学术问答版20：论文修回信怎么处理

今天展示的是一组论文修回信怎么处理的相关讨论。

meta问答版

问：麻烦请教个问题。修回信，应该怎么回复，谢谢，麻烦各位前辈指点

Reviewer#2: In this meta-analysis of the prognostic value of XX expression in lungcancer, the authors summarized previous relevant studies and performedcomprehensive analysis. The analysis strategy is appropriate, and theconclusion is meaningful for the prognosis of LC patients. However, there issome concern about the studies that the author selected for this analysis. Thisis because after the filtering of the literature, there's only 6 Chinesestudies included in this meta-analysis. The limited numbers of articlesselected in this analysis decreases the confidence of the conclusion. Inaddition, by checking all the studies selected for this analysis I see thesestudies have already pointed out XX expression is negatively associated withthe prognosis of LC patients. This means the selection of these 6 studiesintroduced conclusion bias directly.

 

bychecking all the studies selected for this analysis I see these studies havealready pointed out XX expression is negatively associated with the prognosis ofLC patients. This means the selection of these 6 studies introduced conclusionbias directly.

答：什么杂志？

问：plos one，前辈有没有什么建议

It would be betterif the author could adjust the selection criteria to include more studies intothis meta-analysis.

修回信最后一句

答：嗯，多搜集文献

问：没有更多的文献了，一些文献没有可利用的生存资料，所以文献都是国人发的。

答：回信中给他说明

问：前辈这样回复怎么样

Thanksfor your praise and careful review and very important comment. We haveconsidered the same problem before, and hope to gain more literature byadjusting the retrieval strategy, but not more literature. Many studies fail toprovide enough survival information. So we further study the influence ofconfounding factors on the research conclusion by stratification analysis andthe conclusion is consistent. Those studies were conducted at different times.To become a useful prognostic marker for clinical application, the furtherinvestigation involving large population-based multicenter prospective studiesare required to clearly verify and expand on our conclusion.

答：可以