The reviewer's comments
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集
SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全修改稿回答審稿人の意見（最重要の部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿號). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……)Response: ××××××。
逐條意見回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏針對不同の問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用：We are very sorry for our negligence of ……...We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written t his part according to the Reviewer’s suggestionAs Reviewer suggested that……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最後特意感謝一下這個審稿人の意見：Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer #2:同上述Reviewer #3:××××××Other changes:1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………”2. Line 107, “……” was added3. Line 129, “……” was deleted××××××We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions以下是審稿人意見和本人の回複。
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corre ctions in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××。
逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：We are very sorry for our negligence of ……...We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestionAs Reviewer suggested that……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer #2:同上述Reviewer #3:××××××Other changes:1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………”2. Line 107, “……” was added3. Line 129, “……” was deleted××××××We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions以下是审稿人意见和本人的回复。
sci修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
sci修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板Dear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Realtime Monitoring of Xylitol Fermentation by Micro-Raman)Spectroscopy”(LANL-2014-0001. Those comments are all valuable and very helpfulfor revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments:1. Response to comment (Reviewer 1): (The proposed method was establishedwith the lack of the process of the optimization. The curve was adopted to illustrate the changes of absorption peak in the process of fermentation, but the absorption peak couldn’t be confirmed the identical to the reference peak of xylitol. It needs more data to prove the reliability of the method)Response: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, the experiment of high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is added to verify the reliability of the;Raman data. Raman paek is a kind of inelastic scattering paeknot absorption,peak, Raman spectrum of the standard xylitol and xylose solutions was uesd to selecte the most appropriate characteristic bands of xylitol and xylose for our experiment based on their comparative strength without overlap with other bands.2. Response to comment(Reviewer 1): (The literature data(table 1) was used inthis paper, but different shifts and strength would be obtainedusing different Raman spectrometers, so data shall be carried out according to the experimental results in the support of literature.) Response: different experimental conditions has a great influence on the peak intensity. but little effect on the peak raman shift, This is the basis of the Raman qualitative.3. Response to comment(Reviewer 1): (The references shows different styles.)Response:The format of the reference has been corrected.4. Response to comment(Reviewer 2): (The medium is a complex mixture andincludes yeast extract. Yeast extract will contain many of the characteristic Raman peaks that the authors ascribe to the yeast cells.) ;Response:every sample of yeast cells pallet had been washed twicesuspension,and centrifugationto ensure impurity elimination, in addition , yeast extract is obtained after plasmolysis and complete hydrolase autolyzed, remove the cell wall and insoluble productsaccording to the production process of yeast extract. so the process for purifing the yeast cells pallet is reasonable.5. Response to comment(Reviewer 2): ( The spectral resolution is stated to be 1.2cm-1; however, the spectra are smoothed....No details of the smoothing algorithm used are provided. This affects the spectral resolution.. )Response:we added the processing methods of Raman spectra in section of Data analysis.6. Response to comment(Reviewer 2): (In Figure 3, the peak at 866 cm-1 .....into xylulose via xylitol as intermediate." (page 7 lines 21 to 32)) Response:We try to correct the deficiencies in this passage. Wethink this is necessary to theoretically verify the Raman consistent with the fact that we know. Also ralate to the discussion on the by-products.8. Response to comment(Reviewer 3): ( It is said that inorganic salt is animportant factor for the fermentation process (Page 3, line 36), but there is no discuss or exploration about this)～Response: inorganic salt is an important factor for the fermentation processbut～the effect of inorganic salt is not the focus of the articlethe concentration ofinorganic salt is adjusted to the most suitable conditions for this strain according to the reference.9. Response to comment(Reviewer 3): (Figure 4 was used to illustrate the changesof