Question

投SCI杂志，审稿修回意见求助

Answer 1

以下是针对SCI杂志审稿修回意见的的一些建议：
1. 如果审稿人给出的意见与文章无关，或者是自己的结果正确，审稿人给出了错误的判断，可以写邮件据理力争，但是要注意态度，记住“审稿人总是对的”。如果是有道理的审稿意见，应该认真修改回馈。
2. 如果审稿人给出的建议正确，作者要积极的修改。审稿人和你是同一个领域，研究的是同一个问题，可以有理由说明你的结果有误。这时作者要以善意理解审稿人，对审稿人表示感谢，并在给出的修改期限内，积极修改自己的SCI论文，最终得出正确的论文结果，以利于论文更快的被录用。
3. 如果审稿人说结果有误，这个建议过于尖刻刺耳，作者应该以谦虚的态度接受审稿人的意见，并逐条修改论文。
4. 如果觉得没有必要补实验，需要给出自己的理由，最好罗列一些证据，或者引用其它文献来支撑自己的观点。
5. 或者是可以提交实验原始数据，来证明自己的结果正确性。
以上是针对SCI杂志审稿修回意见的一些建议，希望对你有帮助。

Answer 2

1 To revise your manuscript, log into and enter your Author Center, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.
意思是点击Create a Revision,然后上传修改稿?

2 You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or colored text.
意思是用word修改模式?但是他要求全文给英语母语的医学人士修改,这样的话就是我修改留修改痕迹,我找个老外修全文也要留修改痕迹,是所有的修改痕迹都要留到稿上????

3 IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.
意思是如果修改稿提交后,把原来的初稿撤掉.

4 If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.
它在系统显示"大修"给了90天时间,最近有点忙,能否在90天以内交回修改稿,就可以吗?

5 Please, put subheadings for each section for □eta-Analysis outcome□ instead of for example, □(2) Tumor response (Table 4)□ use Tumor Response. You then should reference the relevant table in the body of the results not in the subheadings.
意思是把Tumor response (Table 4)改为Tumor Response?然后把(Table 4)□放在文章里?

6 Take out all references to subgroup A and B (text and figures/ Just mention the p-values in the text and mention that you used fixed models in the statistical section.). These are relatively low sample sizes with a very heterogeneous group of patients and treatments. The authors would need to do some complex statistical modeling to demonstrate that the number of TACE rounds and not other factors account for the differences. It also lengthens and already long paper and dilutes the main message. Also it is not consistent, which groups does better making it very confusing for readers and clinicians to abstract anything meaningful.