SCI 审稿意见回复范文

...论文 题 快递公司问题件快递公司问题件货款处理关于圆的周长面积重点题型关于解方程组的题及答案关于南海问题 目：PharmacokineticandpharmacodynamicstudiesontheantiviruseffectsofA(一种中草药)againstvirusB（一种病毒）所投杂志：LifeSciences投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表编辑信内容（注：有删节）：DearMr.XXX,Yourmanuscripthasbeenexaminedbytheeditorsandqualifiedreferee.WethinkthemanuscripthasmeritbutrequiresrevisionbeforewecanacceptitforpublicationintheJournal.Carefulconsiderationmustbegiventothepointsraisedinthereviewercomments,whichareenclosedbelow.Ifyouchoosetosubmitarevisionofyourmanuscript,pleaseincorporateresponsestothereviewercommentsintotherevisedpaper.Acompleterebuttalwithnomanuscriptalterationsisusuallyconsideredinadequateandmayresultinlengthyre-reviewprocedures.Aletterdetailingyourrevisionspoint-by-pointmustaccompanytheresubmission.YouwillberequestedtouploadthisResponsetoReviewersasaseparatefileintheAttachFilesarea.Weaskthatyouresubmityourmanuscriptwithin45days.Afterthistime,yourfilewillbeplacedoninactivestatusandafurthersubmissionwillbeconsideredanewmanuscript.Tosubmitarevision,gotohttp://ees.elsevier.com/lfs/andloginasanAuthor.YouwillseeamenuitemcalledSubmissionNeedingRevision.Youwillfindyoursubmissionrecordthere.Yourssincerely,JosephJ.Bahl,PhDEditorLifeSciencesFormatSuggestion:PleaseaccesstheGuidetoAuthorsatourwebsitetochecktheformatofyourarticle.PayparticularattentiontoourReferencesstyle.Reviewers'comments:Reviewer#1:XXXXX（略）Reviewer#2:XXXXX（略）Editorsnoteandsuggestions:（注：编辑的建议）Title:Re-writethetitletoreadmoresmoothlyincontemporaryEnglish>>>PharmacokineticandpharmacodynamicstudiesoftheantiviraleffectsofAagainstvirusB.Abstract:Re-writetheabstracttoreadmoresmoothly.A,analkaloidisolatedfromC(注：一种中草药),wastestedforantiviralactivityagainstvirusB.BothinvitroandinvivoassaysalongwithserumpharmacologicalexperimentsshowedAtohavepotentantiviralactivity.ThepharmacokineticprofileofAinSprague/DawleyratplasmaafteroraladministrationwasmeasuredbyHPLC.Bloodsamplestakenatselectedtimepointswereanalyzedtostudypotentialchangesinantiviralpharmacodynamicsasmeasuredbyinfectivityofviruses.FromthesimilarityoftheserumconcentrationprofilesandantiviralactivityprofilesitisconcludedthatAitself,ratherthanametabolite,exertedtheeffectagainsttheviruspriortobioinactivation.TheneedforeffectiveclinicalagentsagainstvirusBandtheseresultssuggestthepossibilityofbenefitfromfurtherexperimentswithA.Theauthorsshouldchecktobesurethatthetermsbloodsamples,plasmaandserumarealwaysusedappropriatelythroughouttheabstractandtext.Introduction:somesentencescanbemadelesspassive.example1stparagraph>>>>Aappearstobethemostimportantalkaloidisolatedfromtheplant,itsstructuralformulaisshowninFig1....Whileitproducedageneralinhibitionofantibodyproductionlymphocyteproliferationwasstimulated(XiaandWang,1997).ThesepharmacologicalpropertiessuggestapotentialuseinthetreatmentofviralmyocarditisagainstvirusBthatcouldbestudiedinexperimentsincellcultureandanimals.