rebuttal,letter,模板

发布时间:2016-11-27 来源: 模板 点击:

篇一:SCI 投稿全过程信件模板一览(Cover letter,催稿信等)

一、最初投稿Cover letter

Dear Editors:

We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be considered for publication in “Journal Name”. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has not been

published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.

In this work, we evaluated ?? (简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journal Name”.

The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration:

1) Name AE-mail: ××××@××××

2) Name BE-mail: ××××@××××

We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

××××××

Corresponding author:

Name: ×××

E-mail: ××××@××××

二、催稿信

Dear Prof. ×××:

Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor” has been lasting for more than two months, since submitted to journal three months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been sent to reviewers or not?

I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time check the status for us. I am very pleased to hear from you on the reviewer’s comments.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Best regards!

Yours sincerely,

××××××

Corresponding author:

Name: ×××

E-mail: ××××@××××

三、修改稿Cover letter

Dear Dr/ Prof..(写上负责你文章编辑的姓名,显得尊重,因为第一次的投稿不知道具体负责的编辑,只能用通用的Editors):

On behalf of my co- authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive

comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号).

We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.

We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

××××××

Corresponding author:

Name: ×××

E-mail: ××××@××××

四、修改稿回答审稿人的意见(最重要的部分)

List of Responses

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer #1:

1. Response to comment: (??简要列出意见??)

Response: ××××××

2. Response to comment: (??简要列出意见??)

Response: ××××××

。。。。。。

逐条意见回答,切忌一定不能有遗漏

针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用:

We are very sorry for our negligence of ??...

We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ??...

It is really true as Reviewer suggested that??

We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.

We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion

As Reviewer suggested that??

Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ??

最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见:

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Reviewer #2:

同上述

Reviewer #3:

××××××

Other changes:

1. Line 60-61, the statements of “??” were corrected as “????”

2. Line 107, “??” was added

3. Line 129, “??” was deleted

××××××

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the

manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

五、文章接受后可以考虑感谢一下负责你文章的编辑或主编(根据需要)

Dear Prof. ××××××:

Thanks very much for your kind work and consideration on publication of our paper. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers. Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

××××××

Corresponding author:

Name: ×××

E-mail: ××××@××××

六、询问校稿信件(如果文章接受后时间较长)

Dear ×××:

Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of our accepted manuscript titled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号), since the copyright agreement for publication has been sent to you two months ago. I am just wondering that how long I can receive the proof of our manuscript from you?

I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time for a reply. I am very pleased to hear from you.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Yours sincerely,

××××××

Corresponding author:

Name: ×××

E-mail: ××××@××××

七、文章校稿信件

Dear Mr. ×××:

Thanks very much for your kind letter about the proof of our paper titled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号) for publication in “Journal Name”. We have finished the proof reading and checking carefully, and some corrections about the proof and the answers to the queries are provided below.

Corrections:

1. In ****** should be **** (Page ***, Right column, line***)

2. In **** the “*****” should be “****” (Page ****, Right column, line****) Answers for “author queries”:

1. *********************.

2. **********************

3. **********************

We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Thank you and best regards.

Yours sincerely,

××××××

Corresponding author:

Name: ×××

E-mail: ××××@××××

篇二:letter to editor 回复编辑的信(SCI)

Dear Dr. XXX,

Thank you for arranging a timely review for our manuscript. We are pleased to know that our study is of general interest for the readers of NUTRITION. We have carefully evaluated the reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions, responded to these suggestions point-by-point, and revised the manuscript accordingly. All changes made to the text are in red so that they may be easily identified. With regard to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions, we wish to reply as follows:

Enclosures:

(1) Correspondences to your reviewers;

(2) One copy of the revised manuscript;

(3) A floppy disk containing the revised manuscript.

(4) Copyright assignment

To reviewer #1

1. The author should add a few review articles on ghrelin for readers in the Introduction.

We added two reviews in our revised manuscript.

2. The increase in ghrelin levels do not necessary indicate that weight loss in disease is well compensated (Introduction and Discussion). This may be interpreted to be insufficient to recover to the previous body weight.

There is possibility that the increase in ghrelin levels may result from the insufficient to recover to the previous body weight, but it is more likely that the increase in ghrelin level indicate that weight loss in disease is well compensated. Shimizu et al1 reported that baseline plasma ghrelin level was significantly higher in cachectic patients with lung cancer than in noncachectic patients and control subjects. As weight loss is a chronic process and ghrelin levels may change more rapid than weight loss, the increase in ghrelin in those chronic diseases is unlikely result from the insufficient to recover to the previous body weight. Moreover, this author also reported that follow-up plasma ghrelin level increased in the presence of anorexia after chemotherapy, which further suggests that the increase ghrelin level may represent a compensatory mechanism under catabolic–anabolic imbalance in cachectic patients with lung cancer1.

