一些英文审稿意见及回复的
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板尊敬的审稿专家，
非常感谢您对我们的文章进行审阅，并提供宝贵的意见和建议。
我们针对您的意见进行了认真思考和修改。
以下是我们对您每个意见的回复：
意见一：关于标题的修改
回复：非常感谢您对标题的建议。
我们已经对标题进行了修改，以更好地反映文章的内容。
意见二：关于语言表达问题的修改
回复：感谢您指出文章中的语言表达问题。
我们已经重新审视并修改了这些问题，以提高文章的表达清晰度和准确性。
意见三：关于排版整洁美观的建议
回复：非常感谢您对排版提出的建议。
我们已经对文章的排版进行了调整，确保整体呈现更加美观和易读。
意见四：关于文章分节讨论的建议
回复：感谢您对文章分节讨论的建议。
我们已经对文章进行了适当的分节，并调整了段落结构，使得文章更具条理性和连贯性。
意见五：关于论述中的细节完善
回复：非常感谢您对论述中细节的指正。
我们已经仔细检查了每个
细节，并进行了必要的补充和完善，以增强文章的逻辑性和严谨性。
意见六：关于避免使用无关内容和网址链接的建议
回复：感谢您对内容的建议。
我们已经移除了所有无关和网址链接
的内容，以确保文章专注于题目所要求的内容，同时遵守编写规范。
最后，再次感谢您对我们文章的审阅和宝贵的意见。
在您的帮助下，我们对文章进行了全面的改进，并希望这份修订后的稿件能够满足您
的要求。
如果您还有任何其他建议或意见，请随时提出，我们将非常
乐意进一步改进。
最诚挚的问候，
[您的姓名]。
回复审稿意见的礼貌用语英语
回复审稿意见的礼貌用语英语English:"Dear Reviewer,Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. Your feedback is invaluable, providing us with crucial insights and guidance to improve the quality of our paper. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. Our responses to your specific points are outlined below. Please let us know if there are any further changes or clarifications required. Once again, thank you for your constructive criticism, and we look forward to your feedback on our revised manuscript."中文翻译:"尊敬的审稿人，非常感谢您对我们稿件的深思熟虑和详细的评论。
我们非常感激您为审阅我们的工作所投入的时间和精力。
您的反馈非常宝贵，为我们提供了重要的见解和指导，帮助我们提高论文的质量。
我们已经仔细考虑了您提出的每一条建议，并进行了相应的修改。
英文论文审稿意见英文版
英文论文审稿意见汇总之老阳三干创作1、目标和结果不清晰.It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充沛.◆ In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.◆ Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experimentsshould be provided.3、对研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈说结论/夸年夜功效/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented.6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/界说概念：What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7、对研究问题的界说：Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,write one section to define the problem8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充沛地写literature review:The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.9、对claim,如A＞B的证明,verification:There is no experimental comparison of the algorithmwith previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.10、严谨度问题：MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.11、格式（重视水平）：◆ In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.◆ Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.12、语言问题（呈现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：◆ It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results ofthe study are clear to the reader.◆ The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.◆ As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.◆ The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.◆ Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ?◆ the quality of English needs improving.来自编纂的鼓励：Encouragement from reviewers:◆ I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greaterdepth once it has been edited because the subject is interesting.◆ There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials.◆ The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.老外写的英文综述文章的审稿意见Ms. Ref. No.: ******Title: ******Materials Science and EngineeringDear Dr. ******,Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.Reviewer #1: This work proposes an extensive review onmicromulsion-based methods for the synthesis of Ag nanoparticles. As such, the matter is of interest, however the paper suffers for two serious limits:1) the overall quality of the English language is rather poor;2) some Figures must be selected from previous literature to discuss also the synthesis of anisotropically shaped Ag nanoparticles (there are several examples published), which has been largely overlooked throughout the paper. ;Once the above concerns are fully addressed, the manuscript could be accepted for publication in this journal这是一篇全过程我均比力了解的投稿,稿件的内容我认为是相当不错的,中文版投稿于业内有较高影响的某核心期刊,并很快获得发表.其时我作为审稿人之一,除提出一些修改建议外,还特建议了5篇应增加的参考文献,该文正式发表时共计有参考文献25篇.作者或许看到审稿意见还不错,因此决意检验考试向美国某学会主办的一份英文刊投稿.几经修改和弥补后,请一位英文“功底"较好的中国人翻译,投稿后约3周,便返回了三份审稿意见.从英文刊的反馈意见看,这篇稿件中最严重的问题是文献综述和引用不够,其次是语言表达方面的欠缺,另外是论证过程和结果展示形式方面的缺乏.感想：一篇好的论文,从内容到形式都需要精雕细琢.附1：中译审稿意见审稿意见—1(1) 英文表达太差,尽管意思年夜致能表达清楚,但文法毛病太多.(2) 文献综述较差,观点或论断应有文献支持.(3) 论文读起来像是XXX的广告,不知道作者与XXX是否没有关联.(4) 该模式的立异性其实不是如作者所述,目前有许多XX采用此模式（如美国地球物理学会）,作者应详加调查并分析XXX运作模式的立异点.(5) 该模式也不是作者所说的那样胜利……(审稿人结合论文中的数据具体分析)审稿意见—2(1) 缺少直接相关的文献引用(如…).(2) 写作质量达不到美国学术期刊的标准.审稿意见—3(1) 作者应着重指出指出自己的贡献.(2) 缺少支持作者发现的方法学分析.(3) 需要采纳表格和图件形式展示(数据)资料.Our JPCA paper were peer reviewed by two reviewers, and their comments are as follows:The Comments by the First ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 68Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various TypesCorresponding Author: YuRecommendation: The paper is probably publishable, but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.Additional Comments: In the present work the authors introduce a new energy-based aromaticity measure. Referred as restricted geometry optimization, the extra stabilization energy (ESE) is calculated by means of an energy scheme in which the different double bonds are localized. This methodology is applied to different sets of aromatic systems, and the results are compared to previous already existing schemes. This procedure seems to work better than previous ones, however it must be underlined that with a much greater complexity. It avoids having to choose a reference structure, and it is worthnoticing that benzene appears to be the most aromatic system. Thus the method presented might mean a new contribution to the different aromacity criteria, however before acceptance for publication I would recommend important changes to be taken into account in the manuscript.The new method used is not presented in a comprehensible way. In the second paragraph of the Introduction the authors should already describe it, and not first presenting the results for benzene and notgoing into the method till the second section. The formulas used must be described precisely as well. So I would recommend that before acceptance the manuscript should be rewritten in order to make it more comprehensible not only to physical chemists but also to the experimental chemical community, and at the same time to improve the English used.Other minor points are:- First line of Introduction: aromaticity is one of the most important concepts in organic chemistry, but most of organic compounds are not aromatic.- Introduction, line 4:notice that only energetic ways of evaluating aromaticity are mentioned, however geometry-based (HOMA), magnetic-based (NICS) and electronic-based (SCI, PDI) methods are also important, and this point should be pointed out.- Section 3.1, last line of first paragraph: is B3LYP chosen just because it gives similar results to HF and MP2? This should be pointed out in the manuscript.- Enlarge description in point 3.4.1 by going deeper into the data in Figure 8.Review Sent Date: 18-Dec-2006******** *********************************The Comments by the Second ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 67Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate StabilizationEnergies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types Corresponding Author: YuRecommendation: The paper is probably publishable, but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.Additional Comments:Comments on the manuscript "Restricted Geometry Optimization, a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types" by Zhong-Heng Yu, Peng BaoAuthors propose a restricted geometry optimization technique subject to pi orbital interaction constraints as a new measure of aromaticity. The approach is interesting and has certain merits. My main objection is that the manuscript is difficult to read and understand, mainly because of poor English. A substantial revision in this respect would be beneficiary.