Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer
Response to Specific Points- Reviewer A:
In part (1) of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is presented, which was discussed above. You continue "Regrettably, not much attention is drawn to specific differences between the chosen examples that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities of perception more precisely", and "if perceptual systems, as suggested, hler (Kindeed act on the basis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special `veridicality' properties of the perceptual outcome", and "the difficult analytic problems of concrete modeling of perception are not even touched". The model as presented is not a model of vision or audition or any other particular modality, but is a general model to confront the alternative neural receptive field paradigm, although examples from visual perception are used to exemplify the principles discussed. The more specific visual model was submitted elsewhere, in the Orientational Harmonic model, where I showed how harmonic resonance accounts for specific visual illusory effects. As discussed above, the attempt here is to propose a general principle of neurocomputation, rather than a specific model of visual, auditory, or any other specific sensory modality. Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather than a theory, i.e. an alternative principle of neurocomputation with specific and unique properties, as an alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field. If this paper is eventually accepted for publication, then I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the use of the unconventional harmonic resonance mechanism.
审稿意见回复信英文模板和语料总结
审稿意见回复信英⽂模板和语料总结审稿意见回复信英⽂模板和语料总结模板1.Dear prof. XX and dear reviewersRe: Manuscript ID: XXXXX and Title: XXXXXXThank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “XXXXXX ” (ID). Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shownusing red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer’s comments are marked in red and presented following.We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.Sincerely.XXXXX.Reviewer #1:Q1. Interpretation could be deepened regarding xx. 关于xx的讨论应该更深⼊⼀些.Response：We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clearly and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we have added a more detailed interpretation regarding xxx. More detailed statistical analysis was added on page…Q2.the English language needs to be revised for clarity …Response：We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript. The language presentation was improved with assistance from a native English speaker with appropriate research background.Q3.Page 10, the last sentence of the first chapter should read: …,Response：We agree with the comment and re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following: ….Q4.Please provide details of results, and please analyze and discuss it.Response：We are grateful for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we have added more details of…其他语料：1. Thank you for your suggestion. As suggested by reviewer, we have added the suggested content to the manuscript onpage…2. Thank you for your comments, the discussion regarding this question is presented following: …3. We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have added a moredetailed interpretation regarding…4. Thank you for your comment, and our reply is as follows: …5. Response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have providedmore details to describe the possible reasons.6. We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. We have…7. We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clear and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we have added abrief description as follows:8. We have modified this expression throughout the text according to the comment.9. Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 6-28, page 6)10. Thank you for underlining this deficiency. This section was revised and modified according to the information showedin the work suggested by the reviewer (Line 41, page 3).11. Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 6-28, page 6).12. Modified throughout the text according to the comment (Line 20, page 1).Thank you for the title suggested. Theprecedent version of the title has been replaced, becoming…13. We appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation of our work.14. Our deepest gratitude goes to you for your careful work and thoughtful suggestions that have helped improve thispaper substantially.15. We have carefully revised the language issue again based on the latest file uploaded on October 5th. This revision ishighlighted in green (for adding) and strikethrough font (for deleting) in the text. At the same time, we have uploaded the file of the revised manuscript and flowchart file.16. Thank you for your precious comments and advice. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising andimproving our paper. We have revised the manuscript accordingly，and our point-by-point responses are presented above.17. We appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation of our work and agree with the comments regarding the limitationsof our study.模板2.来⾃公众号《⼤葱的后花园》Dear Editors (或编辑的具体姓名Prof. xxx) and reviewers:Thank you for your precious comments and advice. 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 to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Response to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. ⼀般第⼀段是reviewer对你⽂章的总结。
如何回复审稿人意见
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer这是我的英文修改稿回复信Dear Editor,RE: Manuscript IDWe would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments.Below is our response to their comments.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorresponding Author下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答：一些习惯用语如下：Revision — authors’ responseReviewer #1:Major comments1.The referee correctly noted that our language about XXX was ambiguous.Therefore, we changed the text and the figures to emphasize that …. To further support the concept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted inSupplementary Fig. S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations ofXXX in results and discussion sections. We have added new findings (see above point) in Supplementary Fig S. to support…3.As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (SupplementaryFig.) that summarizes…Minor comments1.