>>>Theauthorsshouldchecktheentiremanuscriptforspellingerrors(examplegiven:inyourtextalkaloidisincorrectlyspelledalkaloid)>>>Theauthorsshouldreadtheguidelinestotheauthorsandnotincludethefirstnameoftheauthorsbeingcitedinthetext.Inthereferencesectionthefirstnameshouldbeabbreviatedasshownintheguidelinetoauthors(thustheearliertextreferenceshouldbe(Liuetal.,2003)andtheremainingoneshouldbe(Chenetal.,2002)>>>>>Theauthorsinsteadofdirectlyansweringthefirstcomplexquestionofreviewer#1mayincludethethreequestionsasfutureresearchaiminthediscussionsection.>>>>>>Ratherthanredrawingfiguretheauthorsmaychoosetoamendthewordingofthestatisticalanalysissectiontostatethattheresultoftablesaremeans+-SEMandforfiguresare+-SD.>>>>>reviewer#1commentnumber8andreviewer#2comment3mightbesatisfiedbyinclusionofarepresentativephotoofcellsandheartshowingCPE.Remembermostreadersofthejournalhaveneverseenwhatyouaretryingtodescribe.BecauseIthinkthatyoucandealwithallofthepointsraisedIamhopingtoseearevisedmanuscriptthatyouhavecarefullycheckedforerrors.Ifyouhavequestionsordonotknowhowtorespondtoanyofthepointsraisedpleasecontactmeatbahl@u.arizona.eduJosephBahl,PhDEditor2LifeSciences作者回复信原稿：DearDr.Bahl,I’m（注：正式信函不要简写）veryappreciate（注：不适合作为给编辑回信的开始，同时有语法错误）foryourcommentsandsuggestions.I（注：实际上是学生做的）haveconductedinvivoantivirusexperimentsagain（注：要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作）.Miceweresacrificedon15daysand30daysafterinfection.Deathrate,heartweighttobodyweightratio(HW/BW),virustitersandpathologicslices（注：用词错误）werecalculated（注：用词不当）.ProductionofmRNAofIL-10,IFN-γandTNF-αwere（注：语法错误）measuredbyRT-PCR.Ihaverevisedthismanuscriptandespeciallypaidmuchattentiontoyourcommentsandsuggestions.Iwouldliketore-submitittoLIFESCIENCE.Titleofmanuscripthasbeenchangedto“TheantiviruseffectsofAagainstvirusBanditspharmacokineticbehaviourinSDratsserum”tomakeitmoreclearandsmooth.AnswerstoReviewers’questionswereasfollows:（注：可附在给编辑的回复信后）Reviewer#1:XXXXXReviewer#2:XXXXXEditorsnoteandsuggestions:Title:Re-writethetitletoreadmoresmoothlyincontemporaryEnglishAnswer:Ihaverewritethetitleto“TheantiviruseffectsofAagainstvirusBanditspharmacokineticbehaviourinSDratsserum”tomakeitmoreclearandsmooth（注：多处语法错误）.Abstract:Re-writetheabstracttoreadmoresmoothly.Answer:Ihaverevisetheabstractcarefullytomakeitmoresmoothandinformative（注：语法错误）.Theauthorsshouldchecktobesurethatthetermsbloodsamples,plasmaandserumarealwaysusedappropriatelythroughouttheabstractandtext.Answer:Ihavepaidattentiontothisquestionanditisclearer（注：不具体）.Introduction:somesentencescanbemadelesspassive.Answer:IhaverevisethewholepapertomakesentenceslesspassiveandobtainedhelpofmycolleagueproficientinEnglish（注：语法错误， 句子 关于阅读的唯美句子关于古风的唯美句子执行力的经典句子鼓励人努力奋斗的句子用沉默代替一切的句子 