如何回复编辑和审稿人(5)

4. Last sentence of the Introduction - it is not correct to state that the evidence supports the role for ASICs in the pathogenesis of RA. It should be made absolutely clear throughout that the process is being modelled by adjuvant induction. Answer:

We have modified the last sentence of the Introduction as suggested by the reviewer. 5. Other comments:

1). p. 5 - line 5 what vehicle was used to deliver the amiloride? Answer:

It was XXXX. This important information has been added in the Methods of the revised version (page 5, paragraph 1, line 7).

2). Throughout check that upper case is used when appropriate - e.g. p. 5 para 2, line 8 - should be 2x104. p. 5 last 5 lines - please check this text as the DMEM is not present at 2000U/ml, and concentrations of pen/strep are typically given in Units. P. 6 last 2 lines - what were the drug concentrations? P. 7 line 3 from bottom should read- phosphate-buffered Answer:

Thank you for carefully and patiently reviewing of our manuscript, and listing so many mistakes in the original manuscript. We have sent the manuscript to a bilingual scientist with relevant training background to proofread the manuscript. Specific corrections in the revised version are followings: 2x104 on page 5, paragraph 2, last 1 line; DMEM on page 6, paragraph 1, line1; drug concentrations on page 6 last 2 lines; and phosphate buffered” where applicable.

3). p. 8 1st paragraph. I do not understand the last sentence here. Are the authors suggesting that each joint (specimen?) from a given animal is an independent variable? Please give clear information on exactly how the data were analysed. P. 8 para 2, line 4 - the details of this company are obscure, and the address/contact details for the company should be given . Please check that they are correct. Answer:

The sentence has been modified in the revised version (page 8, paragraph 1, line 4) to provide clear information on exactly how the data were analyzed.

The details of this company have been checked carefully and corrected in the revised version (page 8, paragraph 2, line 3)

4). P. 10 para 2 - Which Student's t-test was performed? Answer:

It was Unpaired Student's t-Test The descriptions in the Statistical analysis has been modified in the revised version as “Results were expressed as means ± SEM. The comparison among the different treatment groups was done using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Unpaired Student's t-Test. P values < 0.05 were considered significant.” 5). Please check text throughout and where appropriate correct 'injure' for 'injury' Answer:

We have asked a bilingual scientific editor with relevant training background to proofread the revised version of the manuscript.

6). p. 11 para 2, line 9 - how many independent samples (i.e. independent rats) were

used to generate the 12 wells that were used for these experiments? Answer:

Twelve independent samples were used to generate the 12 wells.

7). p. 12 para 2 - heading should read, 'amiloride'; p. 12 para 2 should read Mankin (and throughout text) Answer:

Corrections have been made in the revised version.

8). p. 15. para 1 - line bottom 5 lines - 9 & 10. This reference is misquoted as it does not refer to 'articular chondrocytes' nor does it state that MMP activity is 'markedly affected. Please re-read the reference very carefully and check that the findings of the study are accurately described. Answer:

XXX I have re-checked the reference carefully and found that the findings of the study are accurately described. In the referenced paper, cells were isolated from the nucleus of bovine discs and articular cartilage.

9). p. 15 para 2, line 5 - it is not correct to state that this is evidence of a therapeutic value of amiloride by blocking ASICs in RA. As stated above the authors are not studying the disease process of RA, but the response to adjuvant-induced arthritis which is being taken as a model of RA. The authors might wish to comment briefly on the suitability of this model for studying the process of RA. Similarly it is not appropriate to consider these 'diseased' joints - p. 15 line 3 from bottom. Answer:

We have modified the last sentence of the Discussion as suggested by the reviewer (page 16, paragraph 1, line 3)

10). p. 18 Legends - are the cells in Fig. 1 from normal joints? Please correct last word on p. 18 ('morphology'). Answer: The articular chondrocytes we used were isolated and cultured from normal rat joints. The word has been corrected in the revised version (page X, line X). 11). Fig. 1 - x-axis should be Time (not Times) Answer:

The label for the x-axis in Fig. 1 has been changed to “Time”.

12). Fig. 1 lower panel - did the authors test the effect of amiloride at pH 7.4?? Surely this would be the appropriate control? Fig. 2 - it would be helpful if headings were given to A and B for example of 'Ca-containing' and 'Ca - free'. Answer:

Yes, we tested the effects of amiloride on acid-induced increases in [Ca2+]i in articular chondrocytes at pH7.4 as shown in the lower panel of Fig. 1. pH 7.4 is the appropriate control.