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title.2.We have added and improved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2.3.We have added statistics to Fig 5C.4.We have corrected the typescript errors in the XXX paragraph.Reviewer #2:1.Because of the reviewer’s request, we have performed new experiments tobetter clarify… The new Fig. shows that… This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify thepoint that…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s request wehave used XXX to confirm that… The new data are depicted inSupplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed the efficiency of RNAi byquantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supplementary Fig.Reviewer #3:1.Because of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 intothe new Figure 6 and we have added new experiments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that….2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied…. The new dataare depicted in Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper has shown that ….We have added this reference and modified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. The previous one was tooweek and the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDFformat.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much as possible themagnification in order to maintain the same scale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statistically significant. In orderto better clarify this issue we changed the graphics of our statistical analysis in Fig.另外一篇5分杂志的回复：1nd Revision – authors’ responseReferee #1:We want to begin by thanking Referee #1 for writing that “the finding in our manuscript is generally interesting and important in the field.” We also appreciated the constructive criticism and suggestion. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below.1.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiment demonstrating…; inthe new experiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performedin XXX by comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effect of ….is due to ….To address the referee’s comment, we revised Fig. and demonstrated that….To further confirm…. Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks to the referee’s comment, the wrong figure numbers were correctedin the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We want to thank Referee #2 for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below.1.The referee recommends to show…. We performed the experiment and itsresult is included in the revised Fig.2.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. wererepeated several times and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1,above. As stated above, we have included new results, which include:4.All minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordingly.2nd Revision – authors’ responseWe would like to thank the referees for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s comments.Referee #1:Referee #1 request two minor editorial changes. Both changes have been made accordingly in the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We sincerely apologize to Referee #2 for not completely addressing all of the points raised in the previous response. We have done so below and added additional data in hopes that this reviewer will be supportive of publication.1.Referee #2 requests evidence that …. According to the referee’ssuggestion, a XXX assay was performed in XXX cells to demonstrate that ….The result is presented in Fig.2.Page 17, “the” E3 was changed to “an” E3.3.Referee #2 asks whether…. We would like to note that we investigated ….inour previous study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in thismanuscript we focused on ….Welcome To Download !!!欢迎您的下载，资料仅供参考！。
如何回复审稿人意见(Response to Reviews)
SAMPLE RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTSBelow are actual comments to a review I wrote sometime ago. I include it here so you can see the level of detail/discussion I expect for your letter. Also, though you don’t have to do it for my class; if you’re doi ng it for an actual journal, make sure to use department letterhead.******************************************************************* Date<Editor’s name & title><Journal name><postal address>Dear Prof. <Editor’s Name>:First, I want to thank you and your reviewers for the extremely helpful comments provided for our paper. In the paper we’ve addressed all comments – both specific and general – from all three reviewers.There are too many comments and changes for us to list them all here. However, we would like to highlight some of the more general ones.Many of reviewer #1147’s comments came from notes directly on the document. Therefore, though the “typed” comments were two paragraphs, references to that reviewer appear quite frequently below.Finally, the numbers in parentheses refer to the reviewer.1. All three reviewers made reference to awkward sentences and lack of clarity in theflow of the text. We’ve addressed this issue across and within each section,paragraph, and sentence. As a result, we feel this version reads more cohesively and fluidly.Additionally, extra care was taken to remove polemical statements (#1072; #1147;#647)2. “What, exactly, does “after high school” mean? Does it mean high schoolgraduation?” (#1072; im plied by #1147).To address this, the following text was added to the description of the sample: All students who were selected in the 8th grade were reinterviewed in each of thesubsequent years, regardless of their individual progress. Their subsequent grade level(e.g. 10th grade, 12th grade, etc.) is not the criteria for inclusion. The fact that thestudent was in the original cohort is the criteria for subsequent inclusion. As a result,though the cohort may be in the 12th grade, some of the students may not be, becausethey were held back, dropped out, or may have skipped a grade and thus graduatedearlier than their 8th grade cohort. However, even with these variances within the post-8th grade years, throughout this document, we will use the same language used by theNational Education Longitudinal Study – 8th grade (1988), 12th grade (1992), and twoyears after high school (1994).3. Literature Review/Backgrounda. Due to the lack of clarity, the reference to sociocultural variables was removed(#1072).b. The text was changed to make it clear when we were referring to differenceswithin African American families as compared to differences between them andtheir non-African American counterparts (#1072).c. In the section on theoretical models, race and gender were addressed separatelyfrom social class (#1072; #1147).d. A theoretical/conceptual framework was identified – intersectionality – andfollowed throughout the document (Editor; #1027; #1147).e. The family organization section was