3. The authors should refer to the original report that IL-1b decrease plasma ghrelin levels(Gastroentelorogy 120:337-345,2001)

We referred this article as the reviewer suggested. In fact, this is a mistake of us. Many thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion.

4. Ref. 13 dose not include data on ghrelin.

We are so sorry to make this mistake for citing the Ref.13. We replaced the reference in the paper.

5. There is no report that desacyl ghrelin stimulates food intake. It is the consensus at present acyl ghrelin is involved in feeding response to starvation. Therefore, the authors should be careful about their interpretation described in the last paragraph in page 10.

We made it clear in the paper that ghrelin has two isoforms (“active” and “inactive”). Only the “active” isoform is involved in feeding response to

starvation. But the “inactive” isoform has other activities like anti-proliferative activity on tumor cell lines as described in the manuscript.

To reviewer #2

Major comments

1. Earlier studies have shown that circulating ghrelin level is increased in underweight patients with CHF, lung cancer, and liver cirrhosis. In the present study, however, plasma ghrelin level was decreased despite a significant weight loss in COPD. In addition, earlier studies have reported that circulating ghrelin correlated positively with BMI in patients with CHF and lung cancer. However, the present study demonstrated that plasma ghrelin level correlated positively with BMI in COPD patients. Thus, there are considerable discrepancies between the present study and earlier studies. These discrepancies should be discussed in detail. The author also stated the regulation of ghrelin secretion was disturbed in COPD patients. However, they did not clarify this mechanism.

We stated that the role of ghrelin in patients with COPD may be different from its role in CHF, cancer and liver cirrhosis and discussed this difference in the last paragraph of page 9.

Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we added that “plasma ghrelin correlated positively with percent predicted residual volume and residual volume/total lung capacity ratio” as the evidence for further supporting that respiratory abnormalities may take part in the regulation of plasma ghrelin levels.

2. The authors demonstrated that plasma ghrelin level correlated negatively with plasma TND-a and CRP in COPD patients. However, Nagaya et al. have shown that plasma ghrelin level correlates positively with plasma TNF-a level in patients with CHF. This discrepancy should be discussed.

According to the reviewer indicated, we discussed this discrepancy in the second paragraph of page 9.

3. The author stated that respiratory abnormalities may take part in the regulation of plasma ghrelin level in COPD. The authors should describle the relationship between plasma ghrelin level and pulmonary function in COPD.

There are evidences that respiratory abnormalities may take part in the regulation of plasma ghrelin level in lung diseases with respiratory abnormalities2,3. As our study was designed to investigate whether the plasma ghrelin levels are increased or decreased in COPD and whether the plasma ghrelin levels relates to the increased systemic inflammation in those patients, so we didn’t analysis the relationship between plasma ghrelin level and pulmonary function.

Minor comments

1. Circulating ghrelin level exhibits a circadian rhythm. Therefore, the authors should describle the limitation of their measurement of ghrelin in single samples.It’s true that circulating ghrelin level exhibits a circadian rhythm and to monitor the ghrelin levels in different time points is better than just measured a single sample. However, we collected the samples at the fasting state (from 9:00 p.m. on the previous night.) by venipuncture at 7:00 a.m. as most studies did2,4. So

our results can exclude the possibility that the difference between groups was result from the circadian rhythm of ghrelin and are well compared with other studies.

2. In the Results section, plasma ghrelin level in healthy controls was different with that in 0.25+0.22ng/ml, whereas, in Figure 1A, it was approximately 1.8ng/ml. We fixed this in our revised manuscript. We are so sorry to make this mistake.

To reviewer #3

1. About the paper of Itoh et al in AJRCC.

As the reviewer said, the study by Itoh et al was not published when the

current manuscript were submitted. We discussed the difference between the findings of their study and our study in revised manuscript.

2. Abstract

Conclusion: “plasma ghrelin decreased in COPD”. This sounds like the authors have followed subjects for a long time and that the diagnosis COPD was conformed, the plasma ghrelin decreased. This was however not the aim nor the case-a reformulation is necessary.

We fixed this as the reviewer suggested in our revised manuscript.

3. Introduction

(1) Page 2. Ref.1. is a letter to the editor in Br J Nutr and is a comment concering an earlier published paper. It is not a reference that support the statement. Several other references exist in the literature to be used instead.

Thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We replaced this reference by

other one.

(2) Page 2, line 5. “To understand weight loss mechanisms in this disease may be helpful to improve quality of life in these patients”. Do you really think that if we researchers understand the mechanisms that automatically would make the patients happier?

We replaced this sentence with “To understand weight loss mechanisms in this disease may be helpful to combat weight loss in these patients”

4. Methods

(1) Patients: How were the patient and control subjects selected?

The authors state that none of the control subjects was taking and medications-was that also the case for the patients?

