- 思考题 -
骨科教授陈刚向 Spine 投了一篇文章，2 个月后收到了 decision letter 。编辑部给的决定是 Reject and resubmit，其中一个审稿专家的意见是病例太少，手术治疗方法无创新。如果你是第一作者，该如何回复这个问题？
以下是学员群里的精彩讨论和督导点评，不同的回复可能会带来截然不同的结果：拒稿或接受。
先来看看学员的回答与督导点评吧！
- 这样回答会被拒 -
@314- 刘涛：
感谢审稿人建议，对手术方法进行改进，继续积累临床病例，随访总结后再投或转投。
@463- 梁雪：
首先感谢审稿专家的意见。然后回复抱歉由于自己的疏忽，可能在文章中没有表达清楚自己的创新点，对自己的创新点进行详细叙述，并说明由于是开始阶段，未来会继续完善手术方法并增加病例数，总结后再投或者修改后改投。
@吴文诗：
很感谢审稿人的意见，如果以后有机会我会继续努力收集病例，但是目前的案例分析可以反应～～～
督导点评：很遗憾，以上三条回复基本上就被直接拒稿了。要看你下一篇了。然后短期内不一定能积累到更多病例。
@472- 李元钧：
Thanks for the comment of reviewers. Your suggestion is very important to our current study. I'd like to add the statistical analysis through the xx-test between the study group and control group. The P-value is xx(<0.05).
We can also discover the similar results from the studies that others led to (reference 1/2). We have written the alteration into paragraph 2, page 5. The discussion that we are considering to modify our methods of surgery has been added into the "future work" section.
And more cases would be collected to analyze the results in the next step.
督导点评：有点生搬硬套讲课内容，但不适于当前这个 case。
- 这样回答有漏洞 -
@雾涯：
We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The incidence of the disease in our country is much lower than that in the west. Thus we have merely collected 10 cases with definite diagnosis, and only 6 out of the 10 patients accepted our surgery.
But a lot of work has been done before and after every surgery. We have referred hundreds of reference documentation, and every number of the team made a summary. This is just the start of the end, we shall continue our work to deeply understand the diseases.
督导点评：针对病例数少的回复可以，但是漏了回复缺乏创新性这点。审稿人的每一条意见，都不能遗漏。
@晓：
Revision 1： We appreciate the reviewers' attention to the flaws of our text. For the low morbidity of the disease, its undesirable malignance and rapid progression, multitudes of patients have lost the chance to accept surgeries but merely conservative treatments.
In this sense， it's hard to recruit sufficient patients to participate our research. However, as to the cases present, we have done a lot of work to ensure the rigor of the research. Also, we have added some discussion of it in the 「future work」 section of the conclusion.
Revision 2： We agree that our surgical approach lacks innovation, but for the superficial recognition of the disease, the present approach is most recommended and carried out universally.
And to ensure the safety of our patients, we did not try to find innovative ones, but we have added some discussion of it in the 「future work」 section of the conclusion.
督导点评：分点来回答很棒。关于病例少的回复非常好。但最后一句话不妥，和 future work 无关，但增加讨论很好。Also, we have added some discussion of it in the 「future work」 section of the conclusion.
第二点没有很好的回复创新性的问题，不能生搬硬套。we have added some discussion of it in the 「future work」 section of the conclusion.
- 这样回答很不错 -
@老翁 1883：
首先，感谢并虚心接受审稿人的建议。
其次，针对审稿人的建议进行一一答复。
1. 病例太少：承认病例太少，并承诺会继续积累病例。如果在审稿的 2 个月中有新增的合适的病例，可以及时纳入文章里面。
2. 手术治疗方法无创新：结合文献，提出自己对该手术治疗方法的认识，并明确指出与既往方法的不同点，也就是创新点。最后，认真修改稿件，并标识出修改的位置。
督导点评：做到了把审稿人意见拆分成两条来回复很好。病例太少这一点，短期内新增病例可能比较难。可以强调该类病例的罕见性，论述现今的报道病例数也并不多。第二点的回复很棒。
@jenny：
首先感谢审稿专家的意见。
1. 针对病例数太少，如果是特殊病例，发病率比较低的病例可以强调说明。并在统计学上进行说明。
2. 手术无创新，这里首先承认跟以往的方法没有差异（如改手术是目前公认的经典方法），可以说明文章关注的指标有不同。
督导点评：思路是正确的。
@飞觞醉月
首先，感谢并虚心接受审稿人的建议。由于手术开始时间较短，病例较少。手术方法也没有非常重大的创新。然后针对文章中强调手术细节上的改进，在病人治疗效果上看到了明显的提升的依据。同时增加近期的手术数据，按照审稿人的意见修改。基本可以用中文吗，英文现在还回答不出来。
督导点评：针对创新性的回复很好，强调其临床意义。
@571- 小李：
1. Thanks for your consideration for the sample size. To make a clear judgement, we need to set strict inclusion criteria. So the included cases are fewer.
But fort this kind of surgery, in order to prove the safety, this sample size is enough (mostly is 30) and in another article (ref 1), the author use only (maybe 25) to censorship the safety.
and in our the pilot study of our golden standard ——the mix fixation surgery,it supply only 32 case and no control.
2. Thanks for your consideration for the innovation of our surgery. In consideration of the safety of the patients, our Ethics Committee can only let us to do such kind of surgery that is not usually performed.
This kind of method in only seen in a case report before (ref 1), and talk only about the efficacy.
督导点评：不但拆分成了两点进行回复，关于病例稀缺的回复非常到位。关于创新性的回复，也是可以理解和被接受的。总体回答得很好。
- 督导建议 -
这个思考题是一个开放性问题，没有标准答案，但目的很明确，说服审稿人接受你的文章。
所以如果我是作者，关于病例少，我会强调病例的稀缺性和罕见性。关于创新性，我会强调虽然创新不高，但具有很好的临床意义，然后再次强调临床意义是什么。
Although not novel, but of clinical significance for patients with....
希望今天的分享能让大家进一步了解回复审稿人问题可以采取的最佳策略。
你如果这样回答，审稿人妥妥接受你的文章 |
收藏
分享
支持
反对
提升卡
置顶卡
沉默卡
喧嚣卡
变色卡
千斤顶
照妖镜
