http://0202liuyan.blog.163.com/blog/static/1425830562012526102743155/

Manuscript number: BXXXXXK
MS Type: Article
Title: "XXXX"
Correspondence Author: XXX
Dear Dr. Fay Riordan:
Thank you very much for your attention and the referee’s evaluation and comments on our paper BXXXXK. We have revised the manuscript according to your kind advices and referee’s detailed suggestions. Enclosed please find the responses to the referees. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on XXX. Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.

Best regards

Sincerely yours

Dr. XXX

Please find the following Response to the comments of referees:

Response to the referee’s comments
Referee A
Comment 1: The titania material formed after calcining at 450 oC is not characterized. XRD of these calcined materials should be provided to understand the crystallinity and phase. Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. According to his/her advices, X-ray diffractometry spectroscopy (XRD) of the calcined TiO2 film was given in Supporting Information (Figure S1) in this revised version. It illustrated that the hydrothermal synthesized TiO2 materials after calcining at 450 oC is entire anatase, which was confirmed by the X-ray diffractometer with Cu Kα radiation (Rigaku D/ max-2500).

Comment 2: The authors must state the mechanical strength of these materials after the removal of PS by calcinations. 
Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. By a scotch tape peel test, the TiO2 film can’t be stripped from the conducting glass substrate, which indicates that the mechanical strength of as-prepared composite film is strong enough for the fabrication of solar cell devices. The revised details can be found in Line 165-168, page 2.

Referee B
Comment 1: The microtube structure with the size of 500-800 nm cannot only scatter the visible light in the region of 500-800 nm, but also can scatter more efficiently the visible light in the region below 500 nm, and can scatter near infrared light. This point should be clarified in the main text.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind advice. Just like what the referee said, the microtube network structure can scatter not only visible light but also near infrared light. We added this point in revised manuscript and the detailed revision can be found in Line 194-205, Page 2-3.
Comment 2: They described the simulated sunlight as "one-simulating-sunlight condition (AM1.5, 100 mW cm-2)". But in my opinion, it would be better to use the phrase like "AM 1.5 simulated solar light (100 mW cm-2)".
Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. "one-simulating-sunlight condition (AM1.5, 100 mW cm-2)" has been changed to "AM 1.5 simulated solar light (100 mW cm-2)" in our revised manuscript. (Line 217, Page 3)
Comment 3: They correctly pointed out that the increased ratio of solar energy conversion efficiency by the microtube-network structure was smaller than that estimated from the absorption spectra. It is understandable, considering that a TiO2 porous film was filled with solvent in a device, while that for spectroscopic measurements is filled with air.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s good evaluation and kind suggestion. The referee’s explanation is very correct. Light absorptions of TiO2 photoelectrodes are different when they are filled with electrolytes and air, respectively. It is ascribed to that a part of solar light will be absorbed by the electrolytes and also different medium in the porous film will induce the different refractive indices. This is one reason that increased ratio of conversion efficiency by the microtube-network structure was smaller than that estimated from the absorption spectra. We added this point into our revised manuscript and the details can be found in Line 325-330, Page 4.