各位：新的恶战开始了.投往JASA的文章没有被拒,但被批得很凶.尽管如此,审稿人和编纂还是给了我们一个修改和再被审的机会.我们应当珍惜这个机会,不急不火.我们首先要有个修改的指导思想.年夜家先看看审稿意见吧.-----邮件原件----- Manuscript #07-04147: Editor's Comments:This is my personal addition to the automatically generated email displayed above. Your manuscript has now been read by three knowledgeable reviewers, each of whom has provided thoughtful and detailed comments on the paper. The main points of the reviews are self-explanatory and mostly consistent across the reviews. Your presentation needs to be reworked substantially, and thereviews give you many suggestions for doing so. Clearly, the introduction needs to be much more concise and focused on the main questions you propose to answer, and why these questions are important. The rationale forselecting this unusual condition must be clear. Your discussion should focuson how the questions have been answered and what they mean. The resultssection is heavily dependent on statistical analyses that did not satisfythe reviewers. The figures and tables could be improved and perhapsconsolidated. The methods could be shortened. For example, I think readers would take your word thatthesewere nonsense sentences, or perhaps you could simply cite some other workwhere they were used. In general, it is unusual to present the first resultsas late as page 17 of a manuscript.Beyond the issues of presentation, some serious questions are raised by the reviewers about the design. The most notable (but not the only problem) is that there are no conditions where young and olderlisteners can be compared at nearly the same performance level in the baseline condition, and that at least floor effects and potentially ceiling effects are likely to significantly influence the older/younger comparison. The older listeners are tested at only one signal-to-noise ratio, at which performance was extremely poor. This asymmetric design where data for three signal-to-masker ratios are available for the younger listeners but only one for the older listeners is not ideal, but perhaps the comparison could have been salvaged if you had guessed a little better in selecting the signal-to-masker ratio for the older listeners. That didn't work out and you didn't adjust to it. I'm sorry to say that in my opinion this problem is so serious that it precludes publication of t!heolder versus younger data in JASA, as I see no way of making a valid comparison with things as they are. Further, after reading the manuscript and the reviews, it seems to me that even the subjective impressioncomparison is difficult to interpret because of the different sensation levels at which the older and younger groups listened (if the target was fixed at 56 dBA).The Brungart et al. and Rakerd et al. data that you cite where the masker delay was manipulated over the 0 to 64 ms range would seem to have been a nice springboard for your study in older listeners. Would it not have been cleaner to have replicated those conditions with younger subjects in your lab, and then tested older listeners to see whether thepatterns of data were different? There, at least, the target stimulus condition itself is not varying and there are archival data out there for comparison. As the reviews point out, your conditions present brand new complications because the ITI changes the spatial impression of the target, may change the energetic masking of the target, and distorts the target temporally all at the same time. Although the temporal distortions did not impair performancesubstantially in quiet, they may well in noise. Further, the spatial impressions created by the target in quiet are likely to be very different than those when the target is at v! erylow sensation levels in masking. Please investigate the literature on the influence of sensation level and noise on the strength ofthe precedence effect, particularly the perception of "echoes" at the longer delays. Yuan Chuan Chiang did her dissertation on this and published the results in JASA in 1998, but the first observation that noise can influence the breaking apart of a lead-lag stimulus into two images dates back at least to Thurlow and Parks (1961). To be sure, the sounds that we want to listen to are often accompanied by reflections, and I am not questioning the general validity of your conditions. However, it is important that your experimental design allows you separate out the various contributions to your results.I think there are several options for you to consider: (1) If you think it is very important to publish all the data you have right now, you couldwithdraw the manuscript and attempt to publish the data in another journal.(2) You could argue that the reviewers and I are wrong about the seriousness of the floor effect with the older listeners and submit a revision that includes the same data while making a convincing case for the validity of the older/younger comparison. Although this option is open to you, I don't think this is a promising alternative. (3) You could collect more data on older listeners under more favorable conditions where performance is better. With the added data this could either be a new manuscript, or, if such data were collected and the paper rewritten in a reasonable amount of time, it could be considered a revision of the current manuscript. The revision would be sent back to the reviewers. Of course, I cannot promise in advance that amanuscript evenwith these newdata would be judged favorably by the reviewers. (4) You could drop the older/younger comparison from the manuscript and submit a much shorter version that includes only the younger data and focuses on the noise masker/speech masker distinction, perhaps analyzing your data to draw inferences about release from energetic versus informational masking from the data. Here too, it will be important to provide a clear rationale for what your specific question is about release from masking, why your conditions were chosen, and what new insights your data offer. I still worry about how spatial effects and the effects of temporal distortions are to be distinguished. (5) You could simply withdraw the manuscript and consider a more straightforward design for asking the questions you want to ask with older listeners.Thank your for submitting your manuscript to JASA. I hope the alternatives described will help guide you on how you should proceed from here. Whatever you decide to do, please consider the reviewers' comments very carefully as they have gone out of their way to provide you with suggestions on improving the presentation.Sincerely yours, Richard L. FreymanReviewer Comments: Reviewer #1 Evaluations:Reviewer #1 (Good Scientific Quality):No. See attached Reviewer #1 (Appropriate Journal): YesReviewer #1 (Satisfactory English/References): No.Reviewer #1 (Tables/Figures Adequate): No.Reviewer #1 (Concise): No.Reviewer #1 (Appropriate Title and Abstract): No, because the term "interval-target interval" in thetitle required further explanation.MS#: 07-04147 Huang et al. "Effect of changing the inter-target interval on informational masking and energetic masking of speech in young adults and older adults." This paper investigates the benefits of release from masking in younger and older listeners, as a function of inter-target interval (ITI) in two masker conditions (speech masking and noise masker). The same target speech was presented from two different locations simultaneously in two different maskers, one from each location (L or R). Results show that release from informational masking is evident in both younger and older listeners when the ITI was reduced from 64 ms to 0 ms.General comments:1. Introduction needs to be rewritten:• The general impression is that the introduction section is unnecessarily lengthy. There is too much unnecessary information, while some important terms and information are left unexplained. • The organization is poor and concepts are disjointed, jumping from place to place. For example, the authors spent 1.5 pages on reverberation and the difference between older and younger adults, than spent a full-page to talk about masking, and then came back to reverberation.