回覆審查意見之原則與範例

Principles of Replying to Supervisor/Reviewers' Comments: A Basic Guide

中國醫藥大學 安南醫院副院長

憂鬱症中心、身心介面研究中心主持人

精神醫學及神經科學教授 

The following skills are important not only for the paper submission, but also for organizing your replies to respond to important questions or comments from the reviewers or examimers after a seminar or laboratory meetings. It strengthens your logic and response skills, and you will impress the reviewers with a sense of competence, dedication and delicacy.

原則：

• 結構三大組成：(1) 審查者意見：一字不漏的審查意見原文原句；(2) 我們的回覆；(3) 一字不漏的修改內容並標出修改的位置（第幾頁第幾行）。讓審查者不用再回去查詢之前的檔案。
• Editor讀了以後覺得全部都有回答，直接決定接受 (不用再給Reviewers)。
• Reviewers 讀了reply letter就直接感覺都有回答，完全不需要 (想) 再去找出之前他寫的內容、或去翻出文章全文來對照。
• 不要過度說明，要避免開闢新戰場讓審查人找到漏洞，又給新意見！
• 如果審查者有錯，不要反駁或辯論，幫他找台階下！

Focused on the goal of acceptance! The ideal outcome of a Reply Letter is to:

• The structure consists of three main components:
• The verbatim original reviewer comment;
• The response;
• The verbatim revised content with the specific location indicated (page and line number).

• Satisfy the editor completely, leading to direct acceptance without further review. When reviewers read the reply letter, they should immediately feel that all their comments have been addressed, without needing to look up their previous comments or cross-check the full manuscript.
• Convince the reviewers that all their concerns have been adequately addressed, so that they do not need to revisit their original comments or the manuscript.
• Provide a clear, itemized response for each reviewer, addressing their specific comments in the order they were raised. This demonstrates careful consideration of their feedback and makes it easy for reviewers to track changes.
• Do not over-explain, and avoid creating new issues that could give reviewers more opportunities to raise new comments!
• If the reviewer is mistaken, do not argue or debate; instead, help them save face!

A well-structured response letter

• A well-structured response letter should include the following elements for each reviewer comment:
• Original reviewer comment: Clearly stated and easily identifiable.
• Author response: A detailed explanation of how the comment has been addressed.
• Specific changes made to the manuscript: The exact location of the changes and a description of the revisions.
• By following these principles, authors can significantly increase the likelihood of a positive outcome for their manuscript.

• 用不同格式(字體)「逐條」列出三個主要構成：(1) 審查者意見、(2) 我們的回覆、(3) 文章更新後的寫法和位置！

AVOID ARGUING. AVOID DEFENDING. AVOID EXPLAINING ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT REVIEWERS ARE ASKING

• Don't start new battles! If the reviewer is mistaken, provide a graceful way for them to back down!)

• 不要回覆的太複雜，過度說明，要避免開闢新戰場讓審查人找到漏洞，繼續給意見！如果審查者有錯，幫他找台階下！

「學習回覆審查意見」對期刊投稿的重要性 ：

通常期刊投稿的過程當中，主編會邀請審查者提供他們的評論和建議，如果作者沒有利用這篇文章所指導的原則與範例來完整回覆審查意見，Editor和Reviewers得再去從文章中確認有無修改，便會再花費更多的時間來審查，延誤論文發表。更糟糕的狀況是，重新閱讀文章又會找到新的問題，讓審查過程無窮無盡。如果作者有完整回覆審查意見的技巧，而Reviewers卻在審查過程中一再刁難 (例如在第二次、第三次Revision過程中提出新的問題)，Editor會直接決定接受 (不用再給Reviewers)。

The Importance of "Learning to Respond to Review Comments" for Journal Submissions:

During the journal submission process, the editor typically invites reviewers to provide comments and suggestions. If authors fail to comprehensively address reviewer comments using the principles and examples outlined in this article, editors and reviewers will need to verify revisions within the manuscript, which consumes additional time and delays publication. Worse, re-reading the manuscript may uncover new issues, leading to an endless review cycle. If authors master the skill of thoroughly responding to reviewer comments, but reviewers persistently raise new issues during subsequent revisions (e.g., in the second or third round), the editor may decide to accept the manuscript without further reviewer input.

「學習回覆審查意見」對博士或碩士論文的重要性 ：

通常研究生和指導教授應該要先討論，論文修改以三輪為原則，這個討論常常被研究生所忽略，導致指導教授的修改沒有止盡，影響畢業的時間。過程中指導教授若提供評論和修改建議，應該研究生利用這篇文章所指導的原則與範例，完整回覆指導教授的意見。不要讓指導教授必須花費更多的時間去對照學生的修訂內容，延誤畢業。三輪之內，指導教授可以重新針對修改找出新的問題，讓研究生把論文改善。但指導教授不應該在第三輪審查中還繼續提出新的問題，造成永無止盡的過程。

The Importance of "Learning to Respond to Review Comments" for Doctoral or Master’s Theses:

Typically, graduate students and their advisors should agree that thesis revisions are limited to three rounds, a discussion often overlooked by students, resulting in endless revisions that delay graduation. When advisors provide comments and suggestions, students should use the principles and examples in this article to fully address them. This prevents advisors from spending extra time cross-checking revisions, which could delay graduation. Within three rounds, advisors may identify new issues in revised drafts for further improvement. However, advisors should not introduce new issues in the third round, as this could create an unending revision process.