査読者への回答 その２
著者回答の目的は、この研究が信頼できるものであり、著者が自信をもっていることを編集者に納得させることにあります。回答はあなたの研究者としての能力 を示す好機と捉える事もできます。以下の回答文では、差読者コメントに対して反対意見を述べる方法と、その形式について説明します。
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.
「査読者への回答1」でも述べたように、冒頭で差読者のコメントを評価し、感謝の意を述べるのが良いでしょう
ここに示した形式（スペースや斜体/太字文字、句読法）の使用により、回答が読みやすく明瞭になります。以下に要点を示します:
- RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2 のようにすべて大文字／太字で。
- Comment 1: 斜体、太字で、コメント本文は次の行に斜体で。
- the Response: 太字で、回答文は同じ行に続けて書く。
- 各項目の間に空白行を入れる。
上記要点 2 と 3 はコメント毎に記載しましょう。 各項の間に（場合によっては複数行の）空白行を入れる点を忘れずに。各回答毎にこの形式を繰り返します。
査読者コメントへの反対意見を述べる際には細心の注意が必要です。次の表現を参考にしてください。 ‘We appreciate the Reviewer’s comment. However...’ と ‘and we have accordingly retained the original Table 1’. これ以外にも、不賛成を述べる際に適した例として次のような表現があります：
-
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 interpetation 2] than [reviewer’s interpretation 1], and therefore wish to retain the original text.
査読者のコメントが完全に外れているわけではなく、採用すべき点がある場合には、次のような表現が使えます:
- 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):
もしも査読者のコメント内容が不明確で、回答するに値しない場合には、次の例文が使えるでしょう：
- 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].
文意が不明という理由で書き直しや修正を求められることがよくあります。そのような場合に使える表現例を示します：
もし変更が多い場合には、次のような表現でしめくくりましょう： We believe that this new information adequately addresses the Reviewer's comment.
文章を修正する場合には、次のような標準的な形式を使いましょう：
まず該当するページ、行をカッコ内に記載し、続けてコロン、空白行の次に、修正前、修正後の文章を、変更部分にアンダーラインを付して並べ、両者を空白行と ‘to’ でつなぎます。
変更点がわずかであるとしても前記の、あるいは次の形式を使いましょう。 査読者コメントへの回答は細心の注意をもって書くことが大切です.
査読者は従来の研究について重要な指摘をしています...
著者は ‘We regret... In fact...’ という表現で最初の原稿に間違いがあったことを認めています。
そして査読者が納得するように、自ら間違いについて詳しく説明しています...
その結果を受けて言葉を修正し、該当箇所（ページ、行など）とともに明記しています...
最後に感謝の言葉 ‘thank you’ を書くのを忘れないようにしてください。
Next articles
- 再提出時の送付状
- 査読者への回答 その１
- 査読者への回答 その２
- 回答文ライブラリー
