花了很多時間和金錢做出來的實驗數(shù)據(jù)，投稿之后，審稿人說要讓補充實驗，雖然很難以接受，但是又不能眼看著到手的接收函飛了，如果審稿人要求了補充實驗，最好還是去做這個實驗，然后補充一些數(shù)據(jù)。

　　如果客觀條件就是沒有辦法及時補充實驗，直接回復(fù)審稿人不能補充，那八成會被拒稿。這種情況下也不要捉急，在返修時可以真誠的告訴審稿人，當(dāng)時沒有做這個實驗的原因，同時現(xiàn)在因為條件限制做不了實驗，或者向?qū)徃迦苏f明白自己認(rèn)為不需要做這個實驗的原因都是可以的。

　　回復(fù)模板都給大家準(zhǔn)備好啦

　　我常用的回復(fù)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)

　　....

　　引用審稿人推薦的文獻(xiàn)的確是很重要的，要想辦法和自己的文章有機地結(jié)合起

　　來。

　　至于實驗大部分都可以不用補做，關(guān)鍵是你要讓審稿人明白你的文章的重點是什

　　么，這個實驗對你要強調(diào)的重點內(nèi)容不是很必要，或者你現(xiàn)在所用的方法已經(jīng)可

　　以達(dá)到目的就行了。

　　最后要注意，審稿人也會犯錯誤，不僅僅是筆誤也有專業(yè)知識上的錯誤，因為編

　　輯找的審稿人未必是你這個領(lǐng)域的專家。只要自己是正確的就要堅持。在回復(fù)中

　　委婉地表達(dá)一下你的意見，不過要注意商討語氣哦!

　　我得回復(fù)格式是這樣的：

　　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，基本上囑條回答，寫的越多越好(老師語)。結(jié)果修改一次就

　　接收了：)

　　我的回復(fù)，請老外幫忙修改了

　　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,

　　***

　　一個回復(fù)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.

　　回復(fù)審稿人的時候還要注意2個原則：

　　1、就算審稿人意見有點沒道理，也要禮貌的回復(fù)，態(tài)度盡量不要強硬;

　　2、即便真的有些審稿意見不合理，可以提出自己的想法，找一些證據(jù)來證明自己的合理性。

　　回復(fù)審稿人一定要真誠、有禮貌，審稿人的每個意見都要一一回復(fù)，實在沒辦法補充實驗，就真誠的說出自己的難處，也要表示對審稿意見的肯定，然后表明自己今后會繼續(xù)研究的決心，不過如果是高分期刊，這一招可能不太好使，讓補充還是要乖乖補充實驗的~

如果您現(xiàn)在遇到期刊選擇、論文內(nèi)容改善、論文投稿周期長、難錄用、多次退修、多次被拒等問題，可以告訴學(xué)術(shù)顧問，解答疑問同時給出解決方案 。