很多人都遇到過回復審稿人意見的時候,。本人曾經(jīng)因為回復審稿意見不合適而導致拒稿，相當?shù)膽K哪??！后來發(fā)現(xiàn)回復審稿意見時,，除了寫清修改內容外，還有一些話是必須要寫的,。對審稿人的意見提出不同的看法也應該講究一定的技巧,。由于這些話的英文都不難寫，所以我直接寫成中文表述,，覺得有用的蟲友自己翻譯吧,。
      首先，不論審稿人提了什么意見,，你在回復的時候,，第一句話一定要說：“謝謝您的建議,，您的所有建議都非常的重要，它們對我的論文寫作和科研工作都具有重要的指導意義??！”
      其次，在回復信的結尾最好寫上“再次謝謝您的建議,，希望能夠從您哪里學到更多的知識,。”這句話最好用黑體,，要顯眼,。
      再次，如果審稿人提的意見你暫時無法做到（比如,，要你增加實驗或改進實驗等）,。那么，為了論文盡快發(fā)表,，你必須拒絕這樣的要求,。但是，你不要擺出一大堆理由來證明這個意見是不好實現(xiàn)的,。你應該說：“謝謝您的建議,，它非常的重要，由于您的建議,，我發(fā)現(xiàn)了我目前工作中的不足之處,，我會在以后的工作中按照您的建議提高科研水平，取得更多成績,！”這樣就委婉的拒絕了評審意見,，又讓評審人覺得你很看重他的意見。
       第四,，如果審稿人的意見明顯有問題,。那么沒辦法了，你必須據(jù)理力爭,。但是,，你一定不能說：“審稿人先生，我認為你的意見是錯的,！”你不必對他的意見發(fā)表任何的評論,，只需要列出你的理由和證據(jù)就可以了，結尾也不要強調你的觀點是正確的,。簡單說就是“既不說你對,，也不說我對，證據(jù)說話”,。
       第五,，如果審稿人的評價比較傲慢,，而且有失公平。那么,，不用客氣,，直接寫信給編輯，痛批審稿人,。（我就遇到過這樣的情況,，痛批后反而被錄用。）
投稿,，修改稿所用Cover Letter 
投稿時：
Dear Prof. XXX,
We submit a manuscript entitled “XXXXXXXXXXXX” (by XXX,， XXX and XXX)to XXX for publication.
In this paper, we report XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX .Your efforts in the review process of this manuscript are greatly appreciated.
If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know
Sincerely yours,
Dr. XXX

投修改稿時：
Dear Prof. XXXX,
Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).
We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.
If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.

Sincerely yours,
Dr. XXXX

Response to Reviewer 1:
Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments:
1. XXXXXXX
2. XXXXXXX

 如何回復SCI投稿審稿人意見
1.所有問題必須逐條回答。                         
 2.盡量滿足意見中需要補充的實驗,。
3.滿足不了的也不要回避,，說明不能做的合理理由。   
 4.審稿人推薦的文獻一定要引用,，并討論透徹,。
 
以下是本人對審稿人意見的回復一例，僅供參考,。 
續(xù)兩點經(jīng)驗：
1. 最重要的是逐條回答,，即使你答不了，也要老實交代,；不要太狡猾,，以至于耽誤事,；
2. 絕大部分實驗是不要真追加的,，除非你受到啟發(fā)，而想改投另外高檔雜志----因為你既然已經(jīng)寫成文章,，從邏輯上肯定是一個完整的

“story” 了,。
以上指國際雜志修稿。國內雜志太多,，以至于稿源吃緊,，基本沒有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受,。 
我的文章水平都不高,，主要是沒有明顯的創(chuàng)新性,，也很苦惱。但是除了開始幾篇投在國內雜志外,，其他都在國際雜志（也都是SCI）發(fā)表,。以我

了解的情況，我單位其他同志給國內雜志投稿,，退稿的極少,，只有一次被《某某科學進展》拒絕,。究其原因，除了我上面說的,，另外可能是我

單位寫稿子還是比較嚴肅,，導師把關也比較嚴的緣故。
自我感覺總結（不一定對）：
1）國內雜志審稿極慢（少數(shù)除外）,，但現(xiàn)在也有加快趨勢；
2）國內雜志編輯人員認真負責的人不多,，稿子寄去后,，少則幾個月，多則一年多沒有任何消息,；
3）國內雜志要求修改的稿子,，如果你自己不修,，他最后也給你發(fā),；
4）國外雜志要求補充實驗的，我均以解釋而過關,，原因見少帖）,。還因為：很少雜志編輯把你的修改稿再寄給當初審稿人的,，除非審稿人特別

請求。編輯不一定懂你的東西,，他只是看到你認真修改，回答疑問了,，也就接受了（當然高檔雜志可能不是這樣，我的經(jīng)驗只限定一般雜志（

影響因子1-5）,。
歡迎大家批評指正,。 
我常用的回復格式:
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的確是很重要的，要想辦法和自己的文章有機地結合起來,。
至于實驗大部分都可以不用補做,，關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的重點內容不是很必要,，或者你現(xiàn)在