• In addition, the authors did not clearly present the purpose of the study and the core of the issues under investigation. The authors mentioned that "the present study investigated whether changing theITI over the whole precedence-operation range...can induce a release of target speech from speech masking or noise masking." However, they did not explain how and why manipulating ITI can address their questions, questions that were not clearly stated anywhere inthe paper. No hypothesis was provided in the paper and no explanation was given regarding how the experimental conditions or contrast of results in different conditions can answer the questions under investigation.2. Report of results and statistical analyses needs to be accurate and precise:• Authors failed to provide results of statistical analyses in many occasions.• At the beginning of the result section for both the younger andolder groups, the authors should clearly present the number of factors included in the analysis and which one was a between-subject factor and which ones were within-subject factors. Main effects and interaction (3-way and 2-way) should also be reported clearly. • Bonferroni correction was mentioned in the post-hoc analyses; however, no pvalue was reported. • The authors should not use the term "marginally significant". It is either"significant" or "nonsignificant". I don't see p=0.084 is "marginallysignificant."• When you say percent release, do you mean percentage point difference between the 64 ms ITI and other ITI values? For example, in the statement "...the releaseamount was 31.9% under the speech-masking condition,...", do you mean "31.9 percentage points"?3. Baseline condition is questionable:• The authors failed to provide clear explanation of the results. For example, the authors finally provided the definition of release from masking (on p.19) as "...the release of speech from masking at each ITI is defined as the percent difference between the speech-identification at the ITI and the speech identification at the ITI of 64 ms (the longest ITI in this study)." • It took me a while to understand what this means, and finally came up with the interpretation (if my interpretation is correct) of the data for the authors. It seems that when ITI was at 0 ms, theperceived spatial location is between the two maskers (spatial separation). But when the ITI was 32 and/or 64 ms, listeners heard two images (one from each side) and there was no spatial separation between the target speech and the masker on either side. Therefore, according to the authors, the release from masking is the performance difference between the ITI conditions when listeners heard only one image in a location different from the maskers', and the ITI conditions where two images from the masker locations were heard. However, I have a problem with the baseline condition (64 ms ITI in which two images were perceived). If the listeners could not fuse the image, did they hear a delay (echo) between the two targets? If so, the poor performance in the 64 ms condition can be partially due to theconfusion/disruption induced by the echo in noise conditions inaddition to the lack of spatial separation between the target and themasker.4. Subject recruitment criteria were unclear:• The authors recruited both young and older adults in the study and claimed that both groups had "clinically normal hearing." However, reading the fine details of their hearing thresholds (< 45 dB HL between 125 and 4k Hz), it is hard to accept that the hearing thresholds are within normal limits in the older group. There is at least a mild hearing loss below 4k Hz and mild-to-moderate hearing loss above 4k Hz (see Fig. 1) in these subjects. The authors should explain the differences in the results in relation to the threshold differences between the two groups.• The threshold data provided in Fig. 1 is average data. It is necessary to provide individual threshold data (at least for the older group) in a table format.5. Language problem:• I understand that English is not the authors' native language. It is recommended that the authors seek assistance in proof-reading the manuscript before submission.6. Tables and Figures:• Table 1 and 2 are not necessary since the information is presented in Fig. 7 • The authors should provide legends in the figures.• The authors should provide error bars in thegraphs in Fig 1. • It is hard to see the short ITI data in Fig. 2 • The authors should consider changing the scale on the y-axis in Fig. 4 to provide better visualization of the data. • Fig. 6 should be deleted. Results could be clearly described in the text.Specific comments (this is by no means a complete list):p.3 first par: The quote from Knudsen (1929) is not necessary.p.4 first & second par. The authors provided an exhaustive list of references in various place. I recommend they only cite the ones that are most relevant and representative. p.4 last sentence. "A listener subject to informational masking a target speech feels it difficult to segregate audible components of the targetspeech from those of masking speech." This sentence is incomprehensible,please rewrite. p.5 first line, first par. "Masking (particularly information masking) of target speech can be reduced if the listener can use certain cues (perceived spatial location, acoustical features, lexical information, etc) to facilitate his/her selective attention to the target speech." References are needed for each cue listed in this sentence. p.5 line 5. "Age-related deficits...inhibition of goal-irrelevantinformation..., therefore may cause more speech-recognition difficulties" This sentence is coming out of the blue without further explanation.p. 8-10. Please explain the terms "inter-loudspeaker interval","inter-masker interval", "inter-target interval" before using them.p.11 line 11 "Moreover, if the recognition of target speech under either the speech masking condition or noise masking condition is significantlyinfluenced by the ITI in younger adults, the present study further investigated whether there is an age-related deficit in the releasing effect of changing the ITI." This sentence is incomprehensible. p.11 line 2 "The 36 young university students all had normal and balanced...." Change "balance" to "symmetrical." p. 12 line 8 "Direct English translations of the sentences are similar