小弟投稿Dev Cell，两个reviewer，一个给了一堆意见，提的很多问题很无语，属于基
础知识认识错误，估计意见是大修，第二个reviewer不知道撞到什么枪口上了，感觉对
我这个文章有偏见，寥寥几行字，完全没有仔细看文章，提的问题里面有些我在正文中
都写了还有图他根本没看到。给出的意见是不适合在杂志发表。编辑意见：拒。然后我
们不忿申诉，写了10多页的申诉信，针对reviewer的意见一条条回答反驳，感觉编辑还
是挺负责的，根据我们写的计划又提了几个意见说最好这样去回答：Thank you for
your note. My apologies for the delay in replying. Below please find my
attempts to clarify the reviewers' concerns, and some additional suggestions
for ways to address them.。。。。。。I hope these comments are helpful to
you in thinking about whether and how to revise your paper for resubmission
here. Please do feel free to keep me informed of your plans and/or progress.
之后我们就根据他提的问题又写信说准备按照他的意见再添上这些追加实验，编辑回复
：Thanks for your note, and your interest in further addressing these
aspects of the reviewers' concerns. I will look forward to hearing more
about your experiments once the data are in.
因为这个时候在线投稿系统中文章状态依然是reject，没有返修那块，我们接着回信说
大约3个月做完实验，之后是不是直接把文章给他，他回复：Thanks for the update.
Yes, that would be fine. Often, the easiest way to do this is to forward me
the point-by-point response to the reviews that you are preparing for the
resubmission. That will convey most of the information I need, without
necessitating sending very large figure files. If all goes well from that
point, I can then reopen the file in our online system so that you can
upload the complete revised manuscript.
在这我想咨询各位高手，我这种情况，如果编辑觉得我们的追加实验结果还凑合，我们
上传完文章之后，他是不是还要寄回给一开始的那两个审稿人，会不会他自己也有可能
决定是否接受文章。追加实验都不是很难，但是比较担心第二个审稿人，感觉撞到枪口
上了，即使我们做了追加实验也可能接着刁难。
谢谢
