当我们收到审稿人意见时，有的可以修改，有的没有办法修改，不论是何种情况，我们都需要回复每条意见。该如何回复比较好呢，小咖参考2023年发表的一篇文章，为大家准备了一些回复示例，供你参考~
示例1[1]：
审稿人意见：三个月的检测-重测时间太长了，需要作为结果偏低的原因来加以处理。
作者回复：审稿人指出检测-重测时间过长，这是正确的，因此我们从手稿中删除了这一分析。删除了这项分析，也表明所使用的唯一数据是基线数据，不会受干预措施的影响。
[The reviewer is correct that the test-retest period is too long, and we removed this analysis from the manuscript. Removing this analysis also clarified that the only data used are baseline and not affected by the intervention.]
示例2[2]：
审稿人意见：对于明显小样本（n=19）的等级量表数据，请说明用参数检验的理由。
作者回复：审稿人可能未看到论文中的一些表述，即我们同时进行了非参数检验和参数检验，结果是相同的。因为结果相同，我们就报告了参数检验的结果（包括均值和标准差），对于很多读者来说，相比Wilcoxon秩和检验，参数检验更易于理解。参数检验已广泛用于护理、心理学、公共卫生及其他使用等级量表数据的文献（注：此回复未修改手稿）。
[The reviewer may have overlooked our statement in the paper that we ran nonparametric and parametric tests, and the results were the same (i.e., significant changes). Because the results were the same, we reported the parametric, which includes the mean and SD, which are easier for a reader to understand, vs. the nonparametric Wilcoxon ranks. Although parametric statistics are used with only interval data in the most conservative approach, parametric statistics are used extensively in nursing, psychology, public health, and other research literature with o rdinal scale data. (Note: No manuscript revisions were needed with this response)]
示例3[3]：
审稿人意见：第2页第21-41行，提供最新统计数据将更具相关性和说服力，如果这些是最新的统计数字，那么应该加以说明，这种及时性信息的缺失，会促进对该领域进行更多的研究。能否从第3页第53行至第4页第9行的参考文献中获取更多最新统计数据。
作者回复：感谢您注意到一些参考文献的发表日期。【xxx】是一篇具有重大意义的文章，包含了健康素养专家广泛采用的定义。【xxx】首次对成人健康素养进行了大规模的全国性评估，这项研究以建立健康素养基线而闻名，可用于评估未来此领域的进展。为强调这一点，我们对手稿进行了编辑。感谢您要求进一步澄清，这有助于我们完善手稿。【xxx】等研究是单中心研究，采取的干预措施改善了病情复杂儿童的结局，但未纳入健康素养相关变量（注：这里的xxx均是具体的参考文献，xxx仅是代称）。
[Thank you for noting the age of some of our references. REF is a seminal article that includes the definition of health literacy experts have widely adopted. The study by REF is seminal, as it is the first large-scale national assessment of adult health literacy. This study is known for having established a much-needed baseline of health literacy at the time, which can be used to assess future progress in health literacy. The manuscript was edited to underscore this point. Thank you for asking for further clarification, which helps to strengthen the manuscript. Studies by REF are single-center studies whose interventions have improved children with medical complexity health outcomes but do not include the variable of health literacy
示例4[1]：
审稿人意见：对于心理测试研究来说，使用的数据集太小了。
作者回复：我们也认可数据集很小，因此论文标题写了“初步的（preliminary）”，以表明样本量较小。虽然数据集较小，但我们相信，本研究报告了该工具的首次测试，将有助于开发家庭自主支持的测量方法。据我们所知，这是首次在心衰人群和慢病管理背景下研究自主支持的尝试（注：此回复未修改手稿）。
[Although the dataset is small, we believe reporting on the first test of this instrument is a contribution to the beginning development of measures for autonomy support in the family context. To our knowledge, this is the first attempt to examine autonomy support in the heart failure population and in the context of managing a chronic illness. We agree that the dataset is small; however, we titled this paper “preliminary” to acknowledge the small sample size (Note: No manuscript revisions were needed with this response)]
示例5[4]：
审稿人评论：请提供使用ZBI（Zarit照顾负担量表）的理由，似乎有更适合测量父母压力的量表。