but not identical to the English nonsense sentences that were developed by Helfer (1997) and also used in studies by Freyman et al. (1999, 2001, 2004) and Li et al. (2004)." I thought the sentences were created by the authors. So, are they a direct translation from the English version or created by theauthors?p.13 last par "For the two-source target presentation,...." This came out of the blue. The experimental conditions should be described clearly in a separate section. Schematic representation of the conditions could be included.p.15 line 8 "During a session, the target-speech sounds were presented at a level such that each loudspeaker, playing alone, would produce a sound pressure of 56 dBA." Is this the rms level of speech? The level at 56 dBA seems a little low to me. It may sound very soft for the older listeners given that they have mild to moderate hearing loss. Can you explain why you chose such a low presentation level? p.15 last line "There were 36 ((17+1)x2) testing condition for younger participants, and there were 32 ((15+1)x2) testingconditions for older participants." The number of conditions for each group is not apparent to me. Could you explain further in the manuscript? p.16 line 9 "...participated in additional speech-recognition experiments under the condition without masker presentation." Where did the target speech come from? Front? Right? Or left? p.17-27. See comments on reporting results and statistical analysis under "General comments" point #2. p.23 line 12-13 "A 2 (masker type) by 15 (ITI) within-subject ANOVA confirms that the interaction between masker type and ITI was significant..." Since the interaction is significant, the authors should not simply interpret the main effects. p.29 line 9 Explain "self-masking" effect. Would the author expect a "self-masking" effect in noise?p.30 last par first line "Specifically, when the SNR was -4 dB, changing the ITI (absolute value) from 64 to 0 ms led to only a small improvement in target-speech intelligibility, and the improvement was similar between the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition." The amount of release from masking in the speech masker condition at -4 dB SNR may be limited by the ceiling effect. p.31 line 5 "In older participants, the reduction of the ITI also improved speech recognition under both the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition..." It is hard to tell if there is a significant difference among the ITI conditions with the noise masker due to the floor effect. p.31 line 7 from bottom. "The results suggest a faster decay of temporal storage of the fine details of speech sound in olderadults than in younger adults. Thus at long it is (16 ms or 32 ms), cues induced by the integration of leading and lagging target signals were weaker and/or not be well used in older participants." First, the author should take into account the hearing loss in the older group. Second, this conclusion seems somewhatcontradictory to what the authors reported regarding the perceived image(s) of the target signal under various ITI conditions. All except for one younger subject perceived two separate images at 32 ms ITI, but most of the older subjects still perceived the target as one image. p.32 2nd par. The discussion on the effect of inter-sound delay on ear channel acoustics came out of nowhere.Reviewer #2 Evaluations:Reviewer #2 (Good Scientific Quality): Generally yes - see general remarks below. Reviewer #2 (Appropriate Journal): YesReviewer #2 (Satisfactory English/References):Clarity and conciseness could be improved - see general remarks.The referencing is occasionally excessive, e.g. the 17 references provided to back up the existence of informational masking on page 4, lines 13-17, or p28 lines 15-16. Some choice examples would generally suffice instead of。
sci审稿人回复意见
sci审稿人回复意见英文回答：Thank you for your thoughtful review and helpful suggestions. We have carefully considered your comments and made the following revisions to our manuscript:1. In the Introduction, we have expanded our discussion of relevant literature to include the studies you suggested. We have also added a more detailed explanation of our research question and its significance in the field.2. In the Methods section, we have provided more information about our data collection and analysis procedures. We have also clarified our inclusion and exclusion criteria for the study participants.3. In the Results section, we have added a table that summarizes the key findings of our study. We have also included additional figures and graphs to illustrate ourresults more clearly.4. In the Discussion section, we have addressed the potential limitations of our study and discussed the implications of our findings for future research. We have also added a more detailed conclusion that summarizes our main findings and their significance.We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We are grateful for your constructive feedback and guidance.中文回答：感谢您提供的周到审阅和宝贵建议。
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板之欧阳术创编
一些英文审稿意见的模板最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。
幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。
呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not show if the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。
英文论文审稿意见英文版
英文论文审稿意见汇总1、目标和结果不清晰..It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar; spelling; and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分..◆In general; there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.◆Furthermore; an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also; there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example; the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented..6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio7、对研究问题的定义：Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear;write one section to define the problem8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.9、对claim;如A＞B的证明;verification:There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work; so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.10、严谨度问题：MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS; how to prove that.11、格式重视程度：◆In addition; the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct.I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.◆Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure; please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.12、语言问题出现最多的问题：有关语言的审稿人意见：◆It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar; spelling; and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.◆The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.◆As presented; the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There are problems with sentence structure; verb tense; and clause construction.◆The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.◆Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it.◆the quality of English needs improving.来自编辑的鼓励：Encouragement from reviewers:◆I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has been edited because the subject is interesting.◆There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomaterials.◆The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.