英文审稿意见

在比较高级别的会议、期刊等，评审系统中包括给编辑的和给作者的评审意见。本文就这两部分评审以及进行汇总第一部分：给作者的审稿意见1、目标和结果不清晰。ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。◆Ingeneral,thereisalackofexplanationofreplicatesandstatisticalmethodsusedinthestudy.◆Furthermore,anexplanationofwhytheauthorsdidthesevariousexperimentsshouldbeprovided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also,therearefewexplanationsoftherationaleforthestudydesign.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：Theconclusionsareoverstated.Forexample,thestudydidnotshowifthesideeffectsfrominitialcopperburstcanbeavoidwiththepolymerformulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：Ahypothesisneedstobepresented。6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：Whatwastherationaleforthefilm/SBFvolumeratio?7、对研究问题的定义：Trytosettheproblemdiscussedinthispaperinmoreclear,writeonesectiontodefinetheproblem8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literaturereview:Thetopicisnovelbuttheapplicationproposedisnotsonovel.9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:Thereisnoexperimentalcomparisonofthealgorithmwithpreviouslyknownwork,soitisimpossibletojudgewhetherthealgorithmisanimprovementonpreviouswork.10、严谨度问题：MNQiseasierthantheprimitivePNQS,howtoprovethat.11、 格式 pdf格式笔记格式下载页码格式下载公文格式下载简报格式下载 （重视程度）：◆Inaddition,thelistofreferencesisnotinourstyle.Itisclosebutnotcompletelycorrect.Ihaveattachedapdffilewith"InstructionsforAuthors"whichshowsexamples.◆Beforesubmittingarevisionbesurethatyourmaterialisproperlypreparedandformatted.Ifyouareunsure,pleaseconsulttheformattingnstructionstoauthorsthataregivenunderthe"InstructionsandForms"buttoninheupperright-handcornerofthescreen.12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：◆ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglisheditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothatthegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.◆Theauthorsmusthavetheirworkreviewedbyapropertranslation/reviewingservicebeforesubmission;onlythencanaproperreviewbeperformed.Mostsentencescontaingrammaticaland/orspellingmistakesorarenotcompletesentences.◆Aspresented,thewritingisnotacceptableforthejournal.Thereareproblemswithsentencestructure,verbtense,andclauseconstruction.◆TheEnglishofyourmanuscriptmustbeimprovedbeforeresubmission.Westronglysuggestthatyouobtainassistancefromacolleaguewhoiswell-versedinEnglishorwhosenativelanguageisEnglish.◆PleasehavesomeonecompetentintheEnglishlanguageandthesubjectmatterofyourpapergooverthepaperandcorrectit.?◆thequalityofEnglishneedsimproving.来自编辑的鼓励：Encouragementfromreviewers:◆Iwouldbeverygladtore-reviewthepaperingreaterdepthonceithasbeeneditedbecausethesubjectisinteresting.◆Thereiscontinuedinterestinyourmanuscripttitled"……"whichyousubmittedtotheJournalofBiomedicalMaterialsResearch:PartB-AppliedBiomaterials.◆TheSubmissionhasbeengreatlyimprovedandisworthyofpublication.·Thepaperisveryannoyingtoreadasitisriddledwithgrammaticalerrorsandpoorlyconstructedsentences.Furthermore,thenoveltyandmotivationoftheworkisnotwelljustified.Also,theexperimentalstudyisshallow.Infact,Icantfigureoutthelegendsasitistoosmall!Howdoesyoureffortcompareswithstate-of-the-art? ·Theexperimentisthemajorprobleminthepaper.Notonlythedatasetisnotpublished,butalsothedescriptionisveryrough.Itisimpossibletoreplicatetheexperimentandverifytheclaimoftheauthor.Furthermore,almostnodiscussionfortheexperimentalresultisgiven.E.g.whytheauthorwouldobtainthisresult?Whichcomponentisthemostimportant?Anyfurtherimprovement?·theauthorshouldconcentratedonthenewalgorithmwithyourideaandexplaineditsadvantagesclearlywithamostsimplewords.·itisgoodconcept,butneedtopolishlayout,language.·Theauthorsdidagoodjobinmotivatingtheproblemstudiedintheintroduction.Themathematicexplanationoftheproposedsolutionsisalsonice.Furthermore,thepaperisaccompaniedbyanadequatesetofexperimentsforevaluatingtheeffectivenessofthesolutionstheauthorspropose.·Apparently，Obviously,Innovation,refine,Inmyhumbleopinion如果仍然有需要修改的小毛病，一般你可以用youpaperhasbeenconditionallyaccepted.Pleaserevise.....accordingtoreviewcomments.如果是接受，你可以用Weareverypleasedtoinformyouthatyourpaper"xxxxx"hasbeenacceptedby[journalname].Pleaseprepareyourpaperbyjournaltemplate...............Atafirstglance,thisshortmanuscriptseemsaninterestingpieceofwork,reportingon×××.Fine,goodquality,butallthishasbeendoneandpublished,andnearlybecomeawell-knownphenomenon.Therefore,thereisinsufficientnoveltyorsignificancetomeetpublicationcriteria.Also,Ididnotseeanyexpermentalevidencehowthe**isrelatedwith**,exceptforthehand-wavingqualitativediscussion.Therefore,IcannotsupportitspublicationinJPDinitspresentform.Itshouldberejected.