Abstract:Dear Editors, a response to reviewers' comments is required when submitting a revised manuscript: Many journals simply state that response should be made in a point-by-point manner and indicate all revisions. How to format a response is not stated in the Recommendation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [1]. The first author (SM) wrote 531 PubMed-indexed papers and reviewed 2491 manuscripts (Web of Science) [2], and based on our experience we propose a reviewer-friendly response format ([Table 1]). Where? What should be written? * No need to write a long gratitude. Refrain from stating gratitude for each response. ** A reviewer can focus on whether his/her comments are incorporated. If there are more than one reviewer, "different colors" are much more effective. # State agreement/disagreement first and not gratitude. ## Do not write "See lines 25–26 of the revised manuscript" without describing the revised parts, which would oblige reviewers to read a response and then confirm it in the revised manuscript. Revised parts should be identical to those in the text. This enables the reviewers to determine whether the revisions are appropriate. Thus, this Response Sheet should "streamline" the review process in an expedited manner. 1. At the beginning of the response: State a short gratitude here only once.* State the meaning of colors.** (Example): The changed parts are indicated in red (Reviewer 1) and blue (Reviewer 2). The newly added parts are indicated in green. 2. For each answer: Copy and paste the reviewer's comments in the order presented. Response: Begin with "I agree" or "I disagree". # (Example): I agree. I revised as indicated below (red font, lines 25–26 of the revised manuscript). Write (copy and paste) lines 25–26 of the revised version in red font (all sentences that were revised should be described here). # # First, revisions should be indicated in different font colors in a reviewer-by-reviewer manner: red for Reviewer 1 and blue for Reviewer 2. The reviewer is most interested in whether his/her comments (not the other's) have been incorporated. With different colors, each reviewer can easily check it. Additional revisions are often required after incorporating the comments of the reviewers. Thus, revisions that were not requested by reviewers should be indicated in green. The color code should be stated at the beginning of the response. Red, blue, and green are examples. Colors that are easy to read (not pink or sky blue) should be used. Second, copy and paste each of the reviewers' comments in the order presented, followed by the response. Reviewers usually do not remember their comments' details and thus glancing at copy-and-paste comments makes them recall the situation they addressed. They can focus on whether the revision is appropriate. Describing the summary of the reviewer's comments should be avoided. Reviewers are obliged to confirm whether the summary is right. Third, for each response, refrain from stating gratitude, instead, state "I agree" or "I disagree". The reviewers first wish to know your decision. They next check how their comments are incorporated. Gratitude should be stated once at the beginning of the Response Sheet. Disagreement causes no problem if the author's reasoning is right. There is no need to incorporate all the comments of reviewers. These response guidelines will make the re-review process easier. The Response Sheet tells all: Reviewers need not check the reviewer's original comments, the author's response, the original text, and the revised manuscript. A review is usually performed while looking at a small screen of a personal computer or laptop, and not on printed text. Thus, this Response Sheet makes re-review a "streamlined" process. This is reviewer-friendly. Reviewers are goodwill volunteers but are usually busy clinicians or researchers. This is especially true for doctors of obstetrics and gynecology. They deal with life-threatening emergent conditions. Reviewers wish to thoroughly review a revised manuscript in an expedited manner. Naturally, reviewers' better understanding of your response will increase the possibility of acceptance. At least, this streamlined response sheet will prevent rejection based on the reviewers' misunderstanding of your revision. We do not consider that the present response format is the best. However, we, after trial and error, grasped this style and employed it for two decades. Thus, this format is time-tested. If the journal has some additional or specific requirements for response, please incorporate them. We hope that this format may be of some help for the authors to revise the manuscript. Article published online: 06 March 2024 © 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCo -Abstract Truncated-

Author ' s response to reviews Title : Sentinel lymph node biopsy is unsuitable for routine practice in younger female patients with unilateral low-risk papillary thyroid carcinoma

Corrigendum to "re: Pathologic Complete Responses, Long-Term Outcomes, and Recurrence Patterns in HER2-low Vs. HER2-zero Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: Several Issues about HER2 Expression and Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer" [eur J Cancer 180 (2023) 184-185].

Response to: Correspondence on "Sentinel lymph node assessment in patients with atypical endometrial hyperplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis" by Vieira-Serna et al and Restaino et al

Robotic-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: a Promising Surgical Method

Robotic-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: Cost and Lymph Node Dissection

Streamlined Response Sheet for Manuscript Revision

’ s response to reviews Title : Different prognostic implication of ypTNM stage and pTNM stage for gastric cancer : A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

Correction To: Therapeutic Efficacy, Pharmacokinetic Profiles, and Toxicological Activities of Humanized Antibody-Drug Conjugate Zt/g4-MMAE Targeting RON Receptor Tyrosine Kinase for Cancer Therapy

Correction: Zhang et al. Clinical Management of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome: Review of the Current Diagnosis and Treatment. Cancers 2023, 15, 5011

Erratum: Intraoperative frozen section for determining the extent of surgery in papillary thyroid carcinoma: comprehensive risk factor assessment

Erratum: Axillary lymph node removal in de novo metastatic breast cancer

Corrigendum: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Cone Beam CT-guided Thermal Ablation and Helical Tomotherapy in Pulmonary Metastases from Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Corrigendum: Long-term oncologic outcomes following breast cancer surgery in adolescents and young adults: a single-center retrospective analysis

Reply to ‘the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017: the Point of View of an International Panel of Experts in Radiation Oncology’ by Kirova Et Al.

Corrigendum to “precancerous Cervical Lesions and HPV Genotypes Identified in Previously Unsatisfactory Cervical Smear Tests after Inexpensive Glacial Acetic Acid Processing” [int J Gynecol Obstet 2018. Doi: 10.1002/Ijgo.12699.]

Discrepancies in Genetic Testing Procedures of <i>BRCA1/2</i> Mutations: A National Survey Across China (vol 24, pg 715, 2020)

Response to Chen et al and the Accompanying Commentary

Correction: Wai, M.G.C., Et Al. A Review of Pinealectomy-Induced Melatonin-Deficient Animal Models for the Study of Etiopathogenesis of Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 16484–16499

Erratum to Erratum to relationships between serum levels of vitamins and papillary thyroid cancer: a single center case-control study

Erratum to preoperative prediction of gastrointestinal stromal tumors with high Ki-67 proliferation index based on CT features