Response to Reviewers 1
The purpose of the author's response is to convince the editor that this study is credible and that the author is confident. Answers can also be seen as an opportunity to show your ability as a researcher. In the example below, the author is reconstructing the subject and reanalyzing the data. The author's answer to each comment covers the entire scope of the question, is detailed and clear, and gives editors and reviewers confidence.
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1:
We wish to express our appreciation to the Reviewer for his or her insightful comments, which have helped us significantly improve the paper.
Comment 1: The manuscript may benefit from some additional analyses. First, please give the stage and grade distributions of cases. I would like to see the analyses stratified by grade (2-7, 8-10) and stage separately, using categories for missing as needed. The definition of advanced disease used in the analyses is a bit odd, as it appears that local stage cases with metastatic score 8-10 were classified as localized, but if stage were missing they were classified as advanced. I would accept a definition of metastatic score 8-10 or extraprostatic disease as advanced, but this would be in addition to seeing the data for grade and stage separately.
Response: We thank the Reviewer for this pertinent comment.
In this study, information on metastatic score or degree of differentiation was used only when cases could not be defined by information on local staging.
In accordance with the Reviewer's comment, we first divided cases using local stage only into the classifications of advanced cases (extraprostatic or metastatic cancer involving lymph nodes or other organs as regionally invasive or metastatic cases) and localized cases (cancer confined within prostate). There were 227 localized cases and 125 advanced, while 82 could not be defined as either group and were classified as undetermined cases.
Relative risk of prostate cancer according to consumption by local stage was as follows:
TABLE. Relative risk of prostate cancer according to consumption by local stage.
Moreover, we also divided cases for which local staging information was not available (75 undetermined cases) into localized and advanced cancer using information on metastatic score or degree of differentiation. We added 13 cases with a high metastatic score (8 to 10) or poor differentiation to the advanced cancer group. These criteria were selected to allow the identification of cases with a high likelihood of a poor prognosis. Further, we added 42 cases with a low metastatic score (≦7) or well or moderate differentiation to the localized cancer group. Finally, we confirmed 256 localized cases, 101 advanced cases and 27 (5% of total) undetermined cases.
Relative risk of prostate cancer according to consumption by local stage, metastatic score or histological differentiation was as follows:
TABLE . Relative risk of prostate cancer according to consumption by local stage, metastatic score or histological differentiation.
We compared these two tables, but they were not substantially different. We therefore divided the cases by using the information on local stage, metastatic score or histological differentiation (reference 25). Further, we did not change Table 2. However, as the reviewer noted, the possibility of misclassification exists, in that local stage cases with metastatic score 8-10 were classified as localized, but as advanced if stage was missing.
We have therefore added the following text as one of the limitations of the study (p. 18, lines 4-9):
“Finally, there is possibility of misclassification that local stage cases with high metastatic score (8 to 10) were classified as localized, but if stage information were missing they were classified as advanced. Unfortunately, we could not classify cases by metastatic score only, because we collected metastatic score as supplementary information, and the proportion of cases with information of metastatic score were low (23% of total cases).”
In accordance with Reviewer 1’s comment, we have changed the expression of definition of localized and advanced prostate cancer.
Moreover, in accordance with comment 4 of Reviewer 3, we have made a new section “Definition of localized and advanced prostate cancer” in Materials and Methods, and added the following text (p. 9, line 10- p. 9, line 18):
“Definition of localized and advanced prostate cancer For cancer registry in our study, local staging is required item, but metastatic score is supplementary information. Therefore, cases were classified as advanced cases (extraprostatic or metastatic cancer involving lymph nodes or other organs) and localized cases (cancer confined within prostate). There were 227 localized cases and 125 advanced. Of these cases, 82 cases (20% of total) could not be defined as either group (undetermined cases), because some prostate cancers which a prostatectomy was not done were not determined local stage by using local imaging only.. The stage distribution in our study was similar to those in Japan overall (24). Moreover, if the information of local staging was not available (75 undetermined cases), we added 11 cases with a high metastatic score (8 to 10) or poor differentiation to advanced cancer. These criteria were selected to allow the identification of cases with a high likelihood of poor prognosis. On the other hand, we added 42 cases with a low metastatic score (≦7) or well or moderate differentiation to localized cancer. Finally, we confirmed 256 localized cases, 101 advanced cases and 27 (5% of total) undetermined cases (25).”
Further, we have changed the following text from (p. 2, lines 12-14):
“During this time, 384 men were newly diagnosed with prostate cancer, of whom 101 had advanced cases, 256 were organ-localized and 27 were of an undetermined stage.”
to
“During this time, 384 men were newly diagnosed with prostate cancer, of whom 101 had advanced cases, 256 were localized and 27 were of an undetermined stage.”
We have also added the following reference.
“25. Kurahashi N, Iwasaki M, Sasazuki S, Otani T, Inoue M, Tsugane S. Soy product and isoflavone consumption in relation to prostate cancer in Japanese men. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:538-45.”
