如何回复审稿人意见？来看真实的回复示例！

2024-05-06 来源：医咖会

当我们收到审稿人意见时，有的可以修改，有的没有办法修改，不论是何种情况，我们都需要回复每条意见。该如何回复比较好呢，小咖参考2023年发表的一篇文章，为大家准备了一些回复示例，供你参考~

示例1[1]：

审稿人意见：三个月的检测-重测时间太长了，需要作为结果偏低的原因来加以处理。

作者回复：审稿人指出检测-重测时间过长，这是正确的，因此我们从手稿中删除了这一分析。删除了这项分析，也表明所使用的唯一数据是基线数据，不会受干预措施的影响。

[The reviewer is correct that the test-retest period is too long, and we removed this analysis from the manuscript. Removing this analysis also clarified that the only data used are baseline and not affected by the intervention.]

示例2[2]：

审稿人意见：对于明显小样本（n=19）的等级量表数据，请说明用参数检验的理由。

作者回复：审稿人可能未看到论文中的一些表述，即我们同时进行了非参数检验和参数检验，结果是相同的。因为结果相同，我们就报告了参数检验的结果（包括均值和标准差），对于很多读者来说，相比Wilcoxon秩和检验，参数检验更易于理解。参数检验已广泛用于护理、心理学、公共卫生及其他使用等级量表数据的文献（注：此回复未修改手稿）。

[The reviewer may have overlooked our statement in the paper that we ran nonparametric and parametric tests, and the results were the same (i.e., significant changes). Because the results were the same, we reported the parametric, which includes the mean and SD, which are easier for a reader to understand, vs. the nonparametric Wilcoxon ranks. Although parametric statistics are used with only interval data in the most conservative approach, parametric statistics are used extensively in nursing, psychology, public health, and other research literature with ordinal scale data. (Note: No manuscript revisions were needed with this response)]

示例3[3]：

审稿人意见：第2页第21-41行，提供最新统计数据将更具相关性和说服力，如果这些是最新的统计数字，那么应该加以说明，这种及时性信息的缺失，会促进对该领域进行更多的研究。能否从第3页第53行至第4页第9行的参考文献中获取更多最新统计数据。

作者回复：感谢您注意到一些参考文献的发表日期。【xxx】是一篇具有重大意义的文章，包含了健康素养专家广泛采用的定义。【xxx】首次对成人健康素养进行了大规模的全国性评估，这项研究以建立健康素养基线而闻名，可用于评估未来此领域的进展。为强调这一点，我们对手稿进行了编辑。感谢您要求进一步澄清，这有助于我们完善手稿。【xxx】等研究是单中心研究，采取的干预措施改善了病情复杂儿童的结局，但未纳入健康素养相关变量（注：这里的xxx均是具体的参考文献，xxx仅是代称）。

[Thank you for noting the age of some of our references. REF is a seminal article that includes the definition of health literacy experts have widely adopted. The study by REF is seminal, as it is the first large-scale national assessment of adult health literacy. This study is known for having established a much-needed baseline of health literacy at the time, which can be used to assess future progress in health literacy. The manuscript was edited to underscore this point. Thank you for asking for further clarification, which helps to strengthen the manuscript. Studies by REF are single-center studies whose interventions have improved children with medical complexity health outcomes but do not include the variable of health literacy