登录
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.