Comment 2: Data in Table 1 should be adjusted for age. What are the p-values testing? Perhaps indicating which means differ across consumption categories would be more informative.
Response: In accordance with the Reviewer's comment, Table 1 has been adjusted for age. P difference values for characteristics between categories of consumption were calculated by analysis of variance and the chi-square test for homogeneity.
Thus, the following sentence has been inserted in the footnote in Table 1.
“* All variables except for age were standardized to the age distribution (categorized by 5-year intervals) of the entire cohort.” “‡ P difference values of characteristics between categories of consumption were calculated by analysis of variance and the chi-square test for homogeneity.”
The questionnaires used in Cohort I and Cohort II differed slightly with respect to food items, method of expression and frequency categories. Therefore, when we used covariates of fruits, green or yellow vegetables, dairy food, soy food and genistein, we calculated separate estimates for Cohort I and Cohort II, and then analyzed the combined result using a fixed-effects model. Thus, we could not calculate the mean of food item, and we showed that the percentages differ across consumption categories in the whole cohort.
Further we have changed the following text (p. 13, lines 4-7) from:
“Subject characteristics at baseline according to category of consumption are shown in Table 1. Persons with high consumption were older. The proportion of current smokers was high in the highest category of consumption but that among regular drinkers was low. Fewer men lived with their wife in the lowest category than in the other categories. The proportion of daily coffee or black tea drinkers decreased as consumption increased. Further, intake of miso soup, fruits, green or yellow vegetables, dairy food and soy food increased with intake.”
to
“Subject characteristics at baseline according to category of consumption are shown in Table 1. Participants with more consumption tend to be older, to smoke more, to have higher proportion of men living with their wife, to consume more miso soup, fruits, vegetables, and soy food, and to consume less coffee.”
Comment 3: The statement that risk of total and localized cancer did not differ by consumption is not altogether logical. The finding was no association for local disease and a reduced risk for advanced. The only reason that there was no association for total cancer was that the effect for advanced was diluted. Perhaps authors could find a more clear way to give these results.
Response: In accordance with the Reviewer's comment, we have changed the following text in the Introduction from (p. 1, line 18):
"was not associated with total or localized prostate cancer.”
to
“ was not associated with localized prostate cancer.”
Similarly, we have changed the following text in the Results (p.13, line 3-4)
“In contrast, no association was observed between consumption and total or localized prostate cancer.”
to:
“In contrast, no association was observed between consumption and localized prostate cancer.”
Comment 4: Please have the English reviewed by a medical editor. Figures: Please reconsider the need for the figures, some of which don’t add much to the manuscript. Also, can Tables 2 and 5 be combined into one table?
Response: We have had the manuscript rewritten by an experienced scientific editor, who has improved the grammar and stylistic expression of the paper
In accordance with the Reviewer’s comment, we have deleted Figures 3, 4 and 6 from the revised manuscript and have combined Tables 2 and 5 into a new Table 2
We wish to thank the Reviewer again for his or her valuable comments.
Start your answer with a thank-you note. The following expressions are also valid:
'We wish to express our strong appreciation to the Reviewer for his or her her insightful comments on our paper. We feel the comments have helped us significantly improve the paper. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the Reviewer's her highly valuable comments on X.'
――The X part should be the content that applies to each case.
Answers to the main comment begin with a thank-you note. An example sentence other than the above sentence is shown below, but it is also good to emphasize the evaluation of the comment.
- We appreciate the Reviewer's comment on this point.
- We wish to thank the Reviewer for this comment.
- We thank the Reviewer for this insightful comment.
- We strongly appreciate the Reviewer's comment on this point.
- We wish to express our deep appreciation to the Reviewer for his her or her her insightful comment on this point.
You don't have to thank the small comments other than the main comment.
The standard phrase is ‘In accordance with the Reviewer ’s comment,’.
The phrase ‘According to the Reviewer ’s comment’ has a different meaning and is not appropriate, so it cannot be used here.
Sufficient answers are required for comments regarding data processing / analysis. The author reclassified the cases into two. He also carefully described the reclassification method and results and tabulated the results.
In addition, I added citations and completely rewrote the manuscript, detailing them. In this way, it is most important to make enough answers in response to comments.
The author has not cut corners. The table, including footnotes, has been created with the same utmost care as the original manuscript. In fact, it's good enough to be attached to the manuscript as is.
In this paragraph, the author carefully and comprehensively describes the additional reclassification method. Note that the author uses the words ‘Moreover’, ‘Further’, and ‘Finally’ to describe the three ideas here. This pattern is easy for the reader to understand and is effective.
Note-The expression ‘on the other hand’ is often misused, so it is safer not to use it. We recommend using ‘in contrast’ instead.
In this paragraph, the author carefully and comprehensively describes the additional reclassification method. Note that the author uses the words ‘Moreover’, ‘Further’, and ‘Finally’ to describe the three ideas here. This pattern is easy for the reader to understand and is effective.
