Response to Reviewers 2
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. The following response describes how and how to disagree with a comment from a reader.
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2:
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:Did consumption vary across the two study cohorts? If so, you may want to present Table 1 characteristics for each cohort separately; if not, you may want to include a statement saying consumption, and other characteristics, were similar for the two cohorts.
Response: We appreciate the Reviewer’s comment. However, given that the difference in consumption between Cohort I and Cohort II was not large, we have accordingly retained the original Table 1.
Comment 2: Under "Statistical Analysis", you state that the dietary questionnaires were somewhat different across the two cohorts. I believe this statement is focused on covariates, not including consumption, but if it is also applies to consumption, you should mention this when you first discuss exposure assessment.
Response: As the Reviewer noted, our original expression here tended to be confusing.
Accordingly, we have changed the following text from (p. 9, line 18- p. 10, line 2):
“The questionnaires used in Cohort I and Cohort II differed slightly with respect to food items, method of expression and frequency categories.”
to
“The questionnaires used in Cohort I and Cohort II differed slightly with respect to food items, method of expression and frequency categories (excluding coffee and miso soup consumption).”
8. Page 9: Under "Statistical Analysis", please specify how body mass index was included in the model (continuous variable? categories?) to be consistent with the other covariates.
In accordance with the Reviewer's comment, we have changed the following text from (p. 10, line 10):
“body mass index”
to
“body mass index (continuous)”
10. Page 14: You state that few studies have examined the association between consumption and prostate cancer risk by stage, but you don't present results by stage from other studies. (There was one study where you state that prostate cancer was typically diagnosed at an advanced stage in China, but no results were presented specifically by stage.) Please add details from previous studies on results by stage.
We regret that our expression of this information was incorrect. In fact, no previous papers have reported the association between consumption and prostate cancer in regard to cancer stage.
Although two studies have examined the association between consumption and prostate cancer risk according to stage, reference 10 is a paper from China, where prostate cancer is typically diagnosed at an advanced stage, and the authors did not classify cases by local stage. Reference 14 shows results classified by all and aggressive tumors, but this paper researched the association between general consumption and prostate cancer.
Therefore, we have changed the following text from (p. 15, line 10-11):
“However, few studies have examined the association between consumption and prostate cancer risk with regard to cancer stage.”
to
“However, no studies have examined the association between consumption and prostate cancer risk with regard to cancer stage.”
Thank you again for your comments on our paper. I trust that the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.
As mentioned in "Answer to Reviewers 1", it is a good idea to evaluate and thank the peer reviewers at the beginning.
The format shown here (spaces, italics / bold, punctuation) makes the answer easier to read and clearer. Here are the main points:
- All uppercase / bold, such as RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2.
- Comment 1: Italic, bold, comment body in italic on the next line.
- the Response: In bold, write the answer on the same line.
- Insert a blank line between each item.
Let's describe the above points 2 and 3 for each comment. Remember to put a blank line (possibly multiple lines) between each term. Repeat this format for each answer.
Great care should be taken when disagreeing with reviewer comments. Please refer to the following expressions. ‘We appreciate the Reviewer ’s comment. However ...’ and ‘and we have accordingly retained the original Table 1’. Other good examples for disagreeing are:
-
We appreciate the Reviewer ’s comment on [point 1]. However, our finding in [experiment 1] showed [finding 1]. Further, [reference 1] and [reference 2] reported [finding 2]. Taking these results together, we interpret [point 1] to indeed mean [our interpretation 1] rather than [reviewer's interpretation 2], and therefore wish to retain the original text.
-
The reviewer notes that [finding 1], and that this indicates [reviewer ’s interpretation 1]. In this regard, however, we note that [reference 1] reported [finding 2] and suggested that this meant [situation 3]. Further, in our present study, we showed that [situation 2] also results in [situation 3]. We therefore feel [finding 1] under the present experimental conditions is more likely to indicate [our interpretation 2] than [reviewer's interpretation 1] , and therefore wish to retain the original text.
If the reviewer's comments are not completely off and there are points to adopt, you can use the following expressions:
- However, in view of the Reviewer's comment, we have added the following to the Discussion (p. 9, lines 3-8):
“A second possible interpretation of [finding 1] is [reviewer ’s interpretation 1]. We consider this unlikely, however, given that [reference 1] reported [finding 2] and suggested that this meant [situation 3]. Further, in our present study, we showed that [situation 2] also resulted in [situation 3]. We therefore feel [finding 1] under the present clinical conditions is more likely to indicate [our interpretation 2] than [reviewer's interpretation 1]. ”
-
Nevertheless, the Reviewer's comment is to some extent valid; to clarify this point, we have added the following text to the Discussion as a limitation of the study (p. 18, lines 4-9)
-
However, given the reviewer's comment, we have added the following to the Discussion (p. 18, lines 4-9):
If the reviewer's comments are unclear and unworthy of an answer, the following example sentence can be used:
- We are uncertain as to the meaning of the reviewer's comment.
- We believe the reviewer is mistaken on this point.
- We believe the reviewer is mistaken on this admittedly difficult point. # 881280
- If we understand the reviewer correctly in stating [first possible interpretation of the reviewer ’s comment], then we suggest [your response 1]. On the other hand, if he is referring to [second possible interpretation of the Reviewer ’s comment], then we consider [your response 2].
Often you will be asked to rewrite or revise it because you don't know what it means. Here is an example expression that can be used in such cases:
If there are many changes, conclude with the following expression: We believe that this new information adequately addresses the Reviewer's comment.
If you want to modify the text, use a standard format like this:
First, write the corresponding page and line in parentheses, then the colon and blank line, then arrange the sentences before and after correction with an underline in the changed part, and put both as a blank line and 'to Connect with'.
Use the above or the following format, even if there are only minor changes. It is important to write the answers to the reviewer's comments with the utmost care.
Reviewers make important points about previous research ...
The author admits that the first manuscript was incorrect with the expression ‘We regret ... In fact ...’.
And to convince the reviewers, he details his mistakes ...
Based on the result, I corrected the words and specified them together with the relevant parts (pages, lines, etc.) ...
Don't forget to write a thank-you word ‘thank you’ at the end.
Next articles
- Resubmission letter
- Response to Reviewers 1
- Response to Reviewers 2
- Response Library