不通顺）.TheauthorsshouldchecktheentiremanuscriptforspellingerrorsAnswer:I’mverysorrytogiveyousomuchtroubleforthosespellingerrors（注：不必道歉，按建议修改即可）.Ihavecarefullycorrectedthem.Theauthorsshouldreadtheguidelinestotheauthorsandnotincludethefirstnameoftheauthorsbeingcitedinthetext.Inthereferencesectionthefirstnameshouldbeabbreviatedasshownintheguidelinetoauthors(thustheearliertextreferenceshouldbe(Liuetal.,2003)andtheremainingoneshouldbe(Chenetal.,2002)Answer:Ichangedthestyleofreferences.Ratherthanredrawingfiguretheauthorsmaychoosetoamendthewordingofthestatisticalanalysissectiontostatethattheresultoftablesaremeans+-SEMandforfiguresare+-SD.Answer:（注：作者请编辑公司帮回答）reviewer#1commentnumber8andreviewer#2comment3mightbesatisfiedbyinclusionofarepresentativephotoofcellsandheartshowingCPE.Remember:mostreadersofthejournalhaveneverseenwhatyouaretryingtodescribe.Answer:Thankyouforyoursuggestions.Ihavesupplementedpicturesofcardiacpathologicslicesinthepaper(Fig2).Ihavetoapologizeforgivingyousomuchtroublebecauseofthosemisspellingandconfusingstatements（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）.Yourcommentsandsuggestionsreallyhelpedmealot.Ihaveputgreateffortstothisreview.Iwishitcanbesatisfactory.Ifthere’s（注：正式信函不要简写）anyinformationIcanprovide,pleasedon’thesitatetocontactme.Thankyouagainforyourtimeandpatience.Lookforwardtohear（注：语法错误）fromyou.YoursSincerelyXxxxXxxx(通讯作者名)建议修改稿：DearDr.Bahl,Thanksyouverymuchforyourcommentsandsuggestions.Assuggested,wehaveconductedinvivoantivirusexperiments.Miceweresacrificedon15daysand30daysafterinfectionwithvirusB.Mortality,heartweighttobodyweightratio(HW/BW),virustitersandpathologicscoresweredetermined.Inaddition,mRNAexpressionofIL-10,IFN-γandTNF-αweremeasuredbyRT-PCR.Wehaverevisedthemanuscript,accordingtothecommentsandsuggestionsofreviewersandeditor,andresponded,pointbypointto,thecommentsaslistedbelow.Sincethepaperhasbeenrevisedsignificantlythroughoutthetext,wefeelitisbetternottohighlighttheamendmentsintherevisedmanuscript（正常情况最好表明修改处）.TherevisedmanuscripthasbeeneditedandproofreadbyamedicaleditingcompanyinHongKong.Iwouldliketore-submitthisrevisedmanuscripttoLifeSciences,andhopeitisacceptableforpublicationinthejournal.Lookingforwardtohearingfromyousoon.Withkindestregards,YoursSincerelyXxxxXxxx(通讯作者名)RepliestoReviewersandEditorFirstofall,wethankbothreviewersandeditorfortheirpositiveandconstructivecommentsandsuggestions.RepliestoReviewer#1:Xxxxx（略）RepliestoReviewer#2:Xxxxx（略）RepliestotheEditorsnoteandsuggestions:Title:Re-writethetitletoreadmoresmoothlyincontmeporaryEnglishAnswer:Ihaverewritethetitleto“TheantiviruseffectsofSophoridineagainstCoxsackievirusB3anditspharmacokineticsinrats”tomakeitmoreclearandreadmoresmoothly.Abstract:Re-writetheabstracttoreadmoresmoothly.Answer:Ihaverewrittentheabstracttomakeitmoreinformativeandreadmoresmoothly.Theauthorsshouldchecktobesurethatthetermsbloodsamples,plasmaandserumarealwaysusedappropriatelythroughouttheabstractandtext.Answer:Ihavepaidattentiontothisissue,andtheyarenowusedappropriatelythroughouttheabstractandtextintherevisedmanuscript.Introduction:somesentencescanbemadelesspassive.Answer:Ihaverevisedthewholepapertomakesentenceslesspassivewiththehelpoftheeditingcompany.TheauthorsshouldchecktheentiremanuscriptforspellingerrorsAnswer:Thishasbeendonebyusaswellastheeditingcompany.Theauthorsshouldreadtheguidelinestotheauthorsandnotincludethefirstnameoftheauthorsbeingcitedinthetext.Inthereferencesectionthefirstnameshouldbeabbreviatedasshownintheguidelinetoauthors(thustheearliertextreferenceshouldbe(Liuetal.,2003)andtheremainingoneshouldbe(Chenetal.,2002)Answer:Ihavechangedthestyleofreferencesaccordingtothejournal.Ratherthanredrawingfiguretheauthorsmaychoosetoamentthewordingofthestatisticalanalysissectiontostatethattheresultoftablesaremeans+-SEMandforfiguresare+-SD.Answer:SDhasbeenusedthroughoutthetext,andshownintheFigs.3and4intherevisedmanuscript.reviewer#1commentnumber8andreviewer#2comment3mightbesatifiedbyinclusionofarepresentativephotoofcellsandheartshowingCPE.Remember:mostreadersofthejournalhaveneverseenwhatyouaretryingtodescribe.Answer:Thankyouverymuchforthesuggestion.Ihaveaddedpicturesofcardiacpathologicchangesintherevisedmanuscript(Fig.2).论文题目：ClinicalimplicationsofXXXX(一种病理指标)inXcancer所投杂志：BMCCancer.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'sreportClinicalimplicationsofXXXX(一种病理指标)inXcancerVersion:1Date:12June200XReviewer:XXXXXXXX(AJapaneseReviewer)Reviewer'sreport:General-------------------------------------------------------------------------------MajorCompulsoryRevisions(thattheauthormustrespondtobeforeadecisiononpublicationcanbereached)1.XXXXX.2.XXXXX.3.XXXXX.4)TheclinicopathologicalparametersexaminedarereportedinTable1.Amongtheprimarytumorcharacteristics,theAuthorsconsiderthediameter,butignoreTstage.ConsequentlytheTparameterisnotconsideredinthemultivariateanalysis.Inotherstudies,Tstagehasemergedasanindependentfactor.TheAuthorsshouldthereforestatethereasonfortheirunusualchoice.Noristhenumberofmetastaticnodesreportedinthistable.Moreover,fortumordifferentiation,theAuthorsdistinguishbetweentwogroups(differentiatedvsundifferentiated),insteadofbetweentheusual3categories(G1,G2andG3).IhaveneverheardofthehistologicalclassificationusedbytheAuthors(massive,nextanddiffuse).Theymightthereforestatetheirreasonsforchoosingit,providingareference,ifavailable.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------MinorEssentialRevisions(suchasmissinglabelsonfigures,orthewronguseofaterm,whichtheauthorcanbetrustedtocorrect)XXXXX.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------DiscretionaryRevisions(whichtheauthorcanchoosetoignore)(None)Whatnext?:RejectbecausetoosmallanadvancetopublishLevelofinterest:AnarticleoflimitedinterestQualityofwrittenEnglish:Needssomelanguagecorrectionsbeforebeingpublished[b]Statisticalreview:Yes,butIdonotfeeladequatelyqualifiedtoassessthestatistics.