Note-The expression ‘on the other hand’ is often misused, so it is safer not to use it. We recommend using ‘in contrast’ instead.
In this paragraph, the author carefully and comprehensively describes the additional reclassification method. Note that the author uses the words ‘Moreover’, ‘Further’, and ‘Finally’ to describe the three ideas here. This pattern is easy for the reader to understand and is effective.
Note-The expression ‘on the other hand’ is often misused, so it is safer not to use it. We recommend using ‘in contrast’ instead.
The second table is also comprehensively made. The author's commitment to reviewer comments is outstanding.
The author has made an extensive reclassification and states that there is no difference between the two classification methods. The authors also show in the literature that the method used later is more appropriate.
Comprehensive analysis and additional literature support the author's response, so it is entirely justified that the author does not modify Table 2.
Watch out for verb tenses: use past types when describing the results of your studies:
- We compared these two tables ...
- We divided the cases ...
However, the present perfect type is used when describing the changes in the revised manuscript:
- We have therefore added ...
- We have deleted Figure 3.
The authors rate the reviewer comments here. See the sentence that follows:
‘However, as the reviewer noted, the possibility of misclassification exists, in that ... We have therefore added the following text as one of the limitations of the study’.
Of course, there are limits to research – so evaluate your comments and earn the trust of editors and reviewers. Ignoring comments is perceived as damaging credibility and interfering with the role of reviewers. If you would like to know more about how to deal with the limitations of research, please see here [link].
Indent and underline the additional text and add pages and lines.
See Reviewer 2 Answers for format details.
As I mentioned before, let's write the revised part as we have made ... in the present perfect form.
Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 3 may not have seen each other's comments, so the author responds to individual comments.
The author has revised the manuscript with close attention to the reviewer's comments.
The original and revised statements are described using 'from' and 'to' and underlined to the change part-in this example, only one word has been changed, but it is easy to understand the reviewer We describe the full text.
As with the text, underline the added citations.
Here, the reviewer's comments were only about the table, but the author takes it in a broader sense, as it is relevant to other parts as well.
The author's approach to Comment 2 is interesting and informative.
First, the author describes a revision of the table itself (footnote here).
In addition, the author states that the comment is relevant to the methodology. This section is not really needed as an answer to the reviewers, but it also helps the reviewers understand it, showing that the author is confident and open in the data.
In other words, it shows that there is nothing to hide from editors and reviewers. This approach will increase their credibility. The author takes this opportunity to appeal that he is an excellent researcher.
Similarly, the author adds appropriate and well-formed comments to the body.
Again, authors use the answers as an opportunity to showcase their abilities to editors and reviewers.
If the reviewer has requested an additional exam that is not feasible in the current paper, the following statement can be used:
- We agree that additional information on X as the reviewer suggested would be valuable. We are now investigating this point and intend to report it in a later paper.
- We agree that additional information on X as the reviewer suggested would be valuable. We are now considering the idea of investigating this point in a future paper.
- We agree that additional information on X as the reviewer suggested would be valuable. Regrettably, however, because of Y, we are unable to do the experimentation.
- In any case, because of Y, we would be unable to do this additional study.
There are many ways to state text changes. Here is an example sentence:
- We agree that this point requires clarification, and have added the following text to the Discussion (p. 10, lines 7-10): [New text]
- The reviewer's comment is correct. To clarify, we have added the following text to the Introduction (p. 3, lines 1-3): [New text]
- The results of the additional work suggested by the reviewer showed X. We have added the following text to the Discussion (p. 10, lines 19-23): [New text]
Again, the author also corresponds to the relevant part of the manuscript, considering all the possibilities for the matters of the reviewer's comment. The manuscript is not good to fix one place.
If you fix one place, you will also need to fix the other part of the relevant part. Find and fix the necessary points and carefully write the correction part. Don't forget that the goal appeals to the reviewer as your researcher through the answer.
Some reviewers may request linguistic corrections, even though the treatise is well written. The answer in such cases is:
- The paper has been edited and rewritten by an experienced scientific editor, who has improved the grammar and stylistic expression of the paper.
There are often requests to shorten the description. Accept if possible. Other expressions include:
- In accordance with the reviewer's request, we have shortened the manuscript by X words to a revised total of Y words. This has been achieved by changing the style of expression and deleting unneccesary text.
- As requested, we have removed these data from the Results section and placed them in the newly added Table 6.
- In accordance with the Reviewer ’s comment, we have combined the data from the previous Tables 2 and 5 into a new Table 2.
Thank you to the reviewers at the end of the answer. As another expression:
- Thank you again for your comments on our paper. We trust that the revised manuscript is suitable for publication
The verb ‘trust’ is more elegant and likable than ‘hope’.
Next articles
- Resubmission letter
- Response to Reviewers 1
- Response to Reviewers 2
- Response Library