老外写的英文综述文章的审稿意见Ms. Ref. No.:Title:Materials Science and EngineeringDear Dr. ;Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required; I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.For your guidance; reviewers&39; comments are appended below.Reviewer 1: This work proposes an extensive review on micromulsion-based methods for the synthesis of Ag nanoparticles. As such; the matter is of interest; however the paper suffers for two serious limits:1 the overall quality of the English language is rather poor;2 some Figures must be selected from previous literature to discuss also the synthesis of anisotropically shaped Ag nanoparticles there are several examples published; which has been largely overlooked throughout the paper. ;Once the above concerns are fully addressed; the manuscript could be accepted for publication in this journal这是一篇全过程我均比较了解的投稿;稿件的内容我认为是相当不错的;中文版投稿于业内有较高影响的某核心期刊;并很快得到发表..其时我作为审稿人之一;除了提出一些修改建议外;还特建议了5篇应增加的参考文献;该文正式发表时共计有参考文献25篇..作者或许看到审稿意见还不错;因此决意尝试向美国某学会主办的一份英文刊投稿..几经修改和补充后;请一位英文“功底"较好的中国人翻译;投稿后约3周;便返回了三份审稿意见.. 从英文刊的反馈意见看;这篇稿件中最严重的问题是文献综述和引用不够;其次是语言表达方面的欠缺;此外是论证过程和结果展示形式方面的不足..感想：一篇好的论文;从内容到形式都需要精雕细琢..附1：中译审稿意见审稿意见—11 英文表达太差;尽管意思大致能表达清楚;但文法错误太多..2 文献综述较差;观点或论断应有文献支持..3 论文读起来像是XXX的广告;不知道作者与XXX是否没有关联..4 该模式的创新性并非如作者所述;目前有许多XX采取此模式如美国地球物理学会;作者应详加调查并分析XXX运作模式的创新点..5 该模式也不是作者所说的那样成功……审稿人结合论文中的数据具体分析审稿意见—21 缺少直接相关的文献引用如…..2 写作质量达不到美国学术期刊的标准..审稿意见—31 作者应着重指出指出本人的贡献..2 缺少支持作者发现的方法学分析..3 需要采用表格和图件形式展示数据材料..Our JPCA paper were peer reviewed by two reviewers; and their comments are as follows:The Comments by the First ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 68Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization; a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various TypesCorresponding Author: YuRecommendation: The paper is probably publishable; but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.Additional Comments: In the present work the authors introduce a new energy-based aromaticity measure. Referred as restricted geometry optimization; the extra stabilization energy ESE is calculated by means of an energy scheme in which the different double bonds are localized. This methodology is applied to different sets of aromatic systems; and the results are compared to previous already existing schemes. This procedure seems to work better than previous ones; however it must be underlined that with a much greater complexity. It avoids having to choose a reference structure; and it is worth noticing that benzene appears to be the most aromatic system. Thus the method presented might mean a new contribution to the different aromacity criteria; however before acceptance for publication I would recommend important changes to be taken into account in the manuscript.The new method used is not presented in a comprehensible way. In the second paragraph of the Introduction the authors should already describe it; and not first presenting the results for benzene and not going into the method till the second section. The formulas used must be described precisely as well. So I would recommend that before acceptance the manuscript should be rewritten in order to make it more comprehensible not only to physical chemists but also to the experimental chemical community; and at the same time to improve the English used. Other minor points are:- First line of Introduction: aromaticity is one of the most important concepts in organic chemistry; but most of organic compounds are not aromatic.- Introduction; line 4: notice that only energetic ways of evaluating aromaticity are mentioned; however geometry-based HOMA; magnetic-based NICS and electronic-based SCI; PDI methods are also important; and this point should be pointed out.- Section 3.1; last line of first paragraph: is B3LYP chosen just because it gives similar results to HF and MP2 This should be pointed out in the manuscript.- Enlarge description in point 3.4.1 by going deeper into the data in Figure 8.Review Sent Date: 18-Dec-2006The Comments by the Second ReviewerEditor: Michael A. DuncanReviewer: 67Manuscript Number: jp067440iManuscript Title: Restricted Geometry Optimization; a Different Way to Estimate StabilizationEnergies for Aromatic Molecules of Various TypesCorresponding Author: YuRecommendation: The paper is probably publishable; but should be reviewed again in revised form before it is accepted.Additional Comments:Comments on the manuscript "Restricted Geometry Optimization; a Different Way to Estimate Stabilization Energies for Aromatic Molecules of Various Types" by Zhong-Heng Yu; Peng BaoAuthors propose a restricted geometry optimization technique subject to pi orbital interaction constraints as a new measure of aromaticity. The approach is interesting and has certain merits. My main objection is that the manuscript is difficult to read and understand; mainly because of poor English. A substantial revision in this respect would be beneficiary.各位：新的恶战开始了..投往JASA的文章没有被拒;但被批得很凶..尽管如此;审稿人和编辑还是给了我们一个修改和再被审的机会..我们应当珍惜这个机会; 不急不火..我们首先要有个修改的指导思想..大家先看看审稿意见吧..-----邮件原件-----Manuscript 07-04147:Editor's Comments:This is my personal addition to the automatically generated email displayedabove. Your manuscript has now been read by three knowledgeable reviewers;each of whom has provided thoughtful and detailed comments on the paper. Themain points of the reviews are self-explanatory and mostly consistent acrossthe reviews. Your presentation needs to be reworked substantially; and thereviews give you many suggestions for doing so. Clearly; the introductionneeds to be much more concise and focused on the main questions you proposeto answer; and why these questions are important. The rationale for selecting this unusual condition must be clear. Your discussion should focus on how the questions have been answered and what they mean. The results section is heavily dependent on statistical analyses that did not satisfy the reviewers. The figures and tables could be improved and perhaps consolidated. The methods could be shortened. For example; I think readers would take your word that these were nonsense sentences; or perhaps you could simply cite some other work where they were used. In general; it is unusual to present the first results as late as page 17 of a manuscript.Beyond the issues of presentation; some serious questions are raised by thereviewers about the design. The most notable but not the only problem isthat there are no conditions where young and older listeners can be comparedat nearly the same performance level in the baseline condition; and that atleast floor effects and potentially ceiling effects are likely tosignificantly influence the older/younger comparison. The older listenersare tested at only one signal-to-noise ratio; at which performance wasextremely poor. This asymmetric design where data for three signal-to-maskerratios are available for the younger listeners but only one for the olderlisteners is not ideal; but perhaps the comparison could have been salvagedif you had guessed a little better in selecting the signal-to-masker ratiofor the older listeners. That didn't work out and you didn't adjust to it.I'm sorry to say that in my opinion this problem is so serious that itprecludes publication of theolder versus younger data in JASA; as I see no way of making a valid comparison with things as they are. Further; after reading the manuscriptand the reviews; it seems to me that even the subjective impression comparison is difficult to interpret because of the different sensationlevels at which the older and younger groups listened if the target wasfixed at 56 dBA.The Brungart et al. and Rakerd et al. data that you cite where the