That was also the case for the patients. In fact, most of the COPD patients in China do not take any medications when the disease is clinically stable because of economic reason.

Page 4, line 2. A short description of ATS criteria would be helpful for readers who are not familiar with those criteria.

As those criteria are widely used by researcher and physicians, we did not describe them in our paper as some paper did. If you think it is necessary to do so, we may add a short description.

Page4, line3, what do you mean by “other diseases”? COPD patients most

often have a lot of other diseases.

We are so sorry to mis-express this - we just means that those patients did not have the disease that known to affect the plasma ghrelin level. We fixed it in our revised manuscript.

Page 4, line 5. If I understand it correctly, none of the COPD patients were smokers or ex-smokers, i.e. another reason exists for their COPD. Cigarette smoking is the main cause of COPD, but here you have studied patients having other reasons for the disease. What dose this mean regarding the representativity of the study group?Could it affect the results in some way?

Smoking increases the plasma ghrelin level5. It is difficult for us to define “ex-smokers” because there is no study about that whether the ex-smoking will affect the plasma ghrelin level or not. This may lead to the representativity problem. However, those patients in our study still lost the weight and had system inflammation as most COPD patients did. Further study should be designed to investigate the effect of ex-smoking on plasma ghrelin level.

Page 4, line 6.Why do the authors refer to Whatmore et al? That study investigated ghrelin in healthy adolescents and has nothing to do with factor known to affect serum ghrelin level.

We are sorry to make this mistake. We replaced this reference.

(2) Body composition

Page 4, last line – page 5, line1. The deuterium dilution study performed by Baarends et al was using arm – to – foot bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy. In the current manuscript the foot – to – foot bioelectrical impedance assessment is used. The readers are lead to believe that the foot – to – foot BIA is also validated with deuterium dilution in COPD patients, which I think is not the case.

Thanks for the carefulness of the reviewer. However, there are still evidences that our method is well correlated with DEXA6 and arm – to – foot bioelectrical impedance7, so it is appropriate to use this method in our study. However, because those sentences will lead to the confusion, we deleted them in revised manuscript according to suggestion of the reviewer.

Page 5, line 4. The %fat was calculated by the machine. It should be stated on which material these calculations are based on – healthy subject? –young or old? – How many.

According to the instruction of the manufactory, we selected the standard model for this calculation (the other model was athletic). We stated this in the revised manuscript.

(3) Statistical

A reference by Scols et al is used to strengthen the use of values below the detection limit and the use of log. Other reasons need to be provided. What if Schols et al did a statistical error using values that were below the detection limit? There do exist statistical reasonsfor log the values – do they exist in this manuscript?

It’s very important to select a suitable statistical method for process the data. There are 6 data below the detection limit in ghrelin and 1 data in leptin. If

these data were discarded, it may increase the possibility of type two error as lower ghrelin levels were exclude. However, if the data were analyzed originally, it may increase the possibility of type one error as they below the detection limit. So it is reasonable to adopt the method used by Schols et al.

As to log transformation, we added the necessary information in the text according to the opinion of the reviewer.

5. Discussion

Page 8. line 2-3. COPD patients had lower ghrelin levels compared to

the control subjects. Did the control subjects have “normal” ghrelin values?

We selected seventeen age-matched healthy males as control subjects.

Those subjects were healthy. So we can take their ghrelin levels as “normal” ghrelin values. However, we think true “normal ghrelin values” should be based on large population study.

Page9. line 18. Following “CHF, cancer and liver cirrhosis” a reference is needed here.

We added references as the reviewer suggested.

Page9. last line.ghrelin instead of gherlin.

We fixed it.

Page 11. Delete the summary, it is the same as the conclusion in the

abstract.

We wrote the summary according to the guideline for author of the

journal. If you think the summary should be cut, we may delete it.

6. Reference

As mentioned above, some of the references are not appropriate. They should be replaced by more appropriate and explanatory references.

Many thanks for the reviewer’s suggestion. We replaced those references

in the revised manuscript.

References:

1. 2. 3. Shimizu, Y., Nagaya, N., Isobe, T., et al. Increased plasma ghrelin level in lung cancer Itoh, T., Nagaya, N., Yoshikawa, M., et al. Elevated Plasma Ghrelin Level in Underweight Haqq, A. M., Stadler, D. D., Jackson, R. H., et al. Effects of growth hormone on pulmonary cachexia. Clin Cancer Res 2003; 9: 774 Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2004; function, sleep quality, behavior, cognition, growth velocity, body composition, and resting energy expenditure in Prader-Willi syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003; 88: 2206

4. Nagaya, N., Uematsu, M., Kojima, M., et al. Elevated circulating level of ghrelin in cachexia associated with chronic heart failure: relationships between ghrelin and anabolic/catabolic factors. Circulation 2001; 104: 2034

