每条评语最后一句得出跟前面截然不同的结论。可能他/她并不是“大牛”，不太能掌握病例报告发表的标准。
2.作者的回答总体还是非常好的，只是语气稍欠委婉，理据说服力需更进一步加强。
这期半月谈专题与blueman1320战友共同主讲。 28 February 2009 （第四讲）给编辑的申诉信
论文题目：Prophylactic NSAIDs use in post-ERCP pancreatitis 所投杂志：Gut
结果：编辑直接拒稿，作者重新修改并申诉，申诉成功，直接接受。 编辑信内容（有删节）： GUT/2008/156323
Prophylactic NSAIDs use in post-ERCP pancreatitis Authors’ names （略） Dear XXX,
Thank you for submitting this manuscript to Gut, which was discussed at the last Editorial Committee meeting. We are sorry to say that we are unable to accept it for publication, as it did not achieve a high enough priority score to enable it to be published in Gut. We favour letters which add new data and did not feel that you letter did this sufficiently.
Please remember that Gut receives about eight times as many manuscripts as we are able to publish, therefore regrettably it follows that many perfectly adequate papers must be rejected. This decision must be based not only on quality, but also timeliness and priority against other subject areas. For more details, please go to: http://submit-gut.bmj.com
enter you Author Area and click on the 'Manuscripts with decisions' queue. We are sorry to disappoint you on this occasion. With kind regards. Professor Robin Spiller Handling Editor
Professor Robin Spiller Editor
作者申诉信原文： Dear editors,
Thanks for your kindly help in our previous manuscripts (GUT/2008/156323 and GUT/2008/156711).
The decision of the editorial board was a little disappointed to me. We had discussed the topic again and rewrite the manuscript according to the suggestions of the editorial board. We also invited our friend Harry Hua-Xiang Xia for insightful editing the paper.
Although Elmunzer et al. concluded that rectal administration of NSAIDs is effective in preventing PEP (these results are of significant clinical implications), several issues remain unsolved. For example, do risk factors influence the prophylactic effect? So, we performed a complimentary meta-analysis based on the methodology and the
source articles identical to those used by Elmunzer et al. Also, it must emphasized that there were several limitations of the both meta-analyses including small sample sizes (for both subjects and studies), inconsistent definition of PEP, and less representative populations.
We believe the issues raised will improve the quality of the meta-analysis. Thanks for your re-consideration.
On behalf of my co-authors, I am submitting the enclosed material “Rectal Administration of NSAIDs in the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: a Complimentary Meta-analysis” for possible publication in GUT. I have read most of the papers that the journal had published and I believe our research to be in accordance with the style of the JOURNAL.
We have reviewed the final version of the manuscript and approved it for publication. To the best of our knowledge and belief, this manuscript neither has been published in whole or in part nor is it being considered for publication elsewhere.
We state that there is no conflict of interest and ethical adherence in this study. Best Regards,
Authors’ names and affiliations （略） 作者申诉信建议修改文： Dear Professor Spiller （在已知编辑姓氏和职称时请不要再泛称editor, 以示尊重） Thanks for your letter in response to our previous submission of Letter to Editor (GUT/2008/156323) （事实上，编辑并没有帮助，而是回复）.
The decision of the Editorial Board might be because that we did not make it clear that the letter supports the overall conclusion of the Elmunzer et al., but provides additional analysis and points out the weaknesses of the meta-analysis. We further discussed the topic again and have modified the Letter according to your letters. In addition, we also invited Dr. Harry Hua-Xiang Xia, who is an internationally recognized gastroenterologist, to join the authorship team and make comments and edit the manuscript. （这一段非常重要。陈述失望心情于事无补。相反，应说明由作者引起的可能导致论文被拒的原因（很多作者论文被拒后归咎于审稿人或编辑不理解论文的价值），并再次强调论文的价值所在。加上本人为作者也许对论文被接收有一定作用，但关键还是在于强调论文本身的价值。）
We believe the Letter is publishable for the following reasons. First, although Elmunzer et al. concluded that rectal administration of NSAIDs is effective in preventing PEP, which is of significant clinical implications, several issues remain unsolved. For example, do risk factors influence the prophylactic effect? So, we performed a complimentary meta-analysis based on the methodology and the source articles identical to those used by Elmunzer et al. We further revealed that administration of NSAIDs was associated with decreased incidence of PEP in patients with low (RR = 0.29, 95% CI: 0.12-0.71, P = 0.006) and high risks (RR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.23~0.72, P = 0.002). Second, there were several limitations of the meta-analyses originated from the source articles. These include small sample sizes (for both subjects and studies), inconsistent definition of PEP, and less representative populations. These limitations should be more clearly acknowledged in the paper by Elmunzer et al. （这一段是核心。能否说服编辑在此一博。原信缺乏数据，而且
稍欠层次和说服力）。
Therefore, we wish to re-submit the further revised version for your re-consideration. （原信有三段与本申诉无关，建议删掉）。 With best regards, Yours sincerely,
Authors’ names and affiliations （略） 加注：
1.该文的特色是编辑委员会觉得本信稿(Letter to Editor)不值得发表，并说明原因， 即稿源太多（8倍），本文无新意。但作者坚持认为该信稿有新意，故决定申诉(Appeal)。
2.在看了该信稿并与作者交流后，本人认为值得申诉。并一起讨论修改原文及申诉信。该信稿很快被接受（并成为作者特殊的结婚礼物）。 3.论文写作与发表只有一般规则，没有绝对定律。只要你坚信是有价值的东西（试验结果或心灵火花）都有发表的潜力，关键在于如何准确将价值的东西表达出来。 4. 对待拒稿，要有良好心态。多多检讨课题设计和论文写作中的问题，而不是抱怨审稿人或编辑没有认真阅读你的论文。遇到审稿人对论文有误解时，我常用的一句话是“We are sorry that we did not make it clear”, 或 “We are sorry for the misunderstanding due to unclear descriptions in our previous manuscript” 而不是“The reviewer doesn’t understand?”或“The reviewer is wrong?.”.等等。在我的回复信中，审稿人从没有“错”。
这期半月谈专题与北溟小鱼战友共同主讲 15 March 2009 （第五讲）给审稿人的回复信
论文题目：Systematic analysis of microRNA involved in resistance of gastric cancer cell to the chemotherapeutic drug 所投杂志：cancer letter 投稿结果：major revision 审稿人内容（有删节）：
2. In Figure 4B, the authors showed growth inhibition in response to treatment with a MAPK inhibitor in SGC7901/VCR cells. What is the effect of the MAPK inhibitor on cell growth in parental SGC7901 cells? The authors should add this experiment in Figure 4B.