masker delay was manipulated over the 0 to 64 ms range would seem to have been a nice springboard for your study in older listeners. Would it not have been cleaner to have replicated those conditions with younger subjects in your lab; and then tested older listeners to see whether the patterns of datawere different There; at least; the target stimulus condition itself is not varying and there are archival data out there for comparison. As the reviews point out; your conditions present brand new complications because the ITI changes the spatial impression of the target; may change the energetic masking of the target; and distorts the target temporally all at the same time. Although the temporal distortions did not impair performance substantially in quiet; they may well in noise. Further; the spatial impressions created by the target in quiet are likely to be very differentthan those when the target is at verylow sensation levels in masking. Please investigate the literature on the influence of sensation level and noise on the strength of the precedence effect; particularly the perception of "echoes" at the longer delays. Yuan Chuan Chiang did her dissertation on this and published the results in JASA in 1998; but the first observation that noise can influence the breakingapart of a lead-lag stimulus into two images dates back at least to Thurlow and Parks 1961. To be sure; the sounds that we want to listen to are often accompanied by reflections; and I am not questioning the general validity of your conditions. However; it is important that your experimental design allows you separate out the various contributions to your results.I think there are several options for you to consider: 1 If you think itis very important to publish all the data you have right now; you could withdraw the manuscript and attempt to publish the data in another journal.2 You could argue that the reviewers and I are wrong about the seriousness of the floor effect with the older listeners and submit a revision thatincludes the same data while making a convincing case for the validity ofthe older/younger comparison. Although this option is open to you; I don't think this is a promising alternative. 3 You could collect more data onolder listeners under more favorable conditions where performance is better.With the added data this could either be a new manuscript; or; if such datawere collected and the paper rewritten in a reasonable amount of time; itcould be considered a revision of the current manuscript. The revision wouldbe sent back to the reviewers. Of course; I cannot promise in advance that a manuscript even with these new data would be judged favorably by the reviewers. 4 Youcould drop the older/younger comparison from the manuscript and submit amuch shorter version that includes only the younger data and focuses on thenoise masker/speech masker distinction; perhaps analyzing your data to draw inferences about release from energetic versus informational masking fromthe data. Here too; it will be important to provide a clear rationale forwhat your specific question is about release from masking; why yourconditions were chosen; and what new insights your data offer. I still worryabout how spatial effects and the effects of temporal distortions are to be distinguished. 5 You could simply withdraw the manuscript and consider amore straightforward design for asking the questions you want to ask witholder listeners.Thank your for submitting your manuscript to JASA. I hope the alternativesdescribed will help guide you on how you should proceed from here. Whateveryou decide to do; please consider the reviewers' comments very carefully asthey have gone out of their way to provide you with suggestions on improvingthe presentation.Sincerely yours;Richard L. FreymanReviewer Comments:Reviewer 1 Evaluations:Reviewer 1 Good Scientific Quality:No. See attachedReviewer 1 Appropriate Journal:YesReviewer 1 Satisfactory English/References:No.Reviewer 1 Tables/Figures Adequate:No.Reviewer 1 Concise:No.Reviewer 1 Appropriate Title and Abstract:No; because the term "interval-target interval" in the title requiredfurther explanation.MS: 07-04147Huang et al. "Effect of changing the inter-target interval on informationalmasking and energetic masking of speech in young adults and older adults."This paper investigates the benefits of release from masking in younger andolder listeners; as a function of inter-target interval ITI in two maskerconditions speech masking and noise masker. The same target speech waspresented from two different locations simultaneously in two differentmaskers; one from each location L or R. Results show that release frominformational masking is evident in both younger and older listeners whenthe ITI was reduced from 64 ms to 0 ms.General comments:1. Introduction needs to be rewritten:&x2022; The general impression is that the introduction section isunnecessarily lengthy. There is too much unnecessary information; while some important terms and information are left unexplained.&x2022; The organization is poor and concepts are disjointed; jumping fromplace to place. For example; the authors spent 1.5 pages on reverberationand the difference between older and younger adults; than spent a full-pageto talk about masking; and then came back to reverberation.&x2022; In addition; the authors did not clearly present the purpose of thestudy and the core of the issues under investigation. The authors mentionedthat "the present study investigated whether changing the ITI over the whole precedence-operation range...can induce a release of target speech fromspeech masking or noise masking." However; they did not explain how and why manipulating ITI can address their questions; questions that were not clearly stated anywhere in the paper. No hypothesis was provided in the paper and no explanation was given regarding how the experimental conditions or contrast of results indifferent conditions can answer the questions under investigation.2. Report of results and statistical analyses needs to be accurate and precise:&x2022; Authors failed to provide results of statistical analyses in many occasions.&x2022; At the beginning of the result section for both the younger andolder groups; the authors should clearly present the number of factors included in the analysis and which one was a between-subject factor and which ones were within-subject factors. Main effects and interaction 3-wayand 2-way should also be reported clearly.&x2022; Bonferroni correction was mentioned in the post-hoc analyses; however; no pvalue was reported.&x2022; The authors should not use the term "marginally significant". It is either"significant" or "nonsignificant". I don't see p=0.084 is "marginally significant."&x2022; When you say percent release; do you mean percentage point difference betweenthe 64 ms ITI and other ITI values For example; in the statement "...the releaseamount was 31.9% under the speech-masking condition;..."; do you mean "31.9 percentage points"3. Baseline condition is questionable:&x2022; The authors failed to provide clear explanation of the results. For example; the authors finally provided the definition of release from maskingon p.19 as"...the release of speech from masking at each ITI is defined as the percent difference between the speech-identification at the ITI and the speech identification at the ITI of 64 ms the longest ITI in this study."