biological macromolecules, but all the Raman peaks here were not clear)Response:Figure in the first draft of the paper has a problem in the export size by～Origin8.5and we have modified the size of resubmitted figure to ensure better view of peak.10. Response to comment(Reviewer 3): (The assignment of bands in table 1 alldepended on lectures.)Response:The Raman characteristic bands of biological macromolecular are common-sense conclusion in this field, in fact, almost all articles involved biological Raman bands of Biological macromolecule have direct quoted these conclusions. three examples were list as below : Schuster K C, Urlaub E and Gapes J R. 2000. Single-cell analysis of bacteria by Raman microscopy: spectral information on the chemical composition of cells and onthe heterogeneity in a culture. Journal of microbiological methods. 42(1): 29-38. Ba?ar G, K?n S. 2008. Monitoring of spectroscopic changes of a single trapped fission yeast cell by using a Raman tweezers set-up. Optics Communications. 281(19): 4998-5003.Xie C, Li Y. 2003. Confocal micro-Raman spectroscopy of single biological cells using optical trapping and shifted excitationdifference techniques. Journal of Applied Physics. 93(5): 2982-2986.We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in revised paper.We ap preciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.YoursSincerelyZhen Huang下面是经典歌经100句,朋友经可以享受下,不需要的朋友可以下经后经经经除，，经经，，林夕经典歌经1、若只是喜经,何必夸经成经。
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corr ections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××。
逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：We are very sorry for our negligence of ……...We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written t his part according to the Reviewer’s suggestionAs Reviewer suggested that……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer #2:同上述Reviewer #3:××××××Other changes:1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………”2. Line 107, “……” was added3. Line 129, “……” was deleted××××××We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions以下是审稿人意见和本人的回复。
如何回复审稿人意见
如何回复审稿人意见：意见1：所有问题必须逐条回答。
2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。
3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。
4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。
5. 老师说的4点，确实很有道理。
不过审稿人提出要补充的实验，如果不是非做不可的，还是可以进行解释。
我也为国外的杂志审过稿，有时审稿人即使想接受你的文章，总还要提出一些不足之处，如果文章没有那些不足之处，也许文章就会投给更高IF的杂志了。
所以，如果你真的不想补充实验或者补充很困难，可以合理的解释，一般没问题的。
国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而过关，原因见少帖）。
还因为：很少杂志编辑把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。
编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定一般杂志（影响因子1-5）。
我常用的回复格式，呵呵。
Dear reviewer:I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions wereanswered below.引用审稿人推荐的文献的确是很重要的，要想办法和自己的文章有机地结合起来。
至于实验大部分都可以不用补做，关键是你要让审稿人明白你的文章的重点是什么，这个实验对你要强调的重点内容不是很必要，或者你现在所用的方法已经可以达到目的就行了。
最后要注意，审稿人也会犯错误，不仅仅是笔误也有专业知识上的错误，因为编辑找的审稿人未必是你这个领域的专家。
只要自己是正确的就要坚持。
在回复中委婉地表达一下你的意见，不过要注意商讨语气哦！我的回复，请老外帮忙修改了Dear Editor:Thank you for your kind letter of “......” on November **, 2005. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments.Part A (Reviewer 1)1. The reviewer’s comment: ......The authors’ Answer: .....2. The reviewer’s comment: ......The authors’ Answer: .....Part B (Reviewer 2)The authors’ Answer:Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised.All the lines and pages indicated above are in the revised manuscript.Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice. Sincerely yours,具体例子1：这是我的一篇修稿回复，杂志是JBMR-A,影响因子3.652,已发表，供参考！Reply to the comments on JBMR-A-05-0172Comment:Reference #10 is missing from the Introduction but used much later in the manuscript. Should these be in order used in manuscript?Reply:The missing reference has been added into the revisedmanuscript.Comment (continued):What is the sample size for all tests performed?Reply:The sample size for drug release and PCL degradation tests was 3.0×3.0 cm2, with a thickness of about 0.1mm and a weight of about 40mg. This dada have been added into the revised manuscript.Comment (continued):Figure 7. There is no scientific evidence presented in the TEM figure to convince this reviewer of sub-jets. This statement on Page 9 cannot be made without clear evidence during the jet formation/separation. Figure 7 is just a large fiber and small fiber fused together, no other conclusion than this can be made.Reply:Necessary change in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript as well as in the referredfigure accordingly.Comment (continued):Table 3: Need standard deviation for all values reported not just for a select few.. Equation after Table 3 not necessary. Just reference method used.Reply:Done accordingly.Comment (continued):Page 11: "faster weight loss" What was the sample size? Where is the statistical analysis of this data? This reviewer does not see a significant difference in any of the data presented, thus weight loss would be considered equivalent.Reply:Although not too much difference was seen, the conclusion that “the GS/PCL membrane exhibited a relatively faster weight loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane” was indeed applicable through “one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)” analysis. Following the reviewer’s comment, a new sub-section has been added to the manuscript to address the statistical analysis for the data.Comment (continued):Page 12: What is the sample size for release data? Looks like results based on a sample size of one? Need stand deviations on the data presented in Figure 11.Why wasn't release performed and compared for all electrospun conditions investigated otherwise?Reply:Three repeated tests were performed for each set of measurements and the resulting data were averaged. As stated in the revised manuscript, each sample had a square area of 3cm2 with a slightly different thickness. 3Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11.The present manuscript aimed to show that medicaldrugs can be encapsulated in ultrafine fibers through a co-axial electrospinning process. The drug release data intended to show that the encapsulation was successful. We did not consider any specific application in this preliminary paper, and in fact the two drugs were just chosen as model illustration. As such, there seemed not necessary to perform release experiments for all of the membranes electrospun with different conditions (i.e. the core concentrations)Comment (continued):Table 3: Yang's or Young's Modulus (page 10 says Young's).Reply:Corrected accordingly.Comment (continued):Figure 11: What is the % release, not just concentration. Why just this small sample of release data? Where is the release data for the other conditions?Reply:Unfortunately, we did not measure the amount of the shell material in obtaining the composite nanofibers. Namely, the flow rate of the shell solution during the electrospinning was not accurately controlled using an injecting pump. Hence the % release was not applicable.Please refer to the previous reply related to Page 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments.We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.具体例子2：Major comments:1. The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMPsecretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive controlprogenitor cell population i.e. enriched human CD34 cellsobtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a moreclinicallyrelevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown tosecrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 enriched cellsfrom steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs arealso of interest.2. In fig 1C please specify which cell line represents MMP-negative cells. This needs to be clarified, as well as abetter explanation of the method of the protocol.3. The ELISA results are represented as "fold increase" comparedto control. Instead, we suggest that standards should be used andresults should be presented as absolute concentrations and onlythen can these results be compared to those of the zymography.4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguishclearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration.Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained with cordblood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34enriched cells and discussed.5. The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed todetermine the optimum concentration for inhibition of MMPactivity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however theyshould clarify that this assay can only determine the toxicity ofthe inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations.Minor comments:1. There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in theresults and discussion, which need correction.a. Of special importance, is the percent inhibition of migration,which is described as percent of migration. i.e. pg 7:"Migrationof CB CD34 was reduced to 73.3%?" Instead should read "Migration of CB CD34 was reduced by 73.3%?"b. The degree symbol needs to be added to the numbers inMaterials and methods.2. It would be preferable to combine figure 1A and B, in order toconfirm the reliability of fig. 1B by a positive control(HT1080).Answer to referee 1 comment:1. Mobilized peripheral blood is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it is necessary to compare the MMP-9 secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn't obtain enough mobilized PB toseparate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’t complement the study on PB CD34+ cells in this paper. Results obtained by Janowska-Wieczorek et al found that mobilized CD34+ cells in peripheral blood express MMP-9. Furthermore, Domenech’s study showed that MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSF induced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusion from our data is that freshly isolated CD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9.2. MMP-9 negative cell used in fig 1C was Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis, MMP-9 was not detected in the medium conditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, we screened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. This result may be confusion. Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells(MNC)/ml (since the purities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9 activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion be detected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cells conditioned medium is due to the contamination by MNC.3.In this revised paper, we have detected the MMP-9 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System, sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Recombinant MMP-9 from R&D System was used as a standard. The results are expressed in the absolute concentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectable in both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higher in CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium than in BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium (0.406±0.133ng/ml versus0.195±0.023ng/ml). Although gelatinolytic activity was not detected in media conditioned by CD34+ cells from BM, sensitivity of ELISA favors the detection of MMP-9 antigen in the BM CD34+.4. In our study, to establish the direct link between MMP-9 and CB CD34+ cells migration, we only determined the role of MMP-9 in spontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoietic stem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison to CD34+ cells from BM and peripheral blood.5. CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. It is not enough to screen the inhibitors concentrations to select the optimalinhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations used by others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicity of the inhibitors in that concentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay.Minor comments:1.The spelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected.2.Since the results in figure 1A and B were obtained from two separated and parallel experiments, it is not fitness to combine two figures.下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。
回复审稿人意见
1.Dear Professor xx:Thank you very much for your letter dated xxx xx xxxx, and the referees’ reports. Based on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, we attached revised manuscript in the formats of both PDF and MS word, for your approval. A document answering every question from the referees was also summarized and enclosed.A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.2.Dear reviewer:I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.1）2）....3.Our manuscript entitled, ¨****¨ has been carefully revised according to Reviewers’ suggestions. Now I answer the questions one-by-one.About the English writing of the manuscript, we ask for native English speaker to revise the paper before it was submitted to the magazine and this time. I don’t know whether it has reached to your magazine’s standard.Thank you very much.Sincerely,***Answers to REVIEW 11. ****.Answer:2. ****.Answer:...Answers to REVIEW 21. ****.Answer:2. ****.Answer:...4.Dear Editor:Thank you for your kind letter of “......” on November **, 2005. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’comments.Part A (Reviewer 1)1. The reviewer’s comment: ......The authors’ Answer: .....2. The reviewer’s comment: ......The authors’ Answer: ...........Part B (Reviewer 2)1. The reviewer’s comment: ......The authors’ Answer: .....2. The reviewer’s comment: ......The authors’ Answer: ...........Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised.All the lines and pages indicated above are in the revised manuscript.Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.Sincerely yours,***5.Dear Dr. Fay Riordan:Thank you very much for your attention and the referee’s evaluation and comments on our paper BXXXXK. We have revised the manuscript according to your kind advices and referee’s detailed suggestions. Enclosed please find the responses to the referees. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on XXX.Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.Best regardsSincerely yours6.Dr. XXXPlease find the following Response to the comments of referees:Response to the referee’s commentsReferee AComment 1: The titania material formed after calcining at 450 oC is not characterized. XRD of these calcined materials should be provided to understand the crystallinity and phase.Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. According tohis/her advices, X-ray diffractometry spectroscopy (XRD) of the calcined TiO2 film was given in Supporting Information (Figure S1) in this revised version. It illustrated that the hydrothermal synthesized TiO2 materials after calcining at 450 oC is entire anatase, which was confirmed by the X-ray diffractometer with Cu Kα radiation (Rigaku D/ max-2500).Comment 2: The authors must state the mechanical strength of these materials after the removal of PS by calcinations.Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. By a scotch tape peel test, the TiO2 film can’t be stripped from the conducting glass substrate, which indicates that the mechanical strength of as-prepared composite film is strong enough for the fabrication of solar cell devices. The revised details can be found in Line 165-168, page 2.Referee BComment 1: The microtube structure with the size of 500-800 nm cannot only scatter the visible light in the region of 500-800 nm, but also can scatter more efficiently the visible light in the region below 500 nm, and can scatter near infrared light. This point should be clarified in the main text.Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind advice. Just like what the referee said, the microtube network structure can scatter not only visible light but also near infrared light. We added this point in revised manuscript and the detailed revision can be found in Line 194-205, Page 2-3.Comment 2: They described the simulated sunlight as "one-simulating-sunlight condition (AM1.5, 100 mW cm-2)". But in my opinion, it would be better to use the phrase like "AM 1.5 simulated solar light (100 mW cm-2)".Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. "one-simulating-sunlight condition (AM1.5, 100 mW cm-2)" has been changed to "AM 1.5 simulated solar light (100 mW cm-2)" in our revised manuscript. (Line 217, Page 3) Comment 3: They correctly pointed out that the increased ratio of solar energy conversion efficiency by the microtube-network structure was smaller than that estimated from the absorption spectra. It is understandable, considering that a TiO2 porous film was filled with solvent in a device, while that for spectroscopic measurements is filled with air.Response: Thanks for the referee’s good evaluation and kind suggestion. The referee’s explanation is very correct. Light absorptions of TiO2 photoelectrodes are different when they are filled with electrolytes and air, respectively. It is ascribed to that a part of solar light will be absorbed by the electrolytes and also different medium in the porousfilm will induce the different refractive indices. This is one reason that increased ratio of conversion efficiency by the microtube-network structure was smaller than that estimated from the absorption spectra. We added this point into our revised manuscript and the details can be found in Line 325-330, Page 4.。
(完整版)如何回复审稿人意见(ResponsetoReviews)
Dear Editor,We have studied the valuable comments from you, the assistant editor and reviewers carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:Responds to the rev iewer’s comments:Reviewer 1Comment 1: in page 3, line 40, we fed rats..." changed to rats were fed with... Response: According to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected the sentence. Furthermore, we have had the manuscript polished with a professional assistance in writing.Comment 2:page 25. The style of reference 40 is not right (using initials for the first names). Since this paper has been published, the volume and page Nos should be provided.Response: Thank you for your careful work. We have added the volume and page numbers for reference 40.Reviewer 2Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the criticisms with additional experiments. The one criticism that they did not address was relating to energy expenditure as the reason that the animals on the low calcium diet gained more weight. While I understand that performing this experiment will not affect the conclusion of this manuscript, I do believe that this point could be discussed in the Discussion section.Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. Based on the previous revision, we further address the relationship between low calcium diet and energy expenditure in the section of discussion according to your thoughtful comments.Reviewer 3Comment 1: In the text you often write: “As previously described”. Unless that paper is from your lab or one of the method paper co-authors is on the present MS this is not quite proper since the statement infers method development from your lab. There are numerous instances like that in the methods section; these should all be changed “according to those described by…..”Response: We are sorry for this language mistake. We have carefully corrected this phrase throughout the manuscript according to your comment.Comment 2: There are still some wording, sentence structure and grammatical issues even in this basically well put together MS. For example, while authors may have been excited about the data you cannot start a sentence with “Excitedly” in line 418 or “Whatever” in line 395.Response: Thank you very much to point out the sentence structure and grammatical issues in our manuscript. According to the comments from you and the editors, we polished the manuscript with a professional assistance in writing, conscientiously.Comment 3:In my view a big omission in this work is ignoring the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues. For example all animals consumed the same amount of feed but we had extra fat storage in the low Ca diet groups. So where did the extra energy go? Zemel et al (citation 34) in similar work indicate that increased thermogenesis on the high Ca diet explains the dissipation of dietary energy. Further even though Zemel et al (#34) indicated lipogenesis was enhanced in the low Ca diets that was in 2000 and you should have monitored expression of FAS and