rewritten to make it less confusing to thereader (#647).f. Sources/Citations were included where requested (#1147).4. Data and Methodsa. We made it clear that parents were also interviewed for this study. Further, wemade it clear when d ata came from the parent’s survey versus the student’s (#1072).b. Text was added to more clearly describe the tests given to the students (#1147):The tests developed and administered with the NELS were similar to the tests given forthe National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Cognitive tests for theNELS are based on Item Response Theory (IRT), where the student's score is based onthe probability of getting all of the questions correct.c. Text was added to make it clear that the parental configurations were notmutually exclusive categories (#1147):The three types of single-parent households are NOT configured to be mutuallyexclusive (see below for an example), but were developed to reflect the types of single-parent families most prevalent among African American children.And later in that same discussion:Again, the configurations are not mutually exclusive, i.e. any student in a marriedfamily is also in a two-parent household.d. The definition of dummy variables was removed (#1147).5. Resultsa. We made it clear that multiple regression was used for analysis (#1072).b. Summary statistics are included (#1072) because if one wants to replicate ourwork, s/he will need that information. We did not discuss those results for we felt they were self-explanatory and we did not want to use precious manuscript space …especially given our additions with this revision.c. Tables have been reformatted to be consistent with the style manual of theAmerican Psychological Association (Editor; #1072).d. We removed references to “African American students” and used the term“students.” However, we did leave it once at the end for purposes of emphasis and clarity.e. Reviewer #1072 is concerned that each regression model is not discussed. Eachmodel and pertinent findings within them are indeed discussed. We feel that the awkward writing style (which has now been corrected), may have buried this and thus led the reader to think we were “misleading.”f. Reviewer #1027 is also concerned that interaction effects were not run. Footnoteb in Table 4 now reads:Interaction effects were run between all parental configurations and 8th SES. Becausenone were statistically significant, the results are not shown here.Other interaction effects were not run because it is the relationship between parental configuration and SES that is most central to the questions raised in this paper.6. Discussion/Conclusiona. Reference to “statistical analyses of data collected with q uestionnaires [being] alimitation only insofar as African American households are concerned” wasremoved (#1072).b. To justify our claim about the intersecting categories of race/class/gender(#1072), we included the following sentence:Drawing on the discussion of race in the literature review (see above) and the findingsof this study, we conclude that African American family structure is at its core innatelytied to changes in the economy and the simultaneously intersecting categories ofrace/class/gender.c. Large portions of the discussion section were rewritten to discuss and interpretour findings in the context of what is already known. We also include a discussion of what needs further study (#1072; implied by Editor and #1147).Sincerely,Prof. Juan Battlejbattle@(212) 817-8775。
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..。
Response-Letter-投稿回复信
Response LetterPaper number: NODY-D-15-00088Paper title: Event-Triggered Control for Multi-Agent Network with Limited Digital CommunicationAuthors:Dear Editor-in-chief, Associate Editor and Anonymous Reviewers,We would like to thank you for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript and providing many helpful comments and suggestions. 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 very carefully. Based on your criticisms, comments and suggestions, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The details are explained below, where the number of the response is in correspondence with the number of the reviewers’ comments and su ggestions.Reply to the Associate EditorAccording to the AE’s and reviewers’ criticisms, comments and suggestions, we have modified the manuscript carefully. The description of a substantial revision and the detailed points to the review reports can be seen in the following responses and in the new revision. Moreover, we have also checked other derivations throughout the paper and some necessary explanations are also included.We would like to thank the reviewer’s great efforts in reading our manuscript and for your constructive comments and suggestions. Our responses to the comments and suggestions are listed as follows:1. Consensus with communication constraints is indeed a quite interesting topic in field of multi-agent systems, the following work on consensus of second-order multi-agent systems may be briefly mentioned: Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control, 22(2):170-182, 2012.Reply:The relevant works of communication constraints in Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control is really worth mentioning, and this reference has been added in new revision.2. The communication topology is assumed to be undirected, whether it is possible to do some further work on directed or switching topologies. One more remark may be added to the manuscript to state this issue.Reply:This suggestion is very nice and reasonable. The directed and switching topologies cases will be our future works, and the remark has been provided in the future works part of conclusion.We would like to thank the reviewer ’s great efforts in reading our manuscript and for your constructive comments and suggestions. Our responses to the comments and suggestions are listed as follows:1. The proof of Theorem 1 is not clear. It didn’t show what is the convergence setvery important obviously. Reply: This suggestion is very helpful, and I have rewritten the Theorem 1. I’m sure the new version is much clearer than the old one.2. There are some errors in the proof of Theorem 1. For example,(i) How to determine l in the last line of formula (16). There is no any constraint for l.