建议去小木虫问问，那里有一些资源。thejournal'scopyeditorsshouldnothavetofixthemanyremainingerrors.IsympathizethatChineselanguagesdonothaveanequivalentofEnglisharticles'a,an,the'anddon'tseemtograspthematerialmeaningofthosewords.Theauthor'sEnglishexpertdecidedtoinserttheword'the'infrontofmostmentionsof"tip-tiltsystem."Thisimpliesthatthereisonlyonesystemandtheauthorsareusingitexclusively.Therearedoznsofothermisuses.Pages2,3,8,9,10,11,and12arelitteredwiththem.Thepaperistodifficulttoreadinitspresentform.感想：一篇好的论文，从内容到形式都需要精雕细琢。附1：中译审稿意见审稿意见—1(1)英文表达太差，尽管意思大致能表达清楚，但文法错误太多。(2)文献综述较差，观点或论断应有文献支持。(3)论文读起来像是XXX的广告，不知道作者与XXX是否没有关联。(4)该模式的创新性并非如作者所述，目前有许多XX采取此模式（如美国地球物理学会），作者应详加调查并分析XXX运作模式的创新点。(5)该模式也不是作者所说的那样成功……(审稿人结合论文中的数据具体分析)审稿意见—2(1)缺少直接相关的文献引用(如…)。(2)写作质量达不到美国学术期刊的标准。审稿意见—3(1)作者应着重指出指出本人的贡献。(2)缺少支持作者发现的方法学分析。(3)需要采用表格和图件形式展示(数据)材料。附2：英文审稿意见(略有删节)Reviewer:1Therearemanythingswrongwiththispaper.TheEnglishisverybad.Althoughthemeaningisbyandlargeclear,nottoomanysentencesarecorrect.Theliteraturereviewispoor.Thepaperisriddledwithassertionsandclaimsthatshouldbesupportedbyreferences.ThepaperreadsasanadvertisementforXXX.ItisnotclearthattheauthorisindependentofXXX.TheAAmodelofXXXisnotasinnovativeastheauthorclaims.TherearenowmanyXXthatfollowthismodel(AmericanGeophysicalUnion,forexample),andtheauthorshouldsurveythesemodeltoseewhichonefirstintroducedtheelementsoftheXXXmodel.Themodelisalsonotassuccessfulastheauthorclaims.……Overall,thepresentationandthecontentsofthepapercanonlymeanthatIrejectthatthepaperberejected.Reviewer:2Thearetwomajorproblemswiththispaper:(1)Itismissingthecontextof(andcitationsto)whatisnowknowasthe"two-sided"marketliteratureincludingthatdirectlyrelatedto…(e.g.Braunstein,JASIS1977;Economides&Katsanakas,Mgt.Sci.,2006;McCabe&Snyder,B.E.JEconAnalysis,2007).(2)ThewritingqualityisnotuptothestandardofaUSscholarlyjournal.Reviewer:31.Theauthorshouldaccentuatehiscontributionsinthismanuscript.2.Itlacksanalyticalmethodologiestosupportauthor’sdiscoveries.3.Descriptionstylemateriallikethismanuscriptrequiresstructuredtables&figuresforbetterpresentations.Ms.Ref.No.:******Title:******MaterialsScienceandEngineeringDearDr.******,  Reviewershavenowcommentedonyourpaper.Youwillseethattheyareadvisingthatyoureviseyourmanuscript.Ifyouarepreparedtoundertaketheworkrequired,Iwouldbepleasedtoreconsidermydecision.  Foryourguidance,reviewers'commentsareappendedbelow.​Reviewer#1:Thisworkproposesanextensivereviewonmicromulsion-basedmethodsforthesynthesisofAgnanoparticles.Assuch,thematterisofinterest,howeverthepapersuffersfortwoseriouslimits:  1)  theoverallqualityoftheEnglishlanguageisratherpoor;  2)  someFiguresmustbeselectedfrompreviousliteraturetodiscussalsothesynthesisofanisotropicallyshapedAgnanoparticles(thereareseveralexamplespublished),whichhasbeenlargelyoverlookedthroughoutthepaper.;‑Oncetheaboveconcernsarefullyaddressed,themanuscriptcouldbeacceptedforpublicationinthisjournal.英文论文写作、投稿详解(整理各大学术论坛相关帖子，转帖)目前科技论文作者向国际英文科技期刊投稿的方式有三种。一是传统的邮寄形式，即通过国际快件将论文的原稿邮寄给刊物的主编或编辑部。这种形式曾经是投稿的近乎唯一的方式，持续了漫长的岁月，可现在采用这种方式接受来稿的刊物越来越少了。二是用电子邮件的方式投稿，即作者将原稿的电子文件发至主编或编辑部的电子信箱。这种投稿方式显然比邮寄快得多，但与邮寄一样，稿件也有丢失的时候。目前采用这种纳稿方式的期刊还很多，但有很大一部分期刊己经在此基础上，又进了一步，发展到第三种也是目前最新的一种投稿方式，即网上投稿(ON-LINESUBMISSION)。这种方式速度快，而且稿件不会丢失。一旦作者在网上登记注册投稿，每个主要步骤都有记录，很受科技期刊作者的欢迎。本文将就网上投稿过程及作者应该注意的地方予以详细的介绍，供对此感兴趣的中国作者参考。   网上投稿的关键是要做好充分的准备工作。首先，作者对所要投稿的国际英文刊物的投稿需知(GUIDEFORAUTHORS)要了解清楚，并且按照要求准备好原稿的所有文件。一般科技论文分为回顾性文章(REVIEWARTICLE)，普通论文(REGULAR/RESEARCHARTICLE)，快讯(SHORTCOMMUNICATIONS)等。不同的文章类型，对原稿的格式要求也有所变化。单就普通论文而言，文章从头到尾的基本格式是：论文的开篇部分，包括文章标题(TITLE)，作者姓名(AUTHOR’SNAME)(注明通讯作者/CORRESPONDINGAUTHOR)，作者单位地址(AFFILIATION)，论文摘要(ABSTRACT)，关键词(KEYWORDS)等；论文的正文部分，包括介绍/引言(INTRODUCTION)，实验方法(METHOD)，实验材料(MATERIAL)，结果与分析(RESULTSANDANALYSIS)，讨论（DISCUSSION）,结论（CONCLUSION）等；需说明的是不同的学科，正文的内容和形式会有所增减，图表、 公式 小学单位换算公式大全免费下载公式下载行测公式大全下载excel公式下载逻辑回归公式下载 的数量也会有所不同。正文后的结尾部分有的文章附加致谢辞(ACKNOWLEDGEMENT)，有的则没有，但参考文献(REFERENCE)则是必须的。有的文章还带有附录(APPENDIX)，如全部的实验原始数据、计算机软件程序等。现在有的刊物可以在网上发表的文章中附带电子视听文件(E-COMPONENTS)。如短录像片(VIDEOCLIP)，动画片(SHORTCARTOON)等。作者要根据自身的情况，选择文章应该包含的内容，一旦确定，所有的内容都要在网上投稿前准备好。此外，不但原稿的内容和格式要符合刊物的要术，而且在字数、页数、格式、文件储存形式等方面，均要与投稿刊物的要求一致。否则，文章在初选阶段会很快落选。其次，是作者对投稿刊物网上投稿系统的熟悉和学习。如果可能，最好请有这方面经验的作者上一课，可以节省时间和事半功倍。如果找不到合适的老师，作者自己要耐心地自学。从刊物的网页入手，仔细阅读网上的投稿需知、跟踪链接或屏幕启示，把每个环节搞明白弄清楚。  在网上投稿，头一步是在网页上注册，也叫作者登记。实际上与网上购物注册没太大区别，关键是要把自己的姓名、单位、联系地址，包括电话、传真和电子邮箱等登记准确无误。二是按部就班地输入文章的各个主要部分。如题目、作者、摘要、关键词、正文、图表等。在输入每个部分的时候，一是要通读该部分的有关要求，再次确认自已输入的文件是否符合要求。这听起来并不难，但实际上作者在这方面的疏忽却很多。比如按要求，原稿不能超过20页，可有的原稿长达40多页，甚至更长。有的文章作者完全忽略了刊物对关键词的要求，随心所欲。二是确认每个部分输入的完整性。有些作者在输入文件时过于匆忙，十个图只输入一半，这样的稿件即使到了编辑部也不能送审，只能返回作者补漏。如果审校员一时疏忽或主编没有查觉，将有缺欠的文章发出送审，则审稿人因为缺图，不能正常审阅文章。