投出的稿件不外乎有3种结局：录用、退改、退稿。稿件不做任何修改即被录用的情况通常是很少的，在大多数情况下，作者收到的可能是改后录用、改后再审或退稿的决定。

如果收到的是退改信，那么首先要仔细阅读审稿人的修改意见，并按照审稿人的意见逐一进行修改。无论是较小的修改（minor revision）还是较大的修改（major revision），都需静下心来对相关建议进行全面认真的考虑，并在规定的时间内返回修改稿。

返回修改稿时一定要附寄修改说明信，对所有的审稿意见逐条回答（point-by-point response），修改过程中应注意以下几点：

1.认真对待审稿人或编辑提出的修改意见。如果审稿人指出稿件中存在严重的问题，并且审稿人的意见是正确的，就应该遵循审稿人的意见，并对稿件做出相应的修改；如果认为审稿人或编辑的修改建议不合理，可坚持己见，但一定要在修改信中给出充足的理由。

2.审稿人推荐的文献一定要尽量引用，并讨论透彻。

3.审稿人或编辑也有可能对稿件产生严重的误解。如果作者认为审稿人的批评意见是完全错误的，可以有两种处理方式。其一是把稿件投向另一期刊，以期望能得到公正合理的评审；其二是再次投稿给该刊，并运用自己所掌握的材料或论据，对审稿人的意见进行逐项详尽的申辩（一定不要使用带有敌对情绪的词语），以期望稿件能送交给其他审稿人进行再次评审，尤其要注意的是，如果有两位审稿人同时误解作者的表述，作者就需要细心地找出问题或误解产生的原因并进行修改。

4.尽快返回修改稿。

例：稿件修改说明（感谢编辑，并对审稿人提出的问题逐条答复）

Dear Editor/Dear Prof.Filbin:

Thank you very much for your letter dated January 17th enclosing the revieweis'comments for our manuscript entitled“***”（JNR#2726）.We submit a revised manuscript here.The following are the correspondences to your reviewer concerning the comments and suggestions about the manuscript.

We wish to take this opportunity to thank your consideration of our paper for publication in your journal，Journal of Neuroscience Research.

Yours sincerely，

…

To reviewer#1

Sir:

Thank you for your kind comments for our manuscript to Journal of Neuroscience Research（#2726）.We appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions to improve it.With regard to your comments and suggestions，we wish to reply as follows:

（1）As you pointed out，the stimulus strength used to activate the dorsal root was relatively low，it may account for the under-representation of the C fiber-evoked response.However，this may be a misunderstanding because of the obscure describe for the method in the primary manuscript.In fact，...as we described elsewhere（see Ref.［1］for review）.In our present study，...The information was added in the METHODS SECTION in page 4.(www.daowen.com)

（2）About the conductive velocity（CV）of the primary afferent A-fiber or C-fiber:to our knowledge，the classification for different primary afferent fiber is obscure up to now.The lower limit for A-fiber CV is generally treated as 1.3 m/s，although some researchers treated it as 2.5 m/s，2.0 m/s，or 1.4 m/s［2，3］.However，the upper limit for C fiber CV is generally accepted as 1.4 m/s（see［1-5］for review）.Thus in the present study，it is unlikely that the dorsal root-evoked responses with CV faster than 1.6 m/s were mediated by C fibers.

Taken together，in our present study，it is unlikely that the underrepresentation of C fiber-evoked response was due to the low stimulus strength to the dorsal root or classification of different primary afferent fiber.These results agree with the former study by Yoshimura and Nishi［6］.We have added the above information in the DISCUSSION SECTION（page 6 and 7）of the revised manuscript.

（3）As you pointed out，the present experimental conditions have ruled out the postsynaptic GABAB receptor response by inhibiting the intracellular G-protein coupled receptor.However，ubiquitous distribution of...［2，3，5］.In monosynaptic input study，it is possible to inhibit the postsynaptic GABAB receptor，and let the presynaptic GABAB receptor be activated［1］.However，the dorsal root-evoked...We can not precisely locate the baclofen action site，although the postsynaptic involvement had been ruled out.We have described this weakness in the DISCUSSION SECTION（page 6）of the revised manuscript.

……

We hope that the changes having been made to the manuscript meet to your satisfaction.

References

［1］Yang K，Kumamoto E，Furue H，et al.Action of capsaicin on dorsal rootevoked synaptic transmission to substantia gelatinosa neurons in adult rat spinal cord slices.Brain Res，1999，830：268-273

［2］Harper AA，Lawson SN.Conduction velocity is related to morphological cell type in rat dorsal root ganglion neurons.J Physol（Lond.），1985，359：31-46

［3］Prabhakar E，Lawson SN.The electrophysiological properties of rat primary afferent neurones with carbonic anhydrase activity.J Physol（Lond.），1995，482：609-622

［4］Waddell PJ，Lawson SN.Electrophysiological properties of subpopulations of rat dorsal root ganglion neurones in vitro.Neuroscience，1990，36：811-822

……

如果作者收到的是一封退稿信，应该仔细阅读退稿信并决定采取何种处理措施。

（1）完全性退稿（即编辑不会再对稿件予以考虑）。在这种情况下再次投稿给同一种期刊或进行申辩都是毫无意义的。如果稿件的确存在严重问题，最好不要把它改投给其他的期刊，以免影响作者本人的声誉。如果稿件中还有值得保留的内容，可以参考评审意见将其改写成一篇全新的文章，然后再尝试重新投稿。

（2）稿件包含一些有用的信息，但有些资料有误。首先要仔细阅读稿件和审稿意见，以确认数据是否有严重的错误。若的确是有很大的缺陷，应该认真弥补这个缺陷（如修正错误，补充广泛而有力的证据以及清晰的结论），然后再投稿给这份期刊。如果认为是审稿有误，那么，除非能提供具有说服力的证明，否则最好不要将稿件再投给同一种期刊，可考虑另投其他类似的期刊。

（3）除了所做的实验有一些缺陷外，稿件基本上是可以被接受的。作者可以按照审稿人的意见进行必要的修正，然后再次投稿给这份期刊。如果按照审稿人的意见作了重要修改（或重写了某一部分），该修改稿是有可能被接受的。