作者原答:Tstageisconsideredinthemultivariateanalysis,andsomemodificationhasbeenmadeintumordifferentiationandhistologicalclassification.建议改答：WeacceptDr.XXXcomment(表明你对审稿人的欣赏和赞同).Intherevisedversionofthemanuscript,Tstagehasbeenaddedinthemultivariateanalysis,anddescriptionoftumordifferentiationandhistologicalclassificationhasbeenmodified;thehistologicalclassificationintheoriginalmanuscripthasbeenreplacedbythegenerallyacceptedclassification(Page6,line15;Table4)(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。论文题目：MisdiagnosisofA(一种先天性疾病)as某某tumor:acasereport所投杂志：Neuro-Ophthalmology投稿结果：大修，结果未知（前途未卜，因为该审稿人建议拒稿，但审稿人给作者机会）审稿人审稿内容及作者原答和建议改答（有删节）：Reviewer2'sreport审稿人问题1Theauthorstrytocautioneyespecialistsandneurosurgeonsnottodomajororbitalsurgeryonchildrenwithoutdoingadilatedfundusexaminationwithanindirectophthalmoscope.Intheircase,oncethecorrectdiagnosiswasmade,byproperlyexaminingtheeye,surgerywasnotnecessary.Athoroughpre-operativeexaminationoftheeyeshouldbeaautomaticprerequisitetoorbitalsurgeryforpoorvision,soIdonotthinktheirpaperpresentsauniqueidea.作者原答Answer:Althoughcorrectdiagnosiscanbemadebythoroughexaminations,doctorsareoftenmisleadedbya“wrong”chiefcomplaint（wrong可能表示主诉症状本身误导，也可能表示病人说错，也可能是收诊医生 记录 混凝土 养护记录下载土方回填监理旁站记录免费下载集备记录下载集备记录下载集备记录下载 错误）.Inourcase,theretinalspecialistwhomadeamisdiagnosisatfirst（atfirst用词不当）,wasmisleadedby“blurredvisioninthelefteyeoveramonth”anddidnotpayenoughattentiontodifferentiateacongenitaldiseasefrom“tumor”（需说明两者关联）.In（On）theotherhand,itisalsotheresultoftoomanypatientswehavetomanageperworkingday(mostlargehospital（hospitals）inChinais(are)onthisoccasion)anddoctorsinoutpatientclinichavenotmuchtimetoperformthoroughophthalmicexamination(不应太绝对).So,theclinicalmisdiagnosisisnotcompleteoccasionalevent.Wecouldlearnalotfromthiscase.建议改答Answer:Weagreewiththerefereethatcorrectdiagnosiscanbemadebyproperandthoroughexaminations（首先肯定审稿人的观点tomakehim/herhappy）.However,doctorsareoftenmisledbyan“atypical”（比wrong要具体且客观）chiefcomplaint,especiallywhentherearetoomanypatientsinanoutpatientsdepartmentsuchasinaChineseophthalmichospital（这句点出误诊原因，下面再逐一解释）.Inourcase,boththeretinalspecialistandorbitalspecialistwhomadetheinitialmisdiagnosis,weremisledbythesymptomof“blurredvisioninthelefteyeoveramonth”,whichischaracteristicofan“acquireddisease”,andthushedidnotpayenoughattentiontodifferentiateacongenitaldiseasefroma“tumor”（指出没有想到先天性疾病的原因1）.Ontheotherhand,likemostlargehospitalsinChina,doctorsintheOutpatientDepartmenthavetomanageuptoX(number)patientsweperworkingdayandthussomemayhavelittletimetofollowthe“goodclinicalpractice”andperformthoroughophthalmicexaminations（误诊原因2）.Consequently,themisdiagnosisinevitablyoccurred.Thiscasereportpresentsthelesionandreiteratetheimportanceofthoroughophthalmicexaminationspriortoanysurgery（这句表明为什么该病例 报告 软件系统测试报告下载sgs报告如何下载关于路面塌陷情况报告535n,sgs报告怎么下载竣工报告下载 值得发表）.