这样造成的麻烦所耽误的时间会更多。三是输入文件完毕后，也就是所有的部分成功地输入后，不要忘了点击投稿发送键。否则，稿件只会存储在作者自已的文件夹中，而不是发到编辑部。目前，许多科技期刊网上投稿，需把文件由一种存储形式转换到另一种存储形式，比如DOC文件变成PDF文件。在这个转换过程中，计算机屏幕会呈停滞状态，看上去好像死机了。其实不然，只需耐心等待罢了。原稿在网上成功投出后，作者马上就能收到编辑部的回执。如果有问题，屏幕上则会出现问题预警或解决问题的提示。如果作者不能自行解决故障或问题反复出现，作者可与出版社的网上投稿支持部门联系，求得帮助。此外值得一提的是，部分著名出版社的网页上除附有投稿需知外，还专门设计了针对网上投稿的指导示 范文 销售月计划范文二年级看图写话和范文歌颂党的朗诵稿语文万能作文党代会闭幕式讲话 件。作者初学乍练时可以抽时间学习一下。总之，网上投稿并不难，关键是准备充分，而且在实际上机操作时按部就班，不能单纯求快，否则欲速而不达。  编辑部收到稿件后，有的是直接送审，有的是先进行一步初选(主要是检查论文的英文是否过关)，然后再送审。不论是哪种情况，论文在送审前均需通过最基本的技术检查。目的是看原稿是否包含了应该有的基本内容。有些刊物的编辑部就设在出版社内，这类期刊的检查会更全面，包括文件形式、内容、作者联系方式、文章是否属于重复性投稿等等。一旦发现问题(比如原稿过长，关键词不符合要求等)，原稿会马上返回作者，进行必要的补充和修改。原稿一旦退回作者，文件便会重新回到作者自己在网上的投稿文件夹里，等候修改。与此同时，作者的电子信箱内同样会收到一封编辑部的来信，明确告之稿件应该进行修改或补充的地方。作者只需上网从自己的文件夹中调出文件修改即可。一旦文件修改完毕，作者又要根据出版社信函中的提示，上网按步骤再将原稿发回刊物的编辑部。这个操作过程和最开始的投稿大同小异，往往也要将DOC文件转换成PDF文件。原稿返回编辑部送审后，有的会很干脆地被拒绝，有的会顺利地圆满接受，但大部分原稿需按审稿人的意见进行规模不同的修改。经过作者修改过的稿件又需要在网上重新发回编辑部。但有的作者在接到主编或编辑部转来的审稿人意见后，对其评价有很大的异议或不愿改动自己的论文，便可以主动要求退稿。手续很简单，只需向编辑部发个电子邮件即可或自己上网撤稿。如果作者愿意根据审稿人的意见改动论文，则需改得全面彻底，并且对审稿人提出的疑问要一一做答。这份单独的问答要整理成一份单独的文件，在网上再次发稿时使用。如果缺少这份问答文件，在许多期刊网上投发修改稿时会出现障碍，应引起作者的注意。修改后的论文要从作者网上的论文文件夹里发给编辑部，最初的原稿可以存储在文件夹中，可作者一定要确定第二次投出的稿件是修改后的文件，而不是初稿。这种张冠李戴的事在网上投稿过程中时有发生。文件名称明明显示是修改稿，可审稿人打开文件后才发现是初稿又原封不动地回来了，让人有点哭笑不得。修改过的稿件回到编辑部后，原稿的编码序号不变，只是多了一或二个尾数，表明是修改稿。有的稿件改动一次即可被刊物采纳，但也有的要反复修改多次才能被通过。对被否定的文章，如果作者对否定的原因有异议，可以向编辑部或主编提出自己的意见，据理力争。如果主编同意作者的意见，文章可以重新进入新的一轮审稿程序。这种情况不多，但在网上这样的文章也同样记录在案。在网上投出的稿件不论改动多少回，其序号都不会改变，只有尾数的变动，以表明是修改后的第几稿。比如R1是第一次修改稿，R2是第二份修改稿，依此类推。但每份修改过的文件在网上都有记录，而且每份审稿人的意见也都记录在案。不单如此，整个审稿过程中经过刊物网页发给作者的电子邮件也都有记录。总之，每一个步骤都有据可查，只要整个系统不出问题，就不会有稿件丢失的情况发生。  由此可见，网上投稿的好处的确很多，难怪深受广大作者的欢迎。现在有许多科技期刊已经告别了邮寄和电子邮件的时代，开始只受理网上投稿。今后，这样的期刊可能会越来越多。所以，能自如地驾驭好网上投稿这个新的投稿手段，对学者们而言无疑是件好事。附录1.SCI投稿信件的一些套话一、投稿信1.DearDr.DefendiML:Iamsendingamanuscriptentitled“”by–whichIshouldliketosubmitforpossiblepublicationinthejournalof-.Yourssincerely2.DearDr.A:Enclosedisamanuscriptentitled“”bysb,whichwearesubmittingforpublicationinthejournalof-.Wehavechosenthisjournalbecauseitdealswith-.Webelievethatsthwouldbeofinteresttothejournal’sreaders.3.DearDr.A:Pleasefindenclosedforyourreviewanoriginalresearcharticle,“”bysb.Allauthorshavereadandapprovethisversionofthearticle,andduecarehasbeentakentoensuretheintegrityofthework.Nopartofthispaperhaspublishedorsubmittedelsewhere.Noconflictofinterestexitsinthesubmissionofthismanuscript,andwehaveattachedtothisletterthesignedlettergrantinguspermissiontouseFigure1fromanothersource.Weappreciateyourconsiderationofourmanuscript,andwelookforwardtoreceivingcommentsfromthereviewers.二、询问有无收到稿件DearEditors,Wedispatchedourmanuscripttoyourjournalon3August2006buthavenot,asyet,receiveacknowledgementoftheirsafearrival.Wefearthatmayhavebeenlostandshouldbegratefulifyouwouldletusknowwhetherornotyouhavereceivedthem.Ifnot,wewillsendourmanuscriptagain.Thankyouinadvanceforyourhelp.三、询问论文审查回音DearEditors，Itismorethan12weekssinceIsubmittedourmanuscript(No:)forpossiblepublicationinyourjournal.Ihavenotyetreceivedareplyandamwonderingwhetheryouhavereachedadecision.Ishouldappreciatedyourlettingmeknowwhatyouhavedecidedassoonaspossible.四、关于论文的总体审查意见1.Thisisacarefullydonestudyandthefindingsareofconsiderableinterest.Afewminorrevisionarelistbelow.2.Thisisawell-writtenpapercontaininginterestingresultswhichmeritpublication.Forthebenefitofthereader,however,anumberofpointsneedclarifyingandcertainstatementsrequirefurtherjustification.Therearegivenbelow.3.Althoughtheseobservationareinteresting,theyareratherlimitedanddonotadvanceourknowledgeofthesubjectsufficientlytowarrantpublicationinPNAS.Wesuggestthattheauthorstrysubmittingtheirfindingstospecialistjournalsuchas–4.Althoughthispaperisgood,itwouldbeeverbetterifsomeextradatawereadded.5.Thismanuscriptisnotsuitableforpublicationinthejournalof–becausethemainobservationitdescribewasreported3yearsagoinareputablejournalof-.6.PleaseasksomeonefamiliarwithEnglishlanguagetohelpyourewritethispaper.Asyouwillsee,Ihavemadesomecorrectionatthebeginningofthepaperwheresomesyntaxisnotsatisfactory.7.WefeelthatthispotentiallyinterestingstudyhasbeenmarredbyaninabilitytocommunicatethefindingcorrectlyinEnglishandshouldliketosuggestthattheauthorsseektheadviceofsomeonewithagoodknowledgeofEnglish,preferablenativespeaker.8.Thewordingandstyleofsomesection,particularlythoseconcerningHPLC,needcarefulediting.AttentionshouldbepaidtothewordingofthosepartsoftheDiscussionofandSummarywhichhavebeenunderlined.9.PreliminaryexperimentsonlyhavebeendoneandwithexceptionofthatsummarizedinTable2,nonehasbeenrepeated.Thisisclearlyunsatisfactory,particularlywhenthereissomuchvariationbetweenassays.10.Theconditionofincubationarepoorlydefined.Whatisthetemperature?Wereantibodyused?