&x2022; It took me a while to understand what this means; and finally cameup with the interpretation if my interpretation is correct of the data for the authors. It seems that when ITI was at 0 ms; the perceived spatial locationis between the two maskers spatial separation. But when the ITI was 32and/or 64 ms; listeners heard two images one from each side and there wasno spatial separation between the target speech and the masker on either side. Therefore; according to the authors; the release from masking is the performance difference between the ITI conditions when listeners heard only one image in a location different from the maskers'; and the ITI conditions where two images from the masker locations were heard. However; I have a problem with the baseline condition 64 ms ITI in which two images wereperceived. If the listeners could not fuse the image; did they hear a delayecho between the two targets If so; the poor performance in the 64 mscondition can be partially due to the confusion/disruption induced by theecho in noise conditions in addition to the lack of spatial separation between the target and the masker.4. Subject recruitment criteria were unclear:&x2022; The authors recruited both young and older adults in the study andclaimed that both groups had "clinically normal hearing." However; readingthe fine details of their hearing thresholds < 45 dB HL between 125 and 4kHz; it is hard to accept that the hearing thresholds are within normallimits in the older group. There is at least a mild hearing loss below 4k Hzand mild-to-moderate hearing loss above 4k Hz see Fig. 1 in thesesubjects. The authors should explain the differences in the results inrelation to the threshold differences between the two groups.&x2022; The threshold data provided in Fig. 1 is average data. It isnecessary to provide individual threshold data at least for the oldergroup in a table format.5. Language problem:&x2022; I understand that English is not the authors' native language. Itis recommended that the authors seek assistance in proof-reading themanuscript before submission.6. Tables and Figures:&x2022; Table 1 and 2 are not necessary since the information is presentedin Fig. 7&x2022; The authors should provide legends in the figures.&x2022; The authors should provide error bars in the graphs in Fig 1.&x2022; It is hard to see the short ITI data in Fig. 2&x2022; The authors should consider changing the scale on the y-axis inFig. 4 to provide better visualization of the data.&x2022; Fig. 6 should be deleted. Results could be clearly described in thetext.Specific comments this is by no means a complete list:p.3 first par: The quote from Knudsen 1929 is not necessary.p.4 first & second par. The authors provided an exhaustive list ofreferences in various place. I recommend they only cite the ones that aremost relevant and representative.p.4 last sentence. "A listener subject to informational masking a target speech feels it difficult to segregate audible components of the target speech from those of masking speech." This sentence is incomprehensible; please rewrite.p.5 first line; first par. "Masking particularly information masking oftarget speech can be reduced if the listener can use certain cues perceived spatial location; acoustical features; lexical information; etc tofacilitate his/her selective attention to the targetspeech." References are needed for each cue listed in this sentence.p.5 line 5. "Age-related deficits...inhibition of goal-irrelevant information...; therefore may cause more speech-recognition difficulties" This sentence is coming out of the blue without further explanation.p. 8-10. Please explain the terms "inter-loudspeaker interval";"inter-masker interval"; "inter-target interval" before using them.p.11 line 11 "Moreover; if the recognition of target speech under either the speech masking condition or noise masking condition is significantly influenced by the ITI in younger adults; the present study further investigated whether there is an age-related deficit in the releasing effectof changing the ITI." This sentence is incomprehensible.p.11 line 2 "The 36 young university students all had normal and balanced...." Change "balance" to "symmetrical."p. 12 line 8 "Direct English translations of the sentences are similar butnot identical to the English nonsense sentences that were developed by Helfer 1997 and also used in studies by Freyman et al. 1999; 2001; 2004 and Li et al. 2004." I thought the sentences were created by the authors. So; are they a direct translation from the English version or created by the authorsp.13 last par "For the two-source target presentation;...." This came out of the blue. The experimental conditions should be described clearly in a separate section. Schematic representation of the conditions could be included.p.15 line 8 "During a session; the target-speech sounds were presented at a level such that each loudspeaker; playing alone; would produce a sound pressure of 56 dBA." Is this the rms level of speech The level at 56 dBA seems a little low to me. It may sound very soft for the older listenersgiven that they have mild to moderate hearing loss. Can you explain why you chose such a low presentation levelp.15 last line "There were 36 17+1x2 testing condition for younger participants; and there were 32 15+1x2 testing conditions for older participants." The number of conditions for each group is not apparent to me. Could you explain further in the manuscriptp.16 line 9 "...participated in additional speech-recognition experiments under the condition without masker presentation." Where did the target speech come from Front Right Or leftp.17-27. See comments on reporting results and statistical analysis under "General comments" point 2.p.23 line 12-13 "A 2 masker type by 15 ITI within-subject ANOVA confirms that the interaction between masker type and ITI was significant..." Since the interaction is significant; the authors should not simply interpret the main effects.p.29 line 9 Explain "self-masking" effect. Would the author expect a"self-masking" effect in noisep.30 last par first line "Specifically; when the SNR was -4 dB; changing the ITI absolute value from 64 to 0 ms led to only a small improvement in target-speech intelligibility; and the improvement was similar between the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition." The amount of release from masking in the speech masker condition at -4 dB SNR may be limited by the ceiling effect.p.31 line 5 "In older participants; the reduction of the ITI also improved speech recognition under both the speech masking condition and the noise masking condition..."It is hard to tell if there is a significant difference among the ITIconditions with the noise masker due to the floor effect.p.31 line 7 from bottom. "The results suggest a faster decay of temporal storage of the fine details of speech sound in older adults than in younger adults. Thus at long it is 16 ms or 32 ms; cues induced by the integrationof leading and lagging target signals were weaker and/or not be well used in older participants." First; the author should take into account the hearing loss in the older group. Second; this conclusion seems somewhat contradictory to what the authors reported regarding the perceived images of the target signal under various ITI conditions. All except for oneyounger subject perceived twoseparate images at 32 ms ITI; but most of the older subjects still perceived the target as one