审稿人问题2Theyhaveaninterestingcase,andacasereportreviewingthesubjectmightbeofvalue,butIthinktheymayhavetobesatisfiedthattheypracticedgoodmedicineandsavedachildfromanunnecessaryoperation,butthatitdidnotmeritpublication.作者原答Answer:Theinitiallymisdiagnosiswasmadebyourtwospecialists(oneisaretinalspecialistandtheotherorbital)（词句的意义不明）.Moreover,thereasonsforthemisdiagnosishavebeendiscussedinourcasereport,whichwouldbeusefulforotherdoctors,especiallyforresidentstoavoidthesamemistake(说服力比较弱).And（正规书信和论文不宜用And开句）webelieveourradiologyimagesinourcasewillcontributetoabetterunderstandingofthiscondition(说服力比较弱).建议改答Answer:Wedidfeelrelievedandsatisfiedwhentheunnecessarysurgerywasavoided（正面回应审稿人的肯定意见）.However,thefactthatinitialmisdiagnosiswasmadebytwoexperiencedbutbusyspecialists(oneisaretinalspecialistandtheotherorbital),cannotbeignoredinourclinicalpractice（表明我们不能因为我们避免了不必要的手术而自满）.Wefeelthatitwouldbebeneficialtoreportthecaseandshareourexperienceorlesionwithotherdoctors,inordertoavoidorminimizethesamemistake（因此，我们希望发表该病例报告已警示同行）.Inaddition,webelievethattheradiologyimagesfromouruniquecasewillcontributetoabetterunderstandingofthiscongenitaldisease（虽不重要，但也许编辑喜欢）.加注：1.该文的特色是一审稿人觉得本病例报告不值得发表，但编辑愿意给作者rebuttal的机会。其实，该审稿人的评语总体来讲是不错的。但令人不解的是，每条评语最后一句得出跟前面截然不同的结论。可能他/她并不是“大牛”，不太能掌握病例报告发表的 标准 excel标准偏差excel标准偏差函数exl标准差函数国标检验抽样标准表免费下载红头文件格式标准下载 。2.作者的回答总体还是非常好的，只是语气稍欠委婉，理据说服力需更进一步加强。论文题目：ProphylacticNSAIDsuseinpost-ERCPpancreatitis所投杂志：Gut结果：编辑直接拒稿，作者重新修改并申诉，申诉成功，直接接受。编辑信内容（有删节）：GUT/2008/156323ProphylacticNSAIDsuseinpost-ERCPpancreatitisAuthors’names（略）DearXXX,ThankyouforsubmittingthismanuscripttoGut,whichwasdiscussedatthelastEditorialCommitteemeeting.Wearesorrytosaythatweareunabletoacceptitforpublication,asitdidnotachieveahighenoughpriorityscoretoenableittobepublishedinGut.Wefavourletterswhichaddnewdataanddidnotfeelthatyouletterdidthissufficiently.PleaserememberthatGutreceivesabouteighttimesasmanymanuscriptsasweareabletopublish,thereforeregrettablyitfollowsthatmanyperfectlyadequatepapersmustberejected.Thisdecisionmustbebasednotonlyonquality,butalsotimelinessandpriorityagainstothersubjectareas.Formoredetails,pleasegoto:http://submit-gut.bmj.comenteryouAuthorAreaandclickonthe'Manuscriptswithdecisions'queue.Wearesorrytodisappointyouonthisoccasion.Withkindregards.ProfessorRobinSpillerHandlingEditorProfessorRobinSpillerEditor作者申诉信原文：Deareditors,Thanksforyourkindlyhelpinourpreviousmanuscripts(GUT/2008/156323andGUT/2008/156711).Thedecisionoftheeditorialboardwasalittledisappointedtome.Wehaddiscussedthetopicagainandrewritethemanuscriptaccordingtothesuggestionsoftheeditorialboard.WealsoinvitedourfriendHarryHua-XiangXiaforinsightfuleditingthepaper.AlthoughElmunzeretal.concludedthatrectaladministrationofNSAIDsiseffectiveinpreventingPEP(theseresultsareofsignificantclinicalimplications),severalissuesremainunsolved.Forexample,doriskfactorsinfluencetheprophylacticeffect?So,weperformedacomplimentarymeta-analysisbasedonthemethodologyandthesourcearticlesidenticaltothoseusedbyElmunzeretal.Also,itmustemphasizedthattherewereseverallimitationsofthebothmeta-analysesincludingsmallsamplesizes(forbothsubjectsandstudies),inconsistentdefinitionofPEP,andlessrepresentativepopulations.Webelievetheissuesraisedwillimprovethequalityofthemeta-analysis.Thanksforyourre-consideration.Onbehalfofmyco-authors,Iamsubmittingtheenclosedmaterial“RectalAdministrationofNSAIDsinthePreventionofPost-ERCPPancreatitis:aComplimentaryMeta-analysis”forpossiblepublicationinGUT.IhavereadmostofthepapersthatthejournalhadpublishedandIbelieveourresearchtobeinaccordancewiththestyleoftheJOURNAL.Wehavereviewedthefinalversionofthemanuscriptandapproveditforpublication.Tothebestofourknowledgeandbelief,thismanuscriptneitherhasbeenpublishedinwholeorinpartnorisitbeingconsideredforpublicationelsewhere.Westatethatthereisnoconflictofinterestandethicaladherenceinthisstudy.BestRegards,Authors’namesandaffiliations（略）作者申诉信建议修改文：DearProfessorSpiller（在已知编辑姓氏和职称时请不要再泛称editor,以示尊重）ThanksforyourletterinresponsetoourprevioussubmissionofLettertoEditor(GUT/2008/156323)（事实上，编辑并没有帮助，而是回复）.ThedecisionoftheEditorialBoardmightbebecausethatwedidnotmakeitclearthatthelettersupportstheoverallconclusionoftheElmunzeretal.,butprovidesadditionalanalysisandpointsouttheweaknessesofthemeta-analysis.WefurtherdiscussedthetopicagainandhavemodifiedtheLetteraccordingtoyourletters.Inaddition,wealsoinvitedDr.HarryHua-XiangXia,whoisaninternationallyrecognizedgastroenterologist,tojointheauthorshipteamandmakecommentsandeditthemanuscript.（这一段非常重要。陈述失望心情于事无补。相反，应说明由作者引起的可能导致论文被拒的原因（很多作者论文被拒后归咎于审稿人或编辑不理解论文的价值），并再次强调论文的价值所在。加上本人为作者也许对论文被接收有一定作用，但关键还是在于强调论文本身的价值。）WebelievetheLetterispublishableforthefollowingreasons.First,althoughElmunzeretal.concludedthatrectaladministrationofNSAIDsiseffectiveinpreventingPEP,whichisofsignificantclinicalimplications,severalissuesremainunsolved.Forexample,doriskfactorsinfluencetheprophylacticeffect?So,weperformedacomplimentarymeta-analysisbasedonthemethodologyandthesourcearticlesidenticaltothoseusedbyElmunzeretal.WefurtherrevealedthatadministrationofNSAIDswasassociatedwithdecreasedincidenceofPEPinpatientswithlow(RR=0.29,95%CI:0.12-0.71,P=0.006)andhighrisks(RR=0.40,95%CI:0.23~0.72,P=0.002).Second,therewereseverallimitationsofthemeta-analysesoriginatedfromthesourcearticles.Theseincludesmallsamplesizes(forbothsubjectsandstudies),inconsistentdefinitionofPEP,andlessrepresentativepopulations.TheselimitationsshouldbemoreclearlyacknowledgedinthepaperbyElmunzeretal.（这一段是核心。能否说服编辑在此一博。原信缺乏数据，而且稍欠层次和说服力）。Therefore,wewishtore-submitthefurtherrevisedversionforyourre-consideration.（原信有三段与本申诉无关，建议删掉）。Withbestregards,Yourssincerely,Authors’namesandaffiliations（略）加注：1.该文的特色是编辑委员会