文章从意图语义视角出发，基于eLife期刊10年间论文的同行评议报告数据，从意图语义分布、互动强度、互动关系三方面，对同行评议主体互动行为进行画像分析。研究发现：语义分布层面，专家评议以指令型意图为主，作者回复以执行型意图为主，二者之间存在对应性。互动强度层面，作者回复策略体现出动机驱动的强度差异：不仅回复文本更长，而且采用更多元的意图语义组合策略。互动关系层面，专家与作者在“指令-执行”意图上呈现高一致性；冲突性互动多源于专家指令超出作者预设范围、数据或技术条件限制等，进一步基于典型案例分析，作者在冲突中主要采用“协商性主导”和“对抗性坚持”两种应对策略。

From an intent-semantic perspective, this paper analyzes data from a decade of peer review reports of papers published in the eLife journal, conducting a profiling analysis of the interactive behaviors of peer review subjects from three dimensions: intent-semantic distribution, interaction intensity, and interactional relationships. The findings reveal that in terms of intent-semantic distribution, expert reviews are dominated by directive intents, while author responses are dominated by executive intents, showing a correspondence between the two. In terms of interaction intensity, authors' response strategies exhibit motivation-driven differences in intensity: they not only produce longer response texts but also adopt more diverse intent-semantic combination strategies. In terms of interactional relationships, experts and authors show high consistency in the "directive-executive" intent dimension. Conflicting interactions mainly arise when expert directives exceed the scope preset by authors or encounter constraints such as data or technical limitations. Through further analysis of typical cases, it is found that authors mainly adopt two response strategies in conflicts: negotiated dominance and confrontational persistence.