We have added the headings in Fig. 2 as suggested by the reviewer. 点对点回答Harry.doc (63.5k)本人菜鸟的很，麻烦夏老师和各位前辈指导。

文章题目：Induction effect of A（药物）on cytochromep450 3A in male broilers 所投杂志：journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapetics 文章结果：大修

两个reviews的comments被编辑混在一起的。 Comment：P. 6 line 129. Please report recovery percentages and standard curve amounts. response：Recovery percentages have been added in the paper(table1).In original paper,the standard curve amount was included in the results \of probe drug\P. 8 line 184. The entire section titled “Determination of probe Drug” should be moved to the Methods section. Also, the equations （指标曲）listed in this section are unnecessary, simply reporting the r-value is sufficient.

response:前辈们能否指导标曲没有删的话怎么回答？虽然这个问题看起来不尖锐，但是不知道是哪个reviewer的，有一个reviewer觉得我的文章还行，另一个没有表态，只有comments。

P. 4 line 86. Re: caffeine and dapsone. Please provide a reference for why you chose these compounds as your probe drugs ie. have they been shown to be relevant in rats/humans? response：References have been added into the paper and the reason have been explained in the Introduction section. 对于ie后的问题不知道怎么回答，ie是“换句话说”的意思吗，我怎么觉得这两个问题一点都不相关啊，对于这个relevant我是越看越不知道怎么下手，两个探针药物在大鼠和人有没有相关性？这是什么问题,呵呵，困在其中。 这两个问题困扰了我一个星期没有想出答案来，麻烦前辈们不吝赐教。

再弱弱的问一句standard curve amount是什么意思，是指标准曲线吗，加了个amount怕认错了？非常感谢夏老师:

2. How do you know it is only ASIC you are activating with pH change? Could the amiloride be affecting other cell receptors? This is enforced by the fact that you never completely inhibit the effects of pH6 with the amiloride in any of the endpoints tested. In particular the ionotropic NMDA receptors are known to be pH sensitive and also are involved in calcium transport. You correctly inhibited some calcium channels, but there are many more expressed in chondrocytes. Answer:

We agree with the reviewer that amiloride is not 100% specific for ASICs. However, we do believe amiloride is, at the concentration used in our study, is selective for ASICs, relative to most other receptors that are implicated in acid-induced cell injuries. Results obtained by Vukicevic et al found that the amiloride at a concentration of 100 μM inhibited 93±3% of the acid-induced ASICs current in hippocampal neurons (ref.). In addition, Chen et al showed that the ASICs currents were sensitive to amiloride block (100 μM) (ref.). Furthermore, Xiong et al confirmed the result(ref.). This point has been briefly addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.

对于您要求增加参考文献,但是我的全文没有引用Vukicevic et al 和Chen et al等人的文献,这些内容也没有加到修改稿上,是否可以不加呢?When you describe the detailed results from a previous study, you should cite that study, to convince the readers, and more importantly, to recognize the investigators of the study.

I cannot understand why you are reluctant to cite the study.My changes/comments are followings (and in the Attached):

文章题目：Induction effect of A（药物）on cytochromep450 3A in male broilers

所投杂志：journal of veterinary pharmacology and therapetics 文章结果：大修

两个reviews的comments被编辑混在一起的。 Comment：P. 6 line 129. Please report recovery percentages and standard curve amounts. Response：Recovery percentages have been added in the paper(table1). In original paper, the standard curve amount was included in the subheading \(the) Probe Drug\in the Results section which I have moved to the Methods section, as advised by the reviewer.

Comments: Without reading the manuscript, it is hard to understand what is meant by “standard curve amounts”. Maybe the reviewer asked you to add a unit in the curve.

P. 8 line 184. The entire section titled “Determination of probe Drug” should be moved to the Methods section. Also, the equations （指标曲）listed in this section are unnecessary, simply reporting the r-value is sufficient.

Response: The subheading“Determination of (the) Probe Drug” has been moved to the Methods section, and the equations have been deleted, as advised. 前辈们能否指导标曲没有删的话怎么回答？虽然这个问题看起来不尖锐，但是不知道是哪个reviewer的，有一个reviewer觉得我的文章还行，另一个没有表态，只有comments。 Comments: “the equations” doesn’t necessarily mean the standard curve. Please check your manuscript to make sure whether you have equations (方程式).