5. Fagerberg, B., Hulten, L. M.,Hulthe, J. Plasma ghrelin, body fat, insulin resistance, and smoking in clinically healthy men: the atherosclerosis and insulin resistance study. Metabolism 2003; 52: 1460

6. Tyrrell, V. J., Richards, G., Hofman, P., et al. Foot-to-foot bioelectrical impedance analysis: a valuable tool for the measurement of body composition in children. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord

篇三:SCI 审稿意见回复范文

论文题目:Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B (一种病毒)

所投杂志:Life Sciences

投稿结果:这次大修后又经过一次小修,被接受发表

编辑信内容(注:有删节):

Dear Mr. XXX,

Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below.

If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures.

A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission.

You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file in the Attach Files area.

We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript.

To submit a revision, go to http://ees.elsevier.com/lfs/ and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.

Yours sincerely,

Joseph J. Bahl, PhD

Editor

Life Sciences

Format Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check the format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer #1:

XXXXX (略)

Reviewer #2:

XXXXX (略)

Editors note and suggestions: (注:编辑的建议)

Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English>>>

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the antiviral effects of A against virus B.

Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.

A, an alkaloid isolated from C (注:一种中草药), was tested for antiviral activity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays along with serum pharmacological experiments showed A to have potent antiviral activity. The pharmacokinetic profile of A in Sprague/Dawley rat plasma after oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to study potential changes in antiviral pharmacodynamics as measured by infectivity of viruses. From the similarity of the serum concentration profiles and antiviral activity profiles it is concluded that A it self, rather than a metabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.

The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.

Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. exam

rebuttal letter 模板

ple 1st paragraph >>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the plant, its structural formula is shown in Fig 1. ... While it produced a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggest a potential use in the treatment of viral myocarditis against virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and animals.

>>>The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors (example given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloid)

>>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)

>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex question of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future research aim in the discussion section.

>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the

wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.

>>>>> reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.

Because I think that you can deal with all of the points raised I am hoping to see a revised manuscript that you have carefully checked for errors. If you have questions or do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please contact me at bahl@u.arizona.edu Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences

作者回复信原稿:

Dear Dr. Bahl,

I’m (注:正式信函不要简写)very appreciate (注:不适合作为给编辑回信的开始,同时有语法错误)for your comments and suggestions.

I (注:实际上是学生做的)have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments again (注:要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作). Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic slices (注:用词错误)were calculated(注:用词不当). Production of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-γand TNF-αwere (注:语法错误)measured by RT-PCR.

I have revised this manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comments and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE. Title of manuscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth.

Answers to Reviewers’ questions were as follows: (注:可附在给编辑的回复信后)

Reviewer #1:

XXXXX

Reviewer #2:

XXXXX

Editors note and suggestions:

Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English

Answer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth(注:多处语法错误).

Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.

Answer: I have revise the abstract carefully to make it more smooth and informative(注:语法错误).

The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.

Answer: I have paid attention to this question and it is clearer (注:不具体). Introduction:

some sentences can be made less passive.

Answer: I have revise the whole paper to make sentences less passive and obtained help of my colleague proficient in English (注:语法错误,句子不通顺).

The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors

Answer: I’m very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spelling errors (注:不必道歉,按建议修改即可). I have carefully corrected them.

The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)

Answer: I changed the style of references.

Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.

Answer: (注:作者请编辑公司帮回答)

reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardiac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).

I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those misspelling and confusing statements (注:一般不是延误或人为失误,不必轻易道歉,按建议修改即可). Your comments and suggestions really helped me a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can be satisfactory.

If there’s (注:正式信函不要简写)any information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Thank you again for your time and patience. Look forward to hear (注:语法错

误)from you.

Yours Sincerely

Xxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)

建议修改稿:

Dear Dr. Bahl,

Thanks you very much for your comments and suggestions.

As suggested, we have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. Mortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.

We have revised the manuscript, according to the comments and suggestions of reviewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the comments as listed below. Since the paper has been revised significantly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlight the amendments in the revised manuscript (正常情况最好表明修改处).

The revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by a medical editing company in Hong Kong.

I would like to re-submit this revised manuscript to Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal.

Looking forward to hearing from you soon.

With kindest regards,

Yours Sincerely

Xxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)

Replies to Reviewers and Editor

First of all, we thank both reviewers and editor for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions.

Replies to Reviewer #1:

Xxxxx (略)

Replies to Reviewer #2:

Xxxxx (略)

Replies to the Editors note and suggestions:

Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contmeporary English

Answer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine against Coxsackievirus B3 and its pharmacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.

相关热词搜索:模板 rebuttal letter file inventory rebuttal是什么意思 sci修改说明

热点文章阅读

版权所有 小龙文挡网 www.xltkwj.com