想来每位SCI论文作者，在经历数以周记甚至数以月记得论文撰写后，最期待的就是能见到accept这个字样。然而好事多磨，在自己眼中近乎完美的论文，在审稿人的眼中似乎有些瑕疵（需要小修），有时甚至是歪瓜裂枣（需要大修）。那么面对审稿人下的“战书”（comments&judgements），以下几个大招可以帮助我们战胜审稿人的“刁难”，赢得这场不见血光的战斗。
首先，先礼后兵，礼貌开头。不管审稿人是挖苦还是赞美你的工作，都要先虚心接受。
比如：Thank the reviewers for these precious comments concerning mymanuscript entitled “文章题目”. Thesecomments are all valuable and very helpful for revising andimproving my paper, as well as the important guiding significance to myresearches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correctionswhich we hope meet with approval. （你的提议太有用了，我论文的质量蹭蹭蹭就上去了！我们相当仔细研究了你的建议之类的话）The responds to the reviewer’s comments are as follows: .......
其次，细节修改，不容小觑，一一作答，有礼有节。当审稿人要求很容易被完成时，必须尽量满足。
比如：Comment #1: 图中需要补充比例尺
回复：As for the referee’s concern, we have addedscale bars to the Figures.
Comment #2: 部分图片没有显著性差异
回复：As for the referee’s concern, we have indicated a significantdifference with asterisk in figures.
Comment #3: 通篇语言问题不过关
回复：We are very sorry for the mistakes in this manuscript andinconvenience they caused in your reading. The manuscript has been thoroughlyrevised and edited by a native speaker, so we hope it can meet the journal’sstandard. Thanks so much for your useful comments.
Comment #3:补充缩写词的全称
回复：As for the referee’s concern, the full descriptions of theabbreviations like IHC, MTT.etc have been supplemented in the revisedmanuscript.
Comment #5: 裂解液成分有问题
回复：We are very sorry for the mistake. Lentivirus-transduced cells werewashed twice with PBS, and suspended in a lysis buffer (2% mercaptoethanol, 20%glycerol, and 4% SDS, in 100 mM Tris-HCl buffer, pH 6.8). The information forthe lysis buffer has been corrected in the materials and methods.
遇到补实验，怎么办？
当然，在轻松搞定这些论文细节的修改后，同学们最最担心的就是审稿人会认为实验数据不够分，不足以支撑整个论文，要求补实验！比如：你丫怎么就用了一个细胞系，这个问题的说明起码要两个细胞系，快去补！
相信此时各位小伙伴的内心是崩溃的，补实验这么耗时耗力的事儿，可不可以不做呢？如果评审意见符合以下三种情况，那么最靠谱的做法就是尽快完成实验补充。
1.如果补实验这个问题是几个审稿人提出的共同问题，那么各种童鞋应该严肃对待，且必须回答和进行实验补充。
2.期刊会将你的回复返回给原审稿人时，而非新审稿人时，此时也需进行实验补充；
3.期刊若只给一次返修的机会，那也必须补实验了。
除此之外，如果你真的不想补实验，就需要尽量跟审稿人据理力争一番，当然此时答复审稿人时仍需要保持一种尊重的态度。
1）以往的文献若已经能回答审稿人的问题、支持你不补实验时，可在和审稿人争论时旁征博引（其他文献），并在报告中补充过程和实验细节，同时可补充一些相似实验来增加一些容易实现的实验结果来增强审稿人信心。
举个栗子：Comment #6: 文章需要补充正常皮肤作对照
回复：Indeed, it will be more convincing if we get a comparativeassessment on normal keratinocytes. However, the normal skin cell line TE353.SK that we recently obtained could not be cultured stably under thecondition of our lab at this time. We are also collecting human tissue samplesfrom patients with primary melanoma and benign nevi. Based on our data, XXXexpression will be analyzed in clinical samples by immunohistochemistry, andthe correlation between XXX expression and the prognosis of melanoma will bedetermined in our subsequent investigations. Therefore, the referee’s concernis of importance for our further study, and we will show the results in ournext paper for XXX.
2）补充动物实验，是审稿人最爱发的一招。此时只能见招拆招，如果能补上自然是给了漂亮的回马枪；但是若是实验条件有限或者时间来不及，根本无法满足审稿人的要求时，也要尽量在回复里委婉的说明客观原因，表明自己确实努力过了，但是事与愿违啊！
此外，写作者还需要说明将来一旦条件可行了，则必然完整进行这个实验；并将审稿人的这一问题当作本文的一个不足，在Discussion里讨论一下，也是可以的。
举个栗子，Comment #7: 文章需要补充动物实验
回复：We are appreciative of the reviewer’s suggestion. Indeed, it will be more profound if we get therelevant results in vivo. We have purchased 10 thymus-null BALB/c nude mice(female, age 4-6 weeks) from the Animal Center of Chinese Academy of MedicalSciences. XXX tumor were established in nude mice according to a previousreport (Gao et al., 2009) （我们去买了若干只小鼠，按照文献的方法操作）. Briefly, …（实验操作方法）.Unfortunately, the tumours could not grow after inoculation for three weeks（满怀欣喜的接种到动物身上，然而实验这东西，哪能一遍就成呢，我们做了一遍，结果没能成瘤，实在是悲剧了）. The limitation of technical condition may be the main reason.Also, we doubt that the cell viability could be insufficient to initiateosteosarcoma tumorigenesis in vivo due to the long-distance transport.Therefore, we seek for the editor’s tolerance andunderstanding. Many thanks for your kind help!
3）投稿的文章已经能够说明某个问题了，最后表明要求补的实验正在做，在以后的工作中会继续研究。
举个栗子，Comment #8: 文章需要补充某个具体实验
回复：“We understand that…（要补充的实验）maybetter reveal the…However, in the presentstudy, we mainly focused on…（本文研究重点）, andwe think that…（已有的实验）may not beoptimal, but should be sufficient to draw a conclusion that…（研究得出的结论）”或者“The…（某个实验）underinvestigation in our laboratory. Unfortunately, results are unavailable at thispoint.”
4）有时候，补充实验结果真的没那么重要，也可以在最后的Discussion里淡化这方面的讨论，并回答审稿人“We agree with the reviewer, and have toned down our conclusions.”
5）最后，尽量把校正的部分一一列在回复报告里相应的地方，而不要让审稿人到文章中去找你修改的地方，且尽量使得文章格式符合该期刊格式。
参考文献：How to get the most from your reviewer suggestions
How Cell Pressdeals with reviewer conflict of interest