五、给编辑的回信1.Inreplytothereferee’smaincriticismofpaper,itispossibletosaythat–OneminorpointraisedbytherefereeconcernsoftheextracompositionofthereactionmixtureinFigure1.Thishasnowbeencorrected.Furtherminorchangeshadbeenmadeonpage3,paragraph1(line3-8)and2(line6-11).Thesedonotaffectourinterpretationoftheresult.2.Ihavereadthereferee’scommentsverycarefullyandconcludethatthepaperhasbeenrejectedonthesolegroundsthatitlaketoxicitydata.IadmitthatIdidnotincludeatoxicitytableinmyarticlealthoughperhapsIshouldhavedone.Thiswasforthesakeofbrevityratherthananerrororomission.3.Thankyouforyourletterof–andforthereferee’scommentsconcerningourmanuscriptentitled“”.Wehavestudiedtheircommentscarefullyandhavemadecorrectionwhichwehopemeetwiththeirapproval.4.Ienclosedarevisedmanuscriptwhichincludesareportofadditionalexperimentsdoneatthereferee’ssuggestion.Youwillseethatouroriginalfindingsareconfirmed.5.Wearesendingtherevisedmanuscriptaccordingtothecommentsofthereviewers.Revisedportionareunderlinedinred.6.Wefoundthereferee’scommentsmosthelpfulandhaverevisedthemanuscript7.Wearepleasedtonotethefavorablecommentsofreviewersintheiropeningsentence.8.Thankyouforyourletter.IamverypleasedtolearnthatourmanuscriptisacceptableforpublicationinCancerResearchwithminorrevision.9.Wehavethereforecompletedafurtherseriesofexperiments,theresultofwhicharesummarizedinTable5.Fromthisweconcludethatintrinsicfactorisnotaccount.10.Wedeletedtherelevantpassagesincetheyarenotessentialtothecontentsofthepaper.11.Ifeelthatthereviewer’scommentsconcerningFigures1and2resultfromamisinterpretationofthedata.12.Wewouldhaveincludeanon-proteininhibitorinoursystem,asacontrol,ifonehadbeenavailable.13.WeprefertoretaintheuseofTable4forreasonsthatitshouldbeclearfromthenewparagraphinsertedattheendoftheResultssection.14.Althoughreviewerdoesnotconsideritisimportanttomeasurethetemperatureofthecells,weconsideritessential.15.Therunningtitlehasbeenchangedto“”.16.TheMaterialsandMethodssectionnowincludesdetailsformeasuringuptakeofisotopeandassayinghexokinase.17.TheconcentrationofHATmedia(page12paragraph2)wasincorrectlystatedintheoriginalmanuscript.Thishasbeenrectified.Theauthorsaregratefultotherefereesforpointingouttheirerror.18.Assuggestedbybothreferees,adiscussionofthepossibilityoflaseractiononchromosomehasbeenincluded(page16,paragraph2).19.Weincludedanewsetofphotographswithbetterdefinitionthanthoseoriginallysubmittedandtowhichascalehasbeenadded.20.Followingthesuggestionofthereferees,wehaveredrawFigure3and4.21.Twofurtherpapers,publishedsinceouroriginalsubmission,havebeenaddedtothetextandReferencesection.Theseare:22.Weshouldliketothanktherefereesfortheirhelpfulcommentsandhopethatwehavenowproducedamorebalanceandbetteraccountofourwork.Wetrustthattherevisedmanuscriptisacceptableforpublication.23.Igreatlyappreciatebothyourhelpandthatoftherefereesconcerningimprovementtothispaper.Ihopethattherevisedmanuscriptisnowsuitableforpublication.24.Ishouldliketoexpressmyappreciationtoyouandtherefereesforsuggestinghowtoimproveourpaper.25.Iapologizeforthedelayinrevisingthemanuscript.Thiswasduetoourdoinganadditionalexperiment,assuggestedbyreferees.附录2.Elsevier投稿各种状态总结1.SubmittedtoJournal当上传结束后，显示的状态是SubmittedtoJournal，这个状态是自然形成的无需处理。2.Witheditor如果在投稿的时候没有要求选择编辑，就先到主编那，主编会分派给别的编辑。这当中就会有另两个状态：3.Editorassigned4.EditorDeclinedInvitation如果编辑接手处理了就会邀请审稿人了。5.Reviewer(s)invited如果审稿人接受那就会是以下状态：6.Underreview这应该是一个漫长的等待。当然前面各步骤也可能很慢的，要看编辑的处理情况。如果被邀请审稿人不想审，就会decline，编辑会重新邀请别的审稿人。7.requiredreviewcompleted审稿结束，等编辑处理。8.DecisioninProcess到了这一步就快要有结果了，编辑开始考虑是给修改还是直接拒，当然也有可能直接接受的，但可能性很小，呵呵。9.Minorrevision/Majorrevision这个时候可以稍微庆祝一下了，问题不大了，因为有修改就有可能。具体怎么改就不多说了，谦虚谨慎是不可少的。10.RevisionSubmittedtoJournal又开始了一个循环。11.Accepted如果不要再审，只是小修改，编辑看后会马上显示这个状态，但如果要再审也会有上面的部分状态。一步会比较快，但也有慢的。看杂志的。还有个状态是Rejected。希望不要出现。其他库的状态，基本是大同小异，供参考：附录3.一些常见的英文文章语言技巧a)如何指出当前研究的不足以及有目的地引导出自己的研究的重要性。通常在叙述了前人成果之后，用However来引导不足，比如However,littleinformation..littleattention...littlework...littledatalittleresearchorfewstudiesfewinvestigations...fewresearchers...fewattempts...ornononeofthesestudieshas(have)beenlessdoneon...focusedonattemptedtoconductedinvestigatedstudied(withrespectto)Previousresearch(studies,records)has(have)failedtoconsiderignoredmisinterpretedneglectedtooverestimated,underestimatedmisleadedthus,thesepreviusresultsareinconclisive,misleading,unsatisfactory,questionable,controversial..Uncertainties(discrepancies)stillexist...这种引导一般提出一种新方法，或者一种新方向。如果研究的方法以及方向和前人一样，可以通过下面的方式强调自己工作的作用：However,dataisstillscarcerarelessaccuratethereisstilldearthofWeneedtoaimtohavetoprovidemoredocumentsdatarecordsstudiesincreasethedatasetFurtherstudiesarestillnecessary...essential...