所用的方法已經(jīng)可以達到目的就行了。
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域的專家,。只要自己是正確的就

要堅持,。在回復中委婉地表達一下你的意見,，不過要注意商討語氣哦！ 
我得回復格式是這樣的：
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）。結果修改一次就接收了：） 
我的回復,，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 shouldbe 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 ofMMP activity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however they should clarify that this assay can only determine thetoxicity 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. pg7:"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 positivecontrol (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-9secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn't obtainenough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’tcomplement 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-CSFinduced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusionfrom 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 mediumconditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, wescreened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. Thisresult may be confusion. Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml (since thepurities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion bedetected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cellsonditioned 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 absoluteconcentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectablein both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higherin 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 thedetection 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 ofMMP-9 in spontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoieticstem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay betweenadhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that notonly the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison toCD34+ 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 inhibitorsconcentrations to select the optimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations usedy others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicityof 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 tocombine two figures. 
這是我的一篇修稿回復,，雜志是JBMR-A,影響因子3.652,已發(fā)表，供參考,！
Reply to the comments on JBMR-A-05-0172
Comment:
Reference #10 is missing from the Introduction but used much later in the manuscript. Should these be in order used inmanuscript?
Reply: 
The missing reference has been added into the revised manuscript.
Comment (continued):
What is the sample size for all tests performed?
Reply:
The sample size for drug release and PCL degradation tests was 3.0×3.0 cm2, with a thickness of about 0.1mm and a weight of about 40mg. This dada have been added into the revised manuscript.
Comment (continued):
Figure 7. There is no scientific evidence presented in the TEM figure to convince this reviewer of sub-jets. This statement on Page 9 cannot be made without clear evidence during the jet formation/separation. Figure 7 is just a large fiber and small

fiber fused together, no other conclusion than this can be made.
Reply: 
Necessary change in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript as well as in the referred figure accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Table 3: Need standard deviation for all values reported not just for a select few.. Equation after Table 3 not necessary.

Just reference method used.
Reply:
Done accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Page 11: "faster weight loss" What was the sample size? Where is the statistical analysis of this data? This reviewer does

not see a significant difference in any of the data presented, thus weight loss would be considered equivalent.
Reply:
Although not too much difference was seen, the conclusion that “the GS/PCL membrane exhibited a relatively faster weight

loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane” was indeed applicable through “one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)” analysis. 
Following the reviewer’s comment, a new sub-section has been added to the manuscript to address the statistical analysis for

the data.
Comment (continued):
Page 12: What is the sample size for release data? Looks like results based on a sample size of one? Need stand deviations on

the data presented in Figure 11. Why wasn't release performed and compared for all electrospun conditions investigated

otherwise?
Reply:
Three repeated tests were performed for each set of measurements and the resulting data were averaged. As stated in the

revised manuscript, each sample had a square area of 3?3cm2 with a slightly different thickness.
Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11.
The present manuscript aimed to show that medical drugs can be encapsulated in ultrafine fibers through a co-axial

electrospinning process. The drug release data intended to show that the encapsulation was successful. We did not consider

any specific application in this preliminary paper, and in fact the two drugs were just chosen as model illustration. As

such, there seemed not necessary to perform release experiments for all of the membranes electrospun with different

conditions (i.e. the core concentrations)
Comment (continued):
Table 3: Yang's or Young's Modulus (page 10 says Young's).
Reply:
Corrected accordingly. 
Comment (continued):
Figure 11: What is the % release, not just concentration. Why just this small sample of release data? Where is the release

data for the other conditions?
Reply:
Unfortunately, we did not measure the amount of the shell material in obtaining the composite nanofibers. Namely, the flow

rate of the shell solution during the electrospinning was not accurately controlled using an injecting pump. Hence the %

release was not applicable. 
Please refer to the previous reply related to Page 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments.
We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.