手机版 客户端

如何回复SCI投稿同行评审意见

  绝大多数SCI投稿杂志都有同行评审,这些评审专家会有一些意见反馈给作者。如何回复同行评审专家评审意见,总的原则是礼貌、委婉、全面。可以采取6步法对评审意见进行回复。本文就此作一简要介绍,并举一些例子进行说明。

  在杂志接到稿件以后,会把稿件寄给相关的专家进行评审。对于一些人来说,如何回复这些评审意见比较棘手,一方面是有的评审专家提的意见很尖锐,另一方面可能是部分意见的确不对。但是不管尖锐也好,错误也罢,都要进行认真的回复。

  一般原则

  回复评审意见有3个基本原则需要注意。

  1. 礼貌

  无论评审意见正确与否,都要礼貌为先!不要装大爷,认为自己在这个问题上已研究了N年,不会出错。打人不还不打脸呢,况且人在屋檐下,怎能不低头。

  2. 委婉

  有些评审意见可能是错误的,也不要直接说you are worng,应该委婉一些表达意见,可以说「there seems to be a misunderstanding」。另外,可能在论文中的陈述方面存在问题,每个人的理解不一样,也会导致评审意见存在误差。因此,对于任何评审意见都要委婉。

  3. 全面

  对于评审意见应该全面的回答。不要因为某些评审意见不好回答都回避不回答了。

  第一步 整理

  把评审意见放在同一文件中,并且使用>进行标记。

  如现在收到两个专家的评审意见,一个专家如是说

  The paper is about [restatement of the abstract].

  The main claimed contributions are:

  1. X

  2. Y

  3. Z

  However, I don't agree that X is novel.

  I've seen it in [Foo, 1989].

  Moreover, Y is trivial.

  And, Z is simply incorrect by the [some argument].

  In conclusion: strong reject.

  另一个专家如是说

  The paper is a clever generalization of [Foo, 1989].

  The main claimed contributions are:

  1. X

  2. Y

  3. Z

  But, I see the real contribution as W.

  In conclusion: strong accept.

  可以把这些意见整理成这样

  > -- Reviewer 1 --

  > The paper is about [restatement of the abstract].

  > The main claimed contributions are:

  > 1. X

  > 2. Y

  > 3. Z

  > However, I don't agree that X is novel.

  > I've seen it in [Foo, 1989].

  > Moreover, Y is trivial.

  > And, Z is simply incorrect by the [some argument].

  > In conclusion: strong reject.

  > -- Reviewer 2 --

  > The paper is a clever generalization of [Foo, 1989].

  > The main claimed contributions are:

  > 1. X

  > 2. Y

  > 3. Z

  > But, I see the real contribution as W.

  > In conclusion: strong accept.

  第二步 逐个回答

  接下来,需要就每个问题进行逐个回答

  例如:

  > -- Reviewer 1 --

  > The paper is about [restatement of the abstract].

  The summary is accurate at a high-level, but misses some key details like A, B and C.

  > The main claimed contributions are:

  > 1. X

  > 2. Y

  > 3. Z

  Agreed.

  > However, I don't agree that X is novel.

  > I've seen it in [Foo, 1989].

  While [Foo, 1989] does contain a method for doing X in specific cases, we have generalized the method for *all* cases. Consider the following case:

  [motivating case]

  This case is beyond the limits of [Foo, 1989], while it is in scope for our technique. This is the key distinction in our work, and we discussed this in more detail in the related work on page 11.

  > Moreover, Y is trivial.

  While we agree that Y is *simple* once the construction is seen, we argue that it is not *trivial* to create this construction in the first place. If Y were trivial, we might have expected earlier work such as [3] and [4] to use it, yet they did not. Instead, they opted for a muc more complicated partial solution.

  > And, Z is simply incorrect by the [some argument].

  It appears that there is a misunderstanding. We realize now that our presentation obscured some important facets of Z. The reviewer seems to think that Z is Z', and we would agree that Z' is incorrect.

  > In conclusion: strong reject.

  We respectfully disagree.

  > -- Reviewer 2 --

  > The paper is a clever generalization of [Foo, 1989].

  This is an accurate summary.

  > The main claimed contributions are:

  > 1. X

  > 2. Y

  > 3. Z

  We concur.

  > But, I see the real contribution as W.

  We thank the reviewer for raising the point. We agree: W is a real contribution.

  > In conclusion: strong accept.

  We agree.

分类标签: SCI SCI论文 投稿 SCI投稿 同行评审

    编译于http://matt.might.net/articles/peer-review-rebuttals/

声明:本文转载仅出于学习和传播信息所需,并不意味着代表本站观点或证实其内容的真实性;其他网站或个人转载使用须保留本站所注“来源”,并自负相关法律责任;如作者不希望被转载或其他事宜,请及时联系我们!