为了强调自己研究的重要性，一般还要在However之前介绍自己研究问题的反方面，另一方面等等比如：1)时间问题如果你研究的问题时间上比较新，你就可以大量提及对时间较老的问题的研究及重要性，然后说(However)，对时间尺度比较新的问题研究不足2)物性及研究手段问题如果你要应用一种新手段或者研究方向，你可以提出当前比较流行的方法以及物质性质，然后说对你所研究的方向和方法，研究甚少。3)研究区域问题首先总结相邻区域或者其它区域的研究，然后强调这一区域研究不足4)不确定性虽然前人对这一问题研究很多，但是目前有两种或者更多种的观点，这种uncertanties,ambiguities，值得进一步澄清5)提出自己的假设来验证如果自己的研究完全是新的，没有前人的工作进行对比，在这种情况下，你可以自信地说，根据提出的过程，存在这种可能的结果，本文就是要证实这种结果。Weaimtotestthefeasibility(reliability)ofthe...Itishopedthatthequtestionwillberesolved(fallaway)withourproposedmethod(approach).提出自己的观点WeaimtoThispaperreportsonprovidesresultsextendsthemethod..focusonThepurposeofthispaperistoFurthermore,Moreover,Inaddition,,wewillalsodiscuss...c)圈定自己的研究范围前言的另外一个作用就是告诉读者包括(reviewer)你的文章主要研究内容。如果处理不好，reviewer会提出严厉的建议，比如你没有考虑某种可能性，某种研究手段等等。为了减少这种争论，在前言的结尾你就要明确提出本文研究的范围：1)时间尺度问题如果你的问题涉及比较长的时序，你可以明确地提出本文只关心这一时间范围的问题。Wepreliminarilyfocusontheolder(younger)...或者有两种时间尺度的问题(long-termandshortterm)，你可以说两者都重要，但是本文只涉及其中一种2)研究区域的问题和时间问题一样，明确提出你只关心这一地区d)最后的原场在前言的最后，还可以总结性地提出，这一研究对其它研究的帮助。或者说，furtherstudieson...willbesummarizedinournextstudy(orelsewhere)总之，其目的就是让读者把思路集中到你要讨论的问题上来。减少争论(arguments).关于词汇以及常用结构，要经常总结，多读多模仿才能融会贯通。以上是常见的语言结构，不算抄袭。怎样提出观点在提出自己的观点时，采取什么样的策略很重要。不合适的句子通常会遭到reviewer的置疑。1)如果观点不是这篇文章最新提出的，通常要用Weconfirmthat...2)对于自己很自信的观点,可用Webelievethat...3)在更通常的情况下，由数据推断出一定的结论，用，Resultsindicate,infer,suggest,implythat...4)在及其特别的情况才可以用Weputforward(discover,observe..).."forthefirsttime".来强调自己的创新。5)如果自己对所提出的观点不完全肯定，可用Wetentativelyputforward(interrpretethisto..)OrTheresultsmaybedueto(causedby)attributedtorsultedfrom..OrThisisprobablyaconsequenceofItseemsthat..canaccountfor(interpret)this..OrItispisiblethatitstemfrom...连接词与逻辑写英文论文最常见的一个毛病就是文章的逻辑不清楚。解决的方法有：1)句子上下要有连贯，不能让句子之间独立常见的连接词语有,However,also,inaddition,consequently,afterwards,moreover,Furthermore,further,although,unlike,incontrast,Similarly,Unfortunately,alternatively,parallelresults,Inorderto,despite,Forexample,Comparedwithotherresults,thus,therefore...用好这些连接词，能够使观点表达得有层次，更加明确。比如，如果叙述有时间顺序的事件或者文献，最早的文献可用AAadvocateditforthefirsttime.接下来，可用ThenBBfurtherdemonstratedthat..再接下来，可用Afterwards,CC..如果还有，可用MorerecentstudiesbyDD..如果叙述两种观点，要把它们截然分开AApputforwardthat...Incontrast,BBbelieveorUnlikeAA,BBsuggestorOnthecontrary(表明前面的观点错误，如果只是表明两种对立的观点，用incontrast)，BB..如果两种观点相近,可用AAsuggestSimilarily,alternatively,BB..OrAlso,BBorBBallsodoes..表示因果或者前后关系，可用Consequently,therefore,asaresult,表明递进关系，可用furthermore,further,moreover,inaddition,当写完一段英文，最好首先检查一下是否较好地应用了这些连接词。2)段落的整体逻辑经常我们要叙述一个问题的几个方面。这种情况下，一定要注意逻辑结构。首先第一段要明确告诉读者你要讨论几个部份...Therefore,therearethreeaspectsofthisproblenhavetobeaddressed.Thefirstquestuoninvolves...ThesecondproblemrelatestoThethridaspectdealswith...上面的例子可以清晰地把观点逐层叙述。Or,可以直接用First,Second,Third...Finally,..当然,Furthermore,inaddition等可以用来补充说明。3)讨论部份的整体结构小标题是比较好的方法把要讨论的问题分为几个片段。一般第一个片段指出文章最为重要的数据与结论。补充说明的部份可以放在最后一个片段。      一定要明白文章的读者会分为多个档次。文章除了本专业的专业人士读懂以外，一定要想办法能让更多的外专业人读懂。所以可以把讨论部份分为两部份，一部份提出观点，另一部份详细介绍过程以及论述的依据。这样专业外的人士可以了解文章的主要观点，比较专业的讨论他可以把它当成黑箱子，而这一部份本专业人士可以进一步研究。为了使文章清楚，第一次提出概念时，最好加以个括弧，给出较为详细的解释。如果文章用了很多的Abbreviation,两种方法加以解决1)在文章最好加上个Appendix，把所有Abreviation列表2)在不同的页面上，不时地给出Abbreciation的含义，用来提醒读者。总之，写文章的目的是要让读者读懂，读得清晰，并且采取各种措施方便于读者。一定要注意绝对不能全面否定前人的成果，即使在你看来前人的结论完全不对。这是前人工作最起码的尊重，英文叫做给别人的工作credits.所以文章不要出现非常negative的评价，比如Theirresultsarewrong,veryquestionable,havenocommensence,etc.遇到这类情况，可以婉转地提出：Theirstudiesmaybemorereasonableiftheyhadconsideredthissituation.Theirresultscouldbebetterconvincedifthey...OrTheirconclusionmayremainsomeuncertanties.讨论部份还包括什么内容?1.主要数据特征的总结2.主要结论以及与前人观点的对比3.本文的不足第三点，在一般作者看来不可取。事实上给出文章的不足恰恰是保护自己文章的重要手段。如果刻意隐藏文章的漏洞，觉得别人看不出来，是非常不明智的。所谓不足，包括以下内容:1.研究的问题有点片面讨论时一定要说，Itshouldbenotedthatthisstudyhasexaminedonly..Weconcentrate(focus)ononly...Wehavetopointoutthatwedonot..Somelimitationsofthisstudyare...2.结论有些不足Theresultsdonotimply,TheresultscannotbeusedtodeterminebetakenasevidenceofUnfortunately,wecannotdetermienthisfromthisdataOurresultsarelackof...但是，在指出这些不足之后，随后一定要再一次加强本文的重要性以及可能采取的手段来解决这些不足，为别人或者自己的下一步研究打下浮笔。Notwithstadingitslimitation,thistudydoessuggest..However,theseproblemsculdbesolvedifweconsdierDespiteitspreliminarycharacter,thisstudycanclearlyindicate..用中文来说，这一部份是左右逢源。把审稿人想到的问题提前给一个交代，同时表明你已经在思考这些问题，但是由于文章长度，试验进度或者试验手段的制约，暂时不能回答这些问题。但是，这些通过你的一些建议，这些问题在将来的研究中游可能实现。