P. 4 line 86. Re: caffeine and dapsone. Please provide a reference for why you chose these compounds as your probe drugs ie. have they been shown to be relevant in rats/humans?

Response：References have been provided into the revised version of the paper, and the reasons why we chose these compounds as our probe drugs have been explained in the Introduction section. 对于ie后的问题不知道怎么回答，ie是“换句话说”的意思吗，我怎么觉得这两个问题一点都不相关啊，对于这个relevant我是越看越不知道怎么下手，两个探针药物在大鼠和人有没有相关性？这是什么问题,呵呵，困在其中。 这两个问题困扰了我一个星期没有想出答案来，麻烦前辈们不吝赐教。

Comments: First, “rats/humans” means “rats and/or humans” here. I think that the reviewer indirectly provides you a hint for the answer here. If there are previous studies showing that two compounds exhibit similar effects in rats and/or humans, then your answer may be “Because previous studies have shown that these two compounds exhibit similar effects (better to describe the effects) in rats and/or humans (references), we used these compounds in the present study of broilers”. ReplyLetterfaconzll-Harry.doc (49.0k)谢谢夏老师专业的指导，等我返回给编辑后再汇报编辑给出的意见如下：

The reviewer have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer' comments and revise your manuscript.

编辑及审稿人均没有对文章原稿题目提出修改，自己觉得原题目不能很好的表达内容，有必要修改题目吗？编辑给出的综合评价是小修，改题目后是不是要再送审而影响发表？首先恭喜你。

如果不是重大修改，应该不会再送审。谢谢夏老师，另有问题PM给您，期待您的回信Check

your email. Good luck.这是我第一篇sci文章，需要大修，我对如何回复编辑和审稿人的信毫无经验，所以迟迟也不敢回复。我将我已经回复好的两点贴上来，希望能到夏老师和各位战友的指点。非常感谢！我做的领域是关于儿童的脑功能成像研究。 Reviewer 1:

The study aimed to examine the phonological deficit in Chinese dyslexics and its underlying mechanism using the near infrared spectroscopy. Some interesting results were found in dyslexia children compared to their normal controls. However, given its present form, I have some concerns that may improve it. Major concerns: Comment: The authors claimed that the phonological deficit is main cause of dyslexia in Chinese, however, according to Dr. Hua Shu and her colleagues (e.g., Shu, H., C. McBride-Chang, et al. (2006). Understanding Chinese developmental dyslexia: morphological awareness as a core cognitive construct. Journal of Educational Psychology 98(1): 122-133), different from dyslexia in alphabetic languages, morphological deficit is one of the major problem of Chinese dyslexia. Several papers in English or in Chinese on this topic have not been cited in the current study. From this point of view, even though some previous studies have found that Chinese dyslexic children also show phonological deficit in reading Chinese, it may be worth examining morphological deficit rather than phonological deficit.

Response: Many thanks for the reviewer’s good advice. We agree that the morphological deficit may be one of the major problems of Chinese dyslexia. However, the phonological awareness, the morphological awareness and orthographical awareness are the three important components in reading both alphabetic and logographic scripts. This work showed in the paper is part of our research of Chinese dyslexic children. Actually, we are taking the examination on the phonological awareness, morphological awareness and orthographical awareness of dyslexic children in a following-up study. The results will be analyzed and submitted in another paper. Due to the limitation of data presented in this paper we can not address the morphological deficit of dyslexics and it will be a good topic to proceed in our later work. Some necessary literatures and some explanations have added to our paper to make it clear (from Line 10-18 in Page 4).

Comment: In the experiment, Chinese characters were visually presented, while a phonological monitoring task was adopted. The authors stated that the current task could examine the phonological processing while ignoring that the task also contains visually processing of Chinese characters. Additionally, similar task was also used in previous studies (e.g., Ho et al., 2000, 2004, behavioral studies; Siok et al., 2004, fMRI study), but previous authors claimed that such task investigated the orthography-phonology mapping. Therefore, the authors need to rethink what can be examined by using such task and how they could exclude the visual processing of Chinese characters.

Response: We appreciate you point out this problem the task contains visually processing of Chinese characters. Our study was partly based on these researches that were cited in this paper (Ho et al (2004). Cognitive profiling and preliminary subtyping in Chinese developmental dyslexia. Cognition, 91(1), 43-75. Ho et al

百度搜索“77cn”或“免费范文网”即可找到本站免费阅读全部范文。收藏本站方便下次阅读，免费范文网，提供经典小说教育文库如何回复编辑和审稿人(5)在线全文阅读。