绝大多数杂志都有同行评审，这些评审专家会有一些意见反馈给作者。如何回复同行评审专家评审意见，总的原则是礼貌、委婉、全面。可以采取6步法对评审意见进行回复。本文就此作一简要介绍，并举一些例子进行说明。
在杂志接到稿件以后，会把稿件寄给相关的专家进行评审。对于一些人来说，如何回复这些评审意见比较棘手，一方面是有的评审专家提的意见很尖锐，另一方面可能是部分意见的确不对。但是不管尖锐也好，错误也罢，都要进行认真的回复。
一般原则
回复评审意见有3个基本原则需要注意。
1. 礼貌
无论评审意见正确与否，都要礼貌为先!不要装大爷，认为自己在这个问题上已研究了n年，不会出错。打人不还不打脸呢，况且人在屋檐下，怎能不低头。
2. 委婉
有些评审意见可能是错误的，也不要直接说you are worng，应该委婉一些表达意见，可以说「there seems to be a misunderstanding」。另外，可能在论文中的陈述方面存在问题，每个人的理解不一样，也会导致评审意见存在误差。因此，对于任何评审意见都要委婉。
3. 全面
对于评审意见应该全面的回答。不要因为某些评审意见不好回答都回避不回答了。
第一步 整理
把评审意见放在同一文件中，并且使用>进行标记。
如现在收到两个专家的评审意见，一个专家如是说
the paper is about [restatement of the abstract].
the main claimed contributions are:
1. x
2. y
3. z
however, i don't agree that x is novel.
i've seen it in [foo, 1989].
moreover, y is trivial.
and, z is simply incorrect by the [some argument].
in conclusion: strong reject.
另一个专家如是说
the paper is a clever generalization of [foo, 1989].
the main claimed contributions are:
1. x
2. y
3. z
but, i see the real contribution as w.
in conclusion: strong accept.
可以把这些意见整理成这样
> -- reviewer 1 --
> the paper is about [restatement of the abstract].
> the main claimed contributions are:
> 1. x
> 2. y
> 3. z
> however, i don't agree that x is novel.
> i've seen it in [foo, 1989].
> moreover, y is trivial.
> and, z is simply incorrect by the [some argument].
> in conclusion: strong reject.
> -- reviewer 2 --
> the paper is a clever generalization of [foo, 1989].
> the main claimed contributions are:
> 1. x
> 2. y
> 3. z
> but, i see the real contribution as w.
> in conclusion: strong accept.
第二步 逐个回答
接下来，需要就每个问题进行逐个回答
例如：
> -- reviewer 1 --
> the paper is about [restatement of the abstract].
the summary is accurate at a high-level, but misses some key details like a, b and c.
> the main claimed contributions are:
> 1. x
> 2. y
> 3. z
agreed.
> however, i don't agree that x is novel.
> i've seen it in [foo, 1989].
while [foo, 1989] does contain a method for doing x in specific cases, we have generalized the method for *all* cases. consider the following case:
[motivating case]
this case is beyond the limits of [foo, 1989], while it is in scope for our technique. this is the key distinction in our work, and we discussed this in more detail in the related work on page 11.
> moreover, y is trivial.
while we agree that y is *simple* once the construction is seen, we argue that it is not *trivial* to create this construction in the first place. if y were trivial, we might have expected earlier work such as [3] and [4] to use it, yet they did not. instead, they opted for a muc more complicated partial solution.
> and, z is simply incorrect by the [some argument].
it appears that there is a misunderstanding. we realize now that our presentation obscured some important facets of z. the reviewer seems to think that z is z', and we would agree that z' is incorrect.
> in conclusion: strong reject.
we respectfully disagree.
> -- reviewer 2 --
> the paper is a clever generalization of [foo, 1989].
this is an accurate summary.
> the main claimed contributions are:
> 1. x
> 2. y
> 3. z
we concur.
> but, i see the real contribution as w.
we thank the reviewer for raising the point. we agree: w is a real contribution.
> in conclusion: strong accept.
we agree.