作者回复：我们在这项研究中使用了ZBI，而未用其他常用量表（如PSI，育儿压力指数）。尽管PSI已广泛用于发育障碍（DDs）儿童的母亲，但它并非专门为DDs儿童的父母设计，因子分析也不支持PSI的两个分量表[参考文献]。虽然ZBI最初是为阿尔茨海默病或痴呆症患者的照护者开发，但ZBI的修订版本已在DDs儿童的父母中使用，并得到了其他群体的验证[参考文献]。因此，我们在本研究中使用了ZBI (注：此回复未修改手稿) 。
[We used the ZBI over other commonly used measures of stress within this population (e.g., PSI). Although the PSI has been widely used in mothers of children with DDs, it was not specifically designed for parents of children with DDs, and the factor analysis failed to sup- port two subscales of the PSI (REF; REF). Although ZBI was originally developed for caregivers of persons with Alzheimer’s or dementia, the modified version of the ZBI has been used in parents of children with DDs and validated by other caregiver populations (REF). Therefore, we used the ZBI in this study (Note: No manuscript revisions were needed with this response)]
审稿人意见：如果能对儿童的视频睡眠记录仪和动作记录仪进行比较，并将其与儿童睡眠习惯调查问卷的数据进行比对看是否一致，将会非常有趣。此外，比较儿童和家长记录的睡眠事件，了解它们的一致性和相互作用也很有意思。您可以在研究中考虑这些。
作者回复：我们也认同这将很有意义，我们计划在未来的研究中采取更大样本来分析。现有研究样本量较小，我们无法进行这些比较，因为无法获得足够的数据得出有意义的结论（注：此回复未修改手稿）。
[We agree this will be interesting and something we plan to analyze in future research with a larger sample. We were not able to make these comparisons with such a small sample as we would not be able to have adequate data for meaningful conclusions (Note: No manuscript revisions were needed with this response)]
示例6[5]：
审稿人意见：为什么选择8周的干预期？在优缺点评估中提到需要12周，又是为什么？
作者回复：选择8周的干预期是因为干预的重点是评估行为变化的启动和可持续性（而非健康指标的变化），这可以在8周内观察到。然而，未来对干预的评估，我们将专注于健康指标的变化，12周更适用于观察指标的变化（如，血压和BMI）。我们已经在方法部分增加了选择8周的理由。
[The 8-week intervention period was selected because the focus of the intervention was to assess behavior change initiation and sustainability, which can be observed in this period. The focus was not on a change in health indicators; however, for a future test of the intervention, we will focus on a change in health indicators, and a 12-week follow is more appropriate for observing a change in (e.g., blood pressure and body mass index). Justification for the 8 weeks was added to the methods section.]
示例7[6]：
审稿人意见：考虑到受访者在职业方面的异质性，进一步按职业分层，解释结果可能更好（例如，相比心理咨询师，护士/医生的反应如何）。
作者回复：感谢您的建议。由于样本量小，我们没有按职业分层。有些专业只有一两个参与者，这样做可能会影响参与者及其回答的匿名性（注：此回复未修改手稿）。
[Thank you for this request. Because of the small sample size, the data were not isolated as some of the professions had only one or two participants, and this could affect the anonymity of participants and their responses (Note: no manuscript revisions were needed with this response)]
建议对审稿人提出的每个问题进行逐一回复，无论内容多简单（如语法错误）或多复杂。一般来说，当作者同意审稿人提出的观点时，可以在回复信的开头表示认可。
新手作者通常不知道如何对不可修改的意见（例如样本量小的问题）进行回复才能说服审稿人。对于不可修改的意见，回复关键是提供一个强有力的理由，说明为什么该问题不是核心问题，虽然存在这个问题，但论文增加了新知识。此外，为所使用的方法提供详细的理由有时可能无需修改手稿内容。
本文整理自：J Pediatr Health Care.2023 Sep-Oct;37(5):570-574.
参考文献：
1. Families, Systems, & Health, 2003; 21(3), 281–291.
2. Marcus, J. A. M., DeMars, L., Zimmerman, R., Bates, T., Cranwell Bruce, L., Hendry, T., & Clark, P. (in press). Using virtual mock interviews to improve health care professional students’ interview skills. Journal of Nursing Education.
3. J Pediatr Nurs.2021 Sep-Oct:60:65-70.
4. J Dev Phys Disabil.2023 Apr 11:1-23.
5. Nurs Res.2023 Mar-Apr;72(2):83-92.
6. J Pediatr Health Care.2023 Sep-Oct;37(5):501-510.
医咖会在2023年上线了样本量计算小工具，将既往推出的样本量计算教程融入到每一步操作中，并有每个参数的说明以及取值建议。
热门跟贴