Moreover, if the authors say that microRNAs and the MAPK pathway are involved in resistance to chemotherapy, the effect of the MAPK inhibitor on expression of microRNAs (miR-34a, miR-148a, miR-21, let-7i, etc.) and their targets (E2F3, PXP, K-RAS, PTEN, etc.) should be analyzed in SGC7901/VCR cells. 作者原答：
As suggested, we have detected the effect of the MAPK inhibitor on cell growth in parental SGC7901 cells and the results have been added in our manuscript.
As for the relationship between the microRNAs, MAPK pathway and the drug resistance, our results showed a group of microRNAs may be involved in drug resistance and pathway mapping of their targets gene indicated that MAPK pathway was related to the drug resistance. The precise effect of the MAPK inhibitor on expression of microRNAs and their targets was under investigation.
建议改答：
We thank the reviewer ’s valuable suggestion （谢谢之类的词必要时一定要用。但要避免滥用，如每段或每个回复点都用）and conducted an additional experiment （强调补实验，因为下面要求的实验不打算补）on the effect of the MAPK inhibitor on cell growth in parental SGC7901 cells and the results have been added in the revised manuscript.
In the present study, XXXX （what results? 与 下面的“pathway mapping of their targets gene”对应。）suggest that a group of microRNAs may be involved in the drug resistance and the pathway mapping of their targets gene indicates that the MAPK pathway is also involved in the drug resistance. Thus, we said that “microRNAs and the MAPK pathway are involved in resistance to chemotherapy” in the previous version. We understand the reviewer’s point, and agree with the reviewer that the effect of the MAPK inhibitor on expression of microRNAs should be analyzed in SGC7901/VCR cells to determine whether they are dependently or separately involved in the resistance to chemotherapy. We believe that the regulatory relationship between microRNAs and the MAPK pathway in resistance to chemotherapy is a very important topic. Thus, we would like to carry out a separate but more extensive experiment on this topic (如果说under investigation, 也许审稿人会要求提供初步结果。但换一种说法，即作者同意审稿人的意见，并认为需做独立的、更深入的研究。这样可能避免补实验。的确，作者认为所要求补的实验有点脱离该论文的主题，但这点不便跟审稿人argue）. Accordingly, we have modified the sentence to address the reviewer’s point（实验不打算补了，但对审稿人的意见不能无动于衷）. However, if the reviewer feels that it is essential to add this result in this manuscript, we would be willing to carry out the additional experiments（有些审稿人很固执，所以要给他、给自己留有余地）. 加注：
北溟小鱼给我咨询如何回答审稿人这个意见时我的答复如下：
首先我们来分析为什么审稿人会提出这个问题。从审稿人提出的“if the authors say that microRNAs and the MAPK pathway are involved in resistance to chemotherapy”，我判断很可能你在讨论中指出“microRNAs and the MAPK pathway are involved in resistance to chemotherapy”。但审稿人认为，你的实验结果不足以支持上述论断，因而提出这一问题。
然后我们来讨论如何回答这一问题。我认为回答和解决这个问题有两种方法： 1.如果作者坚信“microRNAs and the MAPK pathway are involved in resistance to chemotherapy”，那么就需按审稿人的建议补试验。除了时间、精力和金钱外，还要面临试验结果与预期结果不符的风险。同时正如作者所言，“感觉再做这个实验的目的貌似与我原来的研究目的相背离”。 2.完全放弃或部分放弃““microRNAs and the MAPK pathway are involved in resistance to chemotherapy’观点。前者完全删掉这句话或这个暂不成立的观点，后者是用间接、委婉的语气来阐述这一“假设”，最好有文献支持。
何去何从，由作者定夺。但就这篇论文而言，如果作者尽量回答了所有审稿人的其他问题，即使不补该项试验，我想被接受的可能性也相当大。
这里，我想进一步强调的是，在英文论文中，作者尽量不要夸大、延伸该研究结果应该得出的理论价值和应用意义。应该“就事论事”。对于常发中文论文的作