Title:Faultdiagnosisresearchbasedontime-frequencyanalysismethodinrotorsystemsJournalofSoundandVibrationDearstudent××××,Wehavenowreceivedcommentsonyourmanuscriptfromthereviewers(reportsincludedbelow).Pleasereviseyourmanuscriptaccordingtothereferee'ssuggestionsanddetailallthechangeswhichyouhavemade.Ihopeyouwillbepreparedtoundertakethis,andIwillthenbepleasedtoreconsiderthemanuscriptforpublication.Pleasenotethatduetotheextensiverevisionsnecessayonyourmanuscript,itwillneedtobesentoutforre-review.Ifyoudodecidetorevisethepaper,weneedtoreceiveyournewmanuscriptwithinthenextsixmonths.Youareaskedtosubmitthefollowingitemsalongwiththemanuscript:(1)Apoint-by-pointreplythatwecansendtoeachreviewer;(2)Aseparatelistoftherevisionsmadetothemanuscript.Itisimportantthatyouaddressalltheissuesraisedbythereferees,eitherbyrevisionorreasonedrebuttal,beforewemakeadecisiononpublication.Whensubmittingyourrevisedmanuscript,pleaseensurethatyouuploadthesourcefiles(e.g.Word).UploadingonlyaPDFfileatthisstagewillcreatedelaysshouldyourmanuscriptbefinallyacceptedforpublication.  Ifyourrevisedsubmissiondoesnotincludethesourcefiles,wewillcontactyoutorequestthem.Tosubmitarevision,pleasegotohttp://ees.elsevier.com/jsv/andloginasanAuthor.Yourusernameis:********Yourpasswordis:**************OnyourMainMenupageisafolderentitled"SubmissionsNeedingRevision".Youwillfindyoursubmissionrecordthere.Yourssincerely,RichardBerrymanEditorialOffice(Australasia)JournalofSoundandVibrationReviewers'comments:Reviewer#1:CommentsonJSV-D-06-01203Title:Faultdiagnosisresearchbasedontime-frequencymethodinrotorsystemsBy:××,××and××××××_______________________________________Thepaperpresentsanapplicationofreassignedwaveletscalogramforrotorsystemfaultdiagnosis.Itisatopicofinteresttotheresearchersintherelatedareasbutthepaperneedsverysignificantimprovementbeforeacceptanceforpublication.Mydetailedcommentsareasfollows:1.Thewaveletmethod(reassignedwaveletscalogram)usedinthepaperworksverywellfortheunderlyingfaultdiagnosisproblem.Ontheotherhand,thiswaveletmethodisawell-establishedmethod,andthepresentresearchisadirectapplicationofthismethodwithoutnewcontributioninmethodologicalresearch.2.Fortheabovereason,thepresentationshouldbefocusedontheresults.Unfortunately,thepresentationisfarfromacceptableforpublication.ThematerialwasnotproperlyorganizedanditisstronglysuggestedthattheauthorscheckcarefullytheEnglishwritingandusestandardterminologiesinthetechnicalarea.3.Thetitleofthepapershouldbemorespecificsincenumerousstudieshavebeendoneonthefaultdiagnosisofrotorsystemsusingwaveletsandtime-frequencymethods.Also,removetheword"research".4.OnSection1:·Thissectionlistedmanyreferencesthataremainlyrelatedtorotordynamicsandarenotdirectlyrelatedtorotorsystemdiagnosis.Iftheauthorswouldliketokeepthesereferences,somediscussionsontherelevanceoftheserefstothepresentresearchareneeded.·Reviewonthedirectlyrelevantrefswillbemorehelpfulforthereader.Also,time-frequencyandwaveletsaremainlyfornon-stationaryandtransientanalysis.Theauthormaydiscussinmoredetailwhattypesoftransientsandnon-stationarycomponentswouldappearinrotorsystemvibration.·Afewsentencesontheorganizationofthepaperwillbehelpful.5.OnSection2:·Sincethemajormethodusedintheapplicationisreassignedwaveletscalogram,itisnotneededtogivethedetailsofthreeothermethods(onlygiveafewwordsandgivetherefs).Instead,theauthorsmaydiscussmoreontherelationshipbetweentraditionalwaveletscalogramandthereassignedwaveletscalogram,andexplainwhythelatterisbetterthantheformer.·Eq(2):theright-hand-sideiswrongand"2"ismissed.·ThedescriptionafterEq(2)isnotclear.SeeCohen'sbookfordetailsaboutthecross-terms.6.OnSections3and4:Thedescriptionneedstobeimproved.ThematerialinSection3shouldbeorganizedinseveralparagraphs.7.OnSection5:·Theauthorsdidagoodexperimentandsomeofthephenomenapresentedinthetime-frequencyplanesarealsoveryinteresting.However,theobservationsshouldbedescribedconcisely,andtheauthorsshouldfocusmoreon:1)whetherthesephenomenaaregeneralcharacteristics,and2)ifpossible,explainthereasonofthephenomenaandtheadvantagesofreassignedwaveletscalogramoverothertime-frequencymethods.·Infact,itispossibletointerpretmostofthephenomenainthetime-frequencyplanesusingrotordynamics.Forexample,shaftrubcausesbroadbandvibrationandwillresultinnearlyhorizontallinesinthephaseplanes.·Someoftheparagraphsaretoolong.8.Theconclusionshouldbeconciseandonlysummarizethemostimportantcontributionoftheresearch.Reviewer#2:Thispaperpresentstheresultsoftime-frequencyanalysisappliedtoatabletoprotatingmachinerytestrigunderasetoffaultconditions.Thetitleofthepaperisverymisleadingbecausenoautomatedmethodsforeitherfaultdetectionordiagnosis/isolationarediscussedinthepaper.Rather,underdifferentfaultscenarios,severaltime-frequencymethodsavailableintheliteratureareevaluatedfortheirabilitytogeneratevisuallydiscriminatingfeaturesassociatedwiththefaultconditions.Hence,thispaperprovidesacharacterizationoftime-frequencyfeaturesassociatedwithrotatingmachineryfaultsasopposedtothedevelopmentofanytypeoffaultdiagnosismethodology.Hence,thepapermustbejudgedsolelyonthequalityoftheexperimentation,thepresentationoftheresults,andhowthetime-frequencyfeaturesidentifiedinthevariousfaultcasesrelatestothedynamicaloperatingconditionsoftherig.Themainproblemwiththepaperisthatitisverypoorlywritten,andthismakestheevaluationandinterpretationofthemaincontributionsofthepaperobscure.  