(ii) The same problem appeared in the last line and previous line of formula (18).Reply: I am very sorry for my carelessness. The last expression ˆ(t )l ll k xin formula (16) and (18) should be replaced by ˆ(t )i ii k x. Now the total four mistakes in formula (16) and (18) have been corrected in revised version. To avoid the similar mistakes, I have also checked the other derivations throughout the manuscript. Again thanks for your carefulness and tolerance.3. What is the function of parameter i σ in the event triggering condition (8). Which performance does it affect? How to choose this parameter according to the demands of performance? The analysis should be given.Reply: This suggestion is very reasonable. Actually, this parameter’s main function is to adjust the performance of event triggering mechanism. Each agent’s event frequency has a great relationship with the parameter i σ. The larger i σ, the eventtimes are less and the performance is better. To obtain the best performance, we σ=in revised version, i.e., we no longer define this parameter directly set 1iexplicitly in revised version.Reply to Referees #3We would like to thank the reviewer ’s great efforts in reading our manuscript and for your constructive comments and suggestions. Our responses to the comments and suggestions are listed as follows:1. The main advantage of this work should be further strengthened in Introduction. Reply: Sincerely thanks for your helpful suggestion. I have rewritten the contribution part in Introduction, and I’m sure the new version is much clearer than the old one.2. What are the novelty in the proposed scheme in this paper?Reply: There are four main novelties in this paper. First, we designed an integrated communication framework for digital multi-agent network, in which the event-triggered strategy and dynamic encode/decode scheme play an important role in communication process. Second, a distributed triggering condition that only depends on local state information of neighbor agents is developed and the corresponding consensus analysis is provided. Third, we gave the specific communication algorithm considering dynamic encode/decode scheme under event-triggered strategy, and we also proposed a self-adaptive quantization algorithm that builds a connection between quantization level and quantization factor. Last, we proposed an improved communication strategy named one-bit quantized scheme such that the global consensus can still be achieved based on only one bit information exchange between agents at each quantized transmission.3. In this Reviewer's opinion, in (6), \hat{e}_i(t) is infeasible since there is both $t$ and $t_k$. The authors should explain this point.Reply: Actually, it is feasible. Here we give the detailed explanation. Just like the statements before the Algorithm 1, we assume each agent i has a memory that canstore its own instant state ()i x t , state estimate ˆ()i xt , and its all neighbor stateestimates ˆ(),j i xt j N ∈. Furthermore, the initial states of all agents are given as ()1(0)(0),,(0)TN x x x =⋯, the all initial event time 0i t and all state estimates ˆ(0),i 1,,i x N = are initialized to 0. Then the Algorithm 1 can be carried out step by step. According to the Algorithm 1 and Remark 1, we can know that the work time of encoder/decoder is only the event time of relevant agents, once the event is triggered, then the corresponding measurement state estimate is updated and rewritten to thememory. As a result, the actuator i can directly obtain ()i x t and ˆ()ii i k x t from its memory to compute the measurement error ˆ()i et .4. The authors should check some typos.Reply: I have checked the manuscript again, and found there really exists some typos. Besides, I have also made some corrections based on my friends’ suggestions. Again thanks for your carefulness and tolerance.Finally, we would like to thank the referees again for the careful reading of our paper. In addition, we have revised the manuscript carefully and believe that the new version is much better than the old one. Hope the revised version is acceptable.Best wishes,Your name,May 28, 2015.。
英文文章回复审稿意见信4
Response to Reviewer #3:We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Our response follows (the reviewer’s comments are in italics).General Comments. The paper ‘An overview of the MILAGRO 2006 campaign: Mexico City emissions and their transport and transformation’ by L.T. Molina, et al. is an overview of findings from the MILAGRO field campaign. However, it is not just a ‘paper about papers’ but also provides some further analysis and attempts to extract the most important results.It is very well written and is well balanced between the different topics, such as experimental design, emissions, photochemistry, radiation, and transport. It definitely deserves to be published and is a valuable contribution to the ACP journal.The only weakness of the paper is its length. It is true that some of the chapters can be regarded as stand-alone documents, and it is thus not necessary to read the whole paper. However, it is my belief that the main purpose of the paper (overview of the MILAGRO project, road map to its numerous publications, bringing across the main messages) could have been achieved on less pages, e.g. by omitting some details and rather refer the reader to one or more of the MILAGRO publications. It is difficult to point specifically to omittable sentences as they are rather spread throughout the paper, but I recommend making one more effort to shorten the paper at least somewhat, in order to make it more readily accessible.Reply:We appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer.With regards to the length of the article: as we noted in our response to Reviewers #1 and #2, it is not easy to shorten the article. We are trying to target both readers that are interested in the comprehensive study and readers that are only interested in subsections. The current form serve both of these needs and we are concerned that if we cut out the small overlaps in the introduction to each section as well as the technical material, then the subsections will not be readable to the reader who is only interested in one or a few sections. Therefore we would like to keep the manuscript largely in its current form. However, as suggested by the reviewer, we have reviewed carefully the entire manuscript and have removed redundancies, as shown in the revised manuscript.One more general remark: What about calling Section 12 ‘Summary and Conclusions’ and Section 13 ‘Future work’ in order to better reflect their content.Reply:As suggested by the reviewer, we have changed the title of Section 12 to “Summary and Conclusions” and Section 13 to “Future Research.”Minor comments:1) p.7823, lines 23-25: add already here how many partners, from which countries, duration and funding agenciesReply:As suggested by the reviewer, we have moved the information from last paragraph of page 7829 to page 7823.2) p.7824, line 23: facilitates -> facilitateReply:The correction has been made.3) p.7