UCP either as mRNA abundance or actual FAS/UCP changes via proteomics or blotting techniques. In any case these controls are missing here and not emphasized in the MS. Casual reading of this paper would lead to the conclusion that the dietary Ca effect on fat deposition is strictly a function of increased or decreased lipolysis. While lipolysis appears to be a major player, lipogenesis and thermogenesis cannot be ignored for completeness. In Fig 8 you also show a decline in cAMP for the low Ca diet. Well beta agonists or cAMP enhancers regulate transcription of adipose and liver FAS (in rats (J Biol Chem 271:2307, 1996) and recently with large animal models (Hausman et al J Animal Science 87:1218, 2009 and Halsey et al J Animal Science 89: 1011, 2011). In additioncAMP levels could have been monitored. I really do not like the last sentence in the Abstract line 47-50 where you state that “low calcium diet-induced increase in fat mass was due to enhanced lipogenesis mediated by an upregulated CaSR signaling pathway” Your results here show no such thing, this is a completely false statement based on data herein. Correct. You show that high Ca diets enhance lipolysis and low Ca diets are antilipolytic. You did not monitor lipid anabolism here at all. See also line 255-257 and lines 333-335 of your MS. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. As you suggested that the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues should be monitored. We really agree with your viewpoints. In the present study, we did find that low calcium diet increased the mRNA level of fatty acid synthase (FAS) in white adipose tissue. Furthermore, the FAS mRNA level were also increased in adipocytes after treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3in in-vitro experiments. However, the increased FAS mRNA levels were not affected by preventing either the nuclear vitamin D receptor (nVDR) or calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR), suggesting that FAS might not be involved in the CaSR pathway. In addition, we thought that FAS played its role in fatty acid synthesis mainly in liver previously. Besides, the manuscript was required to restrict number of total words and our previous focus was on the antilolytic role of CaSR in the process of fat accumulation. So we ignored to provide the data of FAS mRNA levels in the submitted manuscript. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the mRNA levels according to your helpful suggestion.We have reported the effects of dietary calcium on UCP2 mRNA levels in adipose tissue and UCP3 in skeletal muscle in our previous studies (1, 2). Thus, we believed that low calcium diet led to decreased thermogenesis in the present study. It was a pity that we did not measure the rat core temperature in those studies. The UCP2 mRNA levels in adipocytes were observed to be decreased after treatment of 1,25-(OH)2D3. This effect was prevented by using nVDR CaSR gene silencing but not by CaSR gene knockdown, suggesting that UCP2 was not involved in CaSR pathways. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the UCP2 results.Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are very sorry for our fault statement in the abstract. We have corrected it in the new manuscript.Comment 4: A point that does not emerge well from the discussion is how low Ca intakes result in higher intracellular [Ca] concentrations and really the effects on fatdeposition in the cells in many ways are due to an increased intracellular Ca level mediated via CaSR expression increases and the effect of VitD3 on nVDR show in Fig 8. The authors must remind readers that Ca levels in the blood are under hormonal regulation (Calcitonin, PTH and VitD3). Thus when diets low in Ca are consumed and blood Ca decline, PTH and VitD3 are called upon to mobilize bone Ca to replenish the blood Ca. Then coupled with an increase in CaSR more Ca actually is found in AT despite the fact that many would think the AT Ca level should decline. The reason is that tissue/circulating Ca levels are not diet depended but regulated. The vast bone stores of Ca will provide ample Ca here especially during a study of this length. While authors address these issues maybe could be presented in a less complicated discussion.Response:Thank you for your instructive suggestions. We are sorry for not describing the effect of low calcium diet on intracellular calcium concentrations mediated by CaSR, as well as the impact of hormone regulation on serum calcium levels clearly. According to your helpful advice, we have rewritten these two parts in the section of discussion. Thank you again.Comment 5: Not all citations are in JN styleResponse: We have careful recheck and corrected the style of the citations according to the requirement of JN.Comment 6: Abstract conclusion differs from lines 255-257 and 333-335; WHY? Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The conclusion from lines 255-257 is about the effect of low calcium diet on serum levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) and lipids. We considered FFA and glycerol as indicators of TG hydrolysis in adipose tissue. The low calcium diet caused decreased serum FFA and glycerol levels without influencing lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity, so we thought the lipolytic effect of adipose tissue to be suppressed by low calcium diet. The conclusion from lines 333-335 was about the effect of 1,25-(OH)2D3 whose levels were increased under low calcium conditions on lipolysis. We used the glycerol level as the indicator of TG hydrolysis in adipocytes. Both the in vivo and in vitro experiments showed low calcium status caused an antilipolytic effect.Comment 7: Line 150-153. The qRT-PCR methodology is not at all understandable as you cite a Texas A&M published paper. This is completely insufficient with the newly established standards on gene expression via qRT-PCR. There is no mention of efficiencies of amplifications in these data nor how the use of the reference gene was established etc. I think Pfaffl and Bustin have recently written an article on this; please totally revise 150-153 in line with what you did and applying the new standards.Response: Thank you very much. Because the JN restricts the number of total words of manuscript, we cited the Texas A&M published paper. In the newly submitted manuscript, we describe the detailed protocols in our lab.Comment 8:Line 179 on Not clear as in sentences talk about different AT cell sources etc..revise.Response: We are sorry for not addressing the adipose tissue cell sources clearly. We have rewritten the methods.Comment 9: Any previous documentable work with siRNA?Response: Yes, we have documentable work with siRNA in our research team. The results were published in the journal of Biochem Biophys Res Commun (3).Comment 10: Line 214.. Cultured primary rat adipocytes and SW872 adipocytes ……Response: Thank you very much. According to your comment, we have had the manuscript polished and corrected the mistakes.。
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID:文章稿号).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper,as w ell as the important guiding significance to our researches.We have studied comments carefully a nd have made correction which we hope meet with approval.Revised portion are marked in red i n the paper.The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer#1:1.Response to comment:(……简要列出意见……)Response:××××××2.Response to comment:(……简要列出意见……)Response:××××××。
逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：We are very sorry for our negligence of……...We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……..It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion As Reviewer suggested that……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion,we have……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer#2:同上述Reviewer#3:××××××Other changes:1.Line60-61,the statements of“……”were corrected as“…………”2.Line107,“……”was added3.Line129,“……”was deleted××××××We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript.Thes e changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’warm work earnestly,and hope that the correction will m eet with approval.Once again,thank you very much for your comments and suggestions以下是审稿人意见和本人的回复。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
1. Strong Aspects
The idea to use multiple agents with dynamic itineraries to solve data dissemination is interested.
2. Weak Aspects
Comments 1: It is better to replace t he keyword “data aggregation”with “data dissemination”.
Comments 2: There are several errors in the flow charts e.g. the forth process box in Fig.1 “x.ringNo=1” just has an input and no output, what is the next step after “x.ringNo=1”? The forth judgment box in Fig.4 (b) “is p.mA_direction is UP?” only considers the next step when this condition is right. What should be done if this condition is false? The judgment box in Fig.4 (a) has two inputs.
Recommended Changes:
Please refer to the drawing specification to improve the flow chart. Start box and end box should be selected in accordance with the flow chart format. Judgment boxes should follow the principle of single entrance, and the arrow in the same path should be only one.
Comments 3: The value range of α is Inappropriate. We can see that there exists an optimal point in MADIDD from Fig.5 (a) (b), which is very important for MADIDD. However, the author narrowed the value range of alpha in the analysis of Fig.5(c) (d). We are unable to see what the distribution of the optimal point in MADIDD is.
Recommended Changes:
- Increase the value range of alpha, and add the analysis of MADIDD’s optimal value.
- There should be a high-level description.
Comments 4: There are several errors in references e.g. “10. Chen, M., et al., “Itinerary Planning for Energy-efficient Agent Communication in Wireless Sensor Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, , 2011(99): p. 1-1.” and so on. Please check the references format carefully.
3. Evaluation. T otal score: 5.
Relevance and Timeliness （5）
Technical Content and Scientific Rigor（2）
Novelty and Originality（4）
Quality of Presentation（4）
Overall, it is my opinion that the article should be published after the minor revision.。