Thepaperrequiresacompleterewritetoimprovethegrammar,styleandreadability.Alsoconsider:Inequation(1)onpage2,whatdoesitmeanthath(t)iscenteredatt=0andf=0?h(t)isawindowingfunctioninthetimedomain!Whatisthepointofthesimulationexperiments,whatdotheyaddtowhatisalreadyknownaboutthetime-frequencytechniquesfromtheliterature?Sincetheonlycontributionofthepaperisthetime-frequencyanalysis,theresultsofthesecomputationsneedtobeexplainedindetailinthetextandthegraphicalresultsneedtobeproperlyannotatedsothatreaderscancomprehendandunderstandwhichdistinguishingfeaturesareassociatedwiththefaults.Currently,thegraphicalresultsarepoorlydisplayedanditisdifficulttocorrelatethefigureswiththetext.一个回复的例子(已接收)Majorcomments:    1.TheauthorsneedtostrengthentheirresultsbyincludingMMPsecretion,andtran-matrigelmigrationbyapositivecontrolprogenitorcellpopulationi.e.enrichedhumanCD34cellsobtainedfrommobilizedPBL,sincethisisamoreclinicallyrelevantsourceofCD34cellswhichhasalsobeenshowntosecretebothMMP-9andMMP-2(ref.11).CD34enrichedcellsfromsteadystateperipheralbloodwhichalsosecreteMMPsarealsoofinterest.    2.Infig1CpleasespecifywhichcelllinerepresentsMMP-negativecells.Thisneedstobeclarified,aswellasabetterexplanationofthemethodoftheprotocol.    3.TheELISAresultsarerepresentedas"foldincrease"comparedtocontrol.Instead,wesuggestthatstandardsshouldbeusedandresultsshouldbepresentedasabsoluteconcentrationsandonlythencantheseresultsbecomparedtothoseofthezymography.    4.Whendiscussingtheresults,theauthorsshoulddistinguishclearlybetweenspontaneousmigrationvschemotacticmigration.Furthermore,thehighspontaneousmigrationobtainedwithcordbloodCD34cellsshouldbecomparedtomobilizedPBLCD34enrichedcellsanddiscussed.    5.TheauthorsclaimthattheclonogenicassaywasperformedtodeterminetheoptimumconcentrationforinhibitionofMMPactivitybyphenanthrolineandantiMMP-9mAb,howevertheyshouldclarifythatthisassaycanonlydeterminethetoxicityoftheinhibitorsandnottheiroptimalinhibitoryconcentrations.Minorcomments:    1.Therearemanyspellingandsyntaxerrors,especiallyintheresultsanddiscussion,whichneedcorrection.    a.Ofspecialimportance,isthepercentinhibitionofmigration,whichisdescribedaspercentofmigration.i.e.pg7:"MigrationofCBCD34wasreducedto73.3%?"Insteadshouldread"MigrationofCBCD34wasreducedby73.3%?"    b.ThedegreesymbolneedstobeaddedtothenumbersinMaterialsandmethods.    2.Itwouldbepreferabletocombinefigure1AandB,inordertoconfirmthereliabilityoffig.1Bbyapositivecontrol(HT1080).Answertoreferee1comment:    1.MobilizedperipheralbloodisamoreclinicalsourceofCD34+cells,soitisnecessarytocomparetheMMP-9secretionandtrans-migrationabilityofCBCD34+cellswiththatofmobilizedPBCD34+cells.However,wecouldn'tobtainenoughmobilizedPBtoseparatePBCD34+cellsanddeterminetheMMP-9secretionandmigrationability,sowecouldn’tcomplementthestudyonPBCD34+cellsinthispaper.ResultsobtainedbyJanowska-WieczoreketalfoundthatmobilizedCD34+cellsinperipheralbloodexpressMMP-9.Furthermore,Domenech’sstudyshowedthatMMP-9secretionisinvolvedinG-CSFinducedHPCmobilization.Theirconclusionshavebeenaddedinthediscussion.Inourpresentstudy,ourcentralconclusionfromourdataisthatfreshlyisolatedCD34+stem/progenitorcellsobtainedfromCBproduceMMP-9.    2.MMP-9negativecellusedinfig1CwasJurkatcell.Inzymographicanalysis,MMP-9wasnotdetectedinthemediumconditionedbyJurkatcell.ToexcludethatthecontaminatingcellsmayplayaroleintheobservedMMP-9production,wescreenedthemediaconditionedbydifferentproportionofCBmononuclearcellswithMMP-9negativecellsbyzymography.Thisresultmaybeconfusion.Actually,onlybydetectingthemediumconditionedby2X105CBmononuclearcells(MNC)/ml(sincethepuritiesofCD34+cellaremorethan90%),itcouldexcludetheMNCrole.Intherevisedmanuscript,weonlydetectedMMP-9activityandantigenlevelinthemediumconditionedby2X105CBmononuclearcells(MNC)/ml.ThereisnoMMP-9secretionbedetectedinthemediumconditionedby2X105CBMNC/ml.ItexcludedthepossibilitythattheMMP-9activityinCBCD34+cellsconditionedmediumisduetothecontaminationbyMNC.    3.Inthisrevisedpaper,wehavedetectedtheMMP-9antigenlevelsbyusingcommercialspecificELISAkits(R&DSystem,sensitivity,0.156ng/ml).RecombinantMMP-9fromR&DSystemwasusedasastandard.Theresultsareexpressedintheabsoluteconcentration.Theabsoluteconcentrationresulthasbeenaddedinthepaper.AsshowninFig2,MMP-9levelsweredetectableinbothCBCD34+cellconditionedmediumandBMCD34+cellconditionedmedium.However,MMP-9levelwassignificantlyhigherinCBCD34+cellconditionedmediumthaninBMCD34+cellconditionedmedium(0.406±0.133ng/mlversus0.195±0.023ng/ml).AlthoughgelatinolyticactivitywasnotdetectedinmediaconditionedbyCD34+cellsfromBM,sensitivityofELISAfavorsthedetectionofMMP-9antigenintheBMCD34+.    