image.p.32 2nd par. The discussion on the effect of inter-sound delay on ear channel acoustics came out of nowhere.Reviewer 2 Evaluations:Reviewer 2 Good Scientific Quality:Generally yes - see general remarks below.Reviewer 2 Appropriate Journal:YesReviewer 2 Satisfactory English/References:Clarity and conciseness could be improved - see general remarks.The referencing is occasionally excessive; e.g. the 17 references providedto back up the existence of informational masking on page 4; lines 13-17; orp28 lines 15-16. Some choice examples would generally suffice instead of these long lists of citations see JASA guidelines.The English is satisfactory; with lots of minor comments see 'detailed comments' belowReviewer 2 Tables/Figures Adequate:The figures would benefit from being redrawn using appropriategraph-plotting software. In their current form; they are quite pixelated.The figures would benefit from a legend; when there are several symbols used on the same graphs.Figure 2 and Figure 3's x-axes should be suitably non-linear; because the points plotted for ITIs between -10 and 10 ms are illegible.Figure 3 is perhaps largely repeats information that is apparent in Figure2. Also; the top panel is perhaps misleading; as the difference between thetwo conditions could be explained to some degree by a ceiling effect. Theuse of symmetry in Figure 3 should be applied to Figure 2; since we had no reason to expect left-right effects.Tables 1 and 2 should be omitted; since all their information is provided ina Figure.Reviewer 2 Concise:There seem to be a large number of ANOVAs described in great detail. Perhaps these could be reduced to more essential statistics; or even omitted whenthe differences are clear from the figures see 'general remarks' below. Reviewer 2 Appropriate Title and Abstract:In the title; the term 'inter-target interval' could refer to many things;。
SCI审稿意见回复模板
精品文档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 corrections in the paper and the responds t o 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 v ery 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 su ggestionAs 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..。
英文回复审稿人意见模板
英文回复审稿人意见模板Template for Responding to Reviewer Comments in English:Dear [Reviewer's Name],Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript titled [Title of Manuscript]. We appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. Below, we have addressed each of your comments and provided explanations or revisions accordingly:1. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].2. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].3. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].We believe that the changes we have made address the concerns raised and improve the quality of the manuscript. Please review the revised version and let us know if any further modifications are required. We are grateful for your thorough review and look forward to your feedback.Thank you once again for your time and expertise.Sincerely,[Your Name].[Your Affiliation].英文审稿人意见回复模板:尊敬的[审稿人姓名]，感谢您抽出时间审阅我们的稿件《[稿件标题]》。
- 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)。
一些英文审稿意见的模板
好东西
原文地址：对英文审稿意见的回复作者：海天奥博
一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。
这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。
好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。
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。
首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。
在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。
但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。
这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。
因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。
第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。
跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。
审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。
如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。
大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。
尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major 而不是minor 本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。
有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，makingareferenceisnotcharity ！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。
正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了majorrevision ，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？
第三，合理掌握修改和argue 的分寸。
所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。
这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue 。
对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。
而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A, B, C, D做比较，补充大量
实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue 。
在Argue 的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对,他提出的方法也很好,但本文的重点是blablabla ,跟他说的不是一回
事。
然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重,象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion ,这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子,编辑那也能交待的过去。
第四,聪明的掌握修改时间。
拿到审稿意见,如果是minor ,意见只有寥寥数行,那当然会情
不自禁的一蹴而就,一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。
这时候,问题在于要不要马上投回去了？
我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。
这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。
如果结果是major ，建议至少放一
个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。
上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。
下面谈谈答复信的写法。
写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。
因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。
一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即
ListofActions,ResponsestoEditor,ResponsestoReviewers 。
第一部分ListofActions 的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。
剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“ argue ”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。
清楚醒目起见，可以用不同字体分别标出，比如“意见”用italic , argue ”正常字体，“修改”用bold 。
下面举例说明各部分的写法和格式。
编辑意见：请在修改稿中用双倍行距。
审稿人1：
意见1:置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过。
意见2：算法表述不明确。
意见3:对图3 的图例应做出解释。
审稿人2:
意见1 :图2 太小。
意见2:第3 页有个错别字。
很显然，根据上面的答复策略，我们准备对除1 号审稿人意见1 之外的所有意见进行相应改动，而对1.1 采取argue 为主的策略。
答复如下:
ListofActions
LOA1:Therevisedmanuscriptisdoublespaced.
LOA2:AdiscussiononnoveltyofthisworkandacomparisonwithAandBhavebeenaddedinpage3.
LOA3:Aparagraphhasbeenaddedinpage5tofurtherexplainthealgorithm***.
LOA4:ExplanationsofthelegendofFigure3havebeenaddedinpage7.
LOA5:Figure2hasbeenenlarged.
LOA6:Alltyposhavebeenremoved.
=================分= 页=======================
ResponsestoEditor
请在修改稿中用双倍行距。
Wehavedoublespacedthetextthroughouttherevisedmanuscript,seeLOA1. =================分=
页======================= ResponsestoReviewers
意见1:置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过
Thankyouforpointingthisout.AandB ' sresearchgroupshavedoneblablablabla.However,the focusofourworkisonblablablabla,whichisverydi fferentfromAandB ' swork,andthisisalso themajorcontributionofourwork.Wehaveaddedthefollowingdiscussiononthisissueinourre visedmanuscript,seeLOA2.
blablablabla（此处把A和B的工作做一个review，并提出自己工作和他们的区别之处）”意见2:算法表述不明确Wehaveaddedthefollowingdiscussiontofurtherexplainalgorithm***,seeLOA3.
blablablabla （此处进一步解释该算法）”
意见3:对图3的图例应做出解释WehaveaddedthefollowingexplanationsofthelegendofFigure3,seeLOA3.
blablablabla （图3 图例的解释）
=================分= 页=======================
意见1:图2太小
Wehavee nl argedFigure2,seeLOA4.
意见2:第3页有个错别字
Wehaveremovedalltypos,seeLOA5.
=================分页=======================
总之，写答复信的宗旨就是用最少的时间和工作量达到论文被接收的目的。
这里权当是抛砖引玉，希望和大家多多交流。
SCI投稿信件的一些套话（整理）
3. Dear Dr。