The art of responding to reviews

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0386-7

有道翻译：回复审稿人评论的艺术

http://www.sowang.com/yodaofanyi.htm

(这是我第一次认认真真用“有道”。)

Green highlight is used to show good writing.

好好学习：用绿色标出。

Yellow means "questionable."

敢于提问：用黄色标出。

Nature Geosciencevolume 12, page401 (2019) | Download Citation

Between submission of your paper and its publication stands the peer-review process. Responding to reviewer comments effectively will help to make this stage an edifying rather than painful experience.

评论：Between submitting your manuscript and publishing it... reviewers' comments... will help make (no to)

有道翻译：在你的论文提交和发表之间有一个同行评审的过程。有效地回应审稿人的评论将有助于使这个阶段成为一个有启发性的而不是痛苦的经历。

A convoluted back-and-forth between authors and reviewers can easily mean months of delay, not to mention effort, anger and anxiety. As editors, we are instrumental in keeping the process on track. We check reviewers for conflicts of interest, keep in touch to ensure reports are on time, and ask them to be as objective and constructive as they can. We also carefully read and evaluate reviewer comments, and request rewrites of inappropriately worded reports. However, authors, too, can make a big difference to how their papers fare with reviewers. Like everyone involved, they have a responsibility to keep the exchanges fruitful and dispassionate, even when perspectives on the science differ.

作者和审稿人之间错综复杂的关系很容易导致几个月的延迟，更不用说努力、愤怒和焦虑了。作为编辑，我们在保持进程正常方面发挥了重要作用。我们检查审阅人员是否存在利益冲突，保持联系以确保报告按时完成，并要求他们尽可能客观和有建设性。我们还仔细阅读和评估审阅人员的评论，并要求重写措辞不当的报告。然而，作者也会对他们的论文在审稿人眼中的表现产生很大影响。与所有相关人员一样，他们有责任保持交流的成果和冷静，即使在科学观点不同的时候也是如此。

We were thus pleased when one of our authors recently appreciated our invitation to reconsider the language of their rebuttal letter, and understood that “it would take superhuman objectivity [from the negative reviewer] to put aside being called ‘obtuse’ (several times)”. To clarify the process: the primary purpose of the rebuttal is to convince the reviewers that all of the points raised have been addressed in an adequate manner — that is, incorporated or refuted. We usually send the authors’ responses to the previous round of review back to all reviewers for their consideration, so the responses should be worded for reviewer consumption. Here, we would like to share our top tips on how to write a rebuttal letter that is likely to avoid unnecessary wrinkles and detours.

因此，当我们的一位作者最近感谢我们邀请他重新考虑他们反驳信的措辞时，我们感到很高兴，因为我们明白，“(负面评论者)要想(多次)被人称为‘迟钝’，就必须具备超人的客观性”。澄清程序:反驳的主要目的是使审查者相信，所提出的所有要点都已得到适当的处理- -即纳入或驳斥。我们通常会将作者对上一轮评审的回复发送给所有审稿人供他们考虑，所以这些回复应该以供审稿人使用。在这里，我们想分享一些关于如何写一封反驳信的技巧，这样可以避免不必要的皱纹【小麻烦】和弯路。

Seek clarity. Read the reports and the decision letter from your editor more than once. Leave at least one good night’s sleep between readings, before you even start thinking about your rebuttal. If, despite all your efforts and consultation with a friendly colleague, an important comment is not clear or too general to be addressed (such as “section X is bad”), feel free to ask the editor to seek clarification from the reviewer with a specific question.

寻求清晰。不止一次地阅读编辑的报告和决定信。在你开始思考你的反驳之前，在阅读之间至少留一个好觉。如果，尽管你做了很多努力，并与一位友好的同事进行了协商，但一项重要的评论并不清晰，或者过于笼统，无法处理(比如“【第】X部分不好”)，请随意要求编辑就某个特定的问题向审稿人寻求澄清。

Tone of response. Respond in language that conveys your conviction that the reviewers are knowledgeable, well-meaning people who have given up their time to assess your paper. If you do not hold that conviction, do not let that show in your response, but raise your concerns in a separate cover letter to the editor, with as much evidence and specifics as you can collate.

回应的语气。用一种能传达你的信念的语言来回应，即评审员是有知识的、善意的人，他们已经放弃了他们的时间来评估你的论文。如果你没有这样的信念，不要让它在你的回应中表现出来，而是在给编辑的另一封求职信中提出你的担忧，并提供尽可能多的证据和细节。

Follow through. A thorough response to the reviewers is only half the ticket. Ensure that in the manuscript itself, you have also addressed all of the comments and requests for clarification. If the reviewers struggled to follow your reasoning, it is likely that others will too.

跟进。对评审人员的全面答复只是问题的一半。确保在手稿本身，你也处理了所有的意见和要求澄清。如果审查员很难理解你的推理，其他人也很可能会理解。

Make it easy for editors and reviewers. The easier it is to assess the revision, the more likely you are to receive a quick answer. It helps to highlight key responses to the most crucial issues at the top; to list changes to the manuscript in your rebuttal letter with the relevant comment and response; and to include line numbers in the revised manuscript and point to them in the response where appropriate.

评论：不需要用分号。

有道翻译：

让编辑和【审稿人】更容易【看懂你的回复】。评估修改越容易，你就越有可能得到一个快速的答案。它有助于突出对高层最关键问题的关键回应;在你的反驳信中列出对原稿的修改，以及相关的评论和回应;并在修改后的原稿中加入行号，并在适当的地方在回复中指出行号。

Stand up for your science. Reviewers are as fallible as everybody else. If you believe they made a mistake, explain your reasoning politely and provide compelling support for your point of view. If you think there has been a misunderstanding, explain. There is no point in being dismayed about errors: most likely the subject matter is complicated and you know more about the specific piece of work presented in your paper than the reviewer.

【坚持你的科学发现是对的】。【审稿人】和其他人一样容易犯错。如果你认为他们犯了错误，礼貌地解释你的理由，并为你的观点提供有力的支持。如果你认为有误会，解释一下。对【审稿人的】错误感到沮丧是没有意义的:很有可能【你的科研内容】是复杂的，你比审稿人更了解论文中呈现的具体工作。

Make it complete, keep it concise. Editors and reviewers want to see that all points have been acknowledged and addressed, so do not be tempted to ignore what you do not like. On the other hand, more volume does not make your reasoning sharper, and a long-winded thirty-page rebuttal is more likely to lead reviewers down the path of procrastination than a crisp and clear two-page response. Write as much as you have to, but as little as possible.

让【回复意见看上去】完整、简洁。编辑和【审稿人】希望看到所有的要点都得到确认和处理，所以不要试图忽略您不喜欢的内容。另一方面，过多的卷数并不能使你的推理更加清晰，一个冗长的30页的反驳更有可能导致评审者拖延，而不是一个清晰明了的两页纸的回答。尽可能多地写作，但越少越好。

Focus on the substance, not the personalities. Try to keep yourself from guessing who the reviewers are and what their intentions might be: you have little to win and much to lose. We find that the rate of failure with such guesses — when they are expressed to us — is high. Second-guessing identities is more likely to distract from responding effectively than to help your case.

关注实质，【不要管审稿人的动机】。试着让自己不要去猜测【审稿人】是谁，以及他们的意图可能是什么:你没有什么可以赢的，有很多可以输的。我们发现这种猜测的失败率——当它们被表达给我们时——是很高的。质疑身份更有可能分散对有效回应的注意力，而不是帮助你的案件。

If your experience is limited — either with writing rebuttals or with being on the other side, as a peer reviewer — we would recommend that you do not rely solely on our top tips, but in addition find a mentor or colleague to go through your proposed rebuttal and advise.

如果你的经验是有限的——写反驳或者是另一方面,同行审查,我们建议你不要仅仅依赖我们的高级技巧,但是除了找到一个导师或同事去通过你提出的反驳和建议。

It is worth focusing your energy to make your paper as convincing as you can, and the reviewers’ comments are there to help with that. Ultimately, it is the strength of your science that will determine whether your paper is published, and where.

把你的精力集中在使你的论文尽可能令人信服上是值得的，审稿人的评论会帮助你做到这一点。最终，你的科学实力将决定你的论文是否发表，以及在哪里发表。

Follow me, if you want to improve your writing skill:

如果你想提高科技英语写作能力，请跟我来...

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-306792-1146690.html