4.Inourstudy,toestablishthedirectlinkbetweenMMP-9andCBCD34+cellsmigration,weonlydeterminedtheroleofMMP-9inspontaneousmigrationofCBCD34+cells,butnotinchemotacticmigration.Actually,regulationofhematopoieticstemcellmigration,homingandanchorageofrepopulationcellstothebonemarrowinvolvesacomplexinterplaybetweenadhesionmolecules,chemokines,cytokinesandproteolyticenzymes.ResultsobtainedbythegroupsofVoermansrevealthatnotonlythespontaneousmigrationbutalsotheSDF-1inducedmigrationofCBCD34+cellsisgreatlyincreasedincomparisontoCD34+cellsfromBMandperipheralblood.    5.CD34+cellsweobtainedineachcordbloodsamplewereverylimited.Itisnotenoughtoscreentheinhibitorsconcentrationstoselecttheoptimalinhibitoryconcentrations.Intheblockingexperiments,basedontheconcentrationsusedbyothersandthemanufacturer'srecommendation,wethendeterminedtheinhibitorsconcentrationsbyexcludingthetoxicityoftheinhibitorsinthatconcentration,whichwasdeterminedbyclonogenicassay.Minorcomments:1.Thespellingandsyntaxerrorshavebeencheckedandcorrected.2.Sincetheresultsinfigure1AandBwereobtainedfromtwoseparatedandparallelexperiments,itisnotfitnesstocombinetwofigures.这是我的一篇修稿回复，杂志是JBMR-A,影响因子3.652,已发表，供参考！ReplytothecommentsonJBMR-A-05-0172Comment:Reference#10ismissingfromtheIntroductionbutusedmuchlaterinthemanuscript.Shouldthesebeinorderusedinmanuscript?Reply:Themissingreferencehasbeenaddedintotherevisedmanuscript.Comment(continued):Whatisthesamplesizeforalltestsperformed?Reply:ThesamplesizefordrugreleaseandPCLdegradationtestswas3.0×3.0cm2,withathicknessofabout0.1mmandaweightofabout40mg.Thisdadahavebeenaddedintotherevisedmanuscript.Comment(continued):Figure7.ThereisnoscientificevidencepresentedintheTEMfiguretoconvincethisreviewerofsub-jets.ThisstatementonPage9cannotbemadewithoutclearevidenceduringthejetformation/separation.Figure7isjustalargefiberandsmallfiberfusedtogether,nootherconclusionthanthiscanbemade.Reply:Necessarychangeinthestatementshasbeenmadeintherevisedmanuscriptaswellasinthereferredfigureaccordingly.Comment(continued):Table3:Needstandarddeviationforallvaluesreportednotjustforaselectfew..EquationafterTable3notnecessary.Justreferencemethodused.Reply:Doneaccordingly.Comment(continued):Page11:"fasterweightloss"Whatwasthesamplesize?Whereisthestatisticalanalysisofthisdata?Thisreviewerdoesnotseeasignificantdifferenceinanyofthedatapresented,thusweightlosswouldbeconsideredequivalent.Reply:Althoughnottoomuchdifferencewasseen,theconclusionthat“theGS/PCLmembraneexhibitedarelativelyfasterweightlosscomparedwiththeRT/PCLmembrane”wasindeedapplicablethrough“one-wayanalysisofvariance(ANOVA)”analysis.Followingthereviewer’scomment,anewsub-sectionhasbeenaddedtothemanuscripttoaddressthestatisticalanalysisforthedata.Comment(continued):Page12:Whatisthesamplesizeforreleasedata?Lookslikeresultsbasedonasamplesizeofone?NeedstanddeviationsonthedatapresentedinFigure11.Whywasn'treleaseperformedandcomparedforallelectrospunconditionsinvestigatedotherwise?Reply:Threerepeatedtestswereperformedforeachsetofmeasurementsandtheresultingdatawereaveraged.Asstatedintherevised3cm2withaslightlydifferent(manuscript,eachsamplehadasquareareaof3thickness.StandarddeviationshavebeenaddedtothedatashowninFig.11.Thepresentmanuscriptaimedtoshowthatmedicaldrugscanbeencapsulatedinultrafinefibersthroughaco-axialelectrospinningprocess.Thedrugreleasedataintendedtoshowthattheencapsulationwassuccessful.Wedidnotconsideranyspecificapplicationinthispreliminarypaper,andinfactthetwodrugswerejustchosenasmodelillustration.Assuch,thereseemednotnecessarytoperformreleaseexperimentsforallofthemembraneselectrospunwithdifferentconditions(i.e.thecoreconcentrations)Comment(continued):Table3:Yang'sorYoung'sModulus(page10saysYoung's).Reply:Correctedaccordingly.Comment(continued):Figure11:Whatisthe%release,notjustconcentration.Whyjustthissmallsampleofreleasedata?Whereisthereleasedatafortheotherconditions?Reply:Unfortunately,wedidnotmeasuretheamountoftheshellmaterialinobtainingthecompositenanofibers.Namely,theflowrateoftheshellsolutionduringtheelectrospinningwasnotaccuratelycontrolledusinganinjectingpump.Hencethe%releasewasnotapplicable.PleaserefertothepreviousreplyrelatedtoPage12andFigure11fortheremainingcomments.Weacknowledgethereviewer’scommentsandsuggestionsverymuch,whicharevaluableinimprovingthequalityofourmanuscript