned 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 absolute concentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectable in both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higher in 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 the detection 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 of MMP-9 in spontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoietic stem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison to CD34+ 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 inhibitors concentrations to select the optimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations used by others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicity of 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 to combine two figures.