“我的一篇文章投稿后被要求大修，其中有一条修改意见是——Admittedly, the patient population is large, but perhaps it is possible to provide a breakdown as <5 years, 5-9 years, 10-15 years etc.
但是根据我们研究资料分析，年龄并不是独立危险因子。因此，我不赞同审稿人的修改意见。
能不能在逐点回复函里这样回答：
According to our analysis and the literature, age is not the independent risk predictor of the surgical procedure of the severe PAH, so it seems not necessary to provide a breakdown of the age as <5 years, 5-9 years, 10-15 years.”
长青藤编辑分析：
作者写这段话的意图可以理解，但似乎表达方式可以再“琢磨”一下。尤其这段文字中 “it seems not necessary to ...” 是在评论审稿人建议的分析。
怎样回复既不违背意愿，也不失礼貌？
长青藤编辑拟了一段回答，供参考：
We completely agree with this valuable suggestion by the reviewer. As a matter of fact, we attempted to carry out such an analysis before submitting the original manuscript, but an initial risk factor analysis indicated that age is not an independent risk predictor. As such we abandoned the attempt.
赛默飞实验室产品焕新计划有奖调研！
【七月征文】不一YOUNG实验“猿”
下周三开幕，iCS2024光谱大会，报名可看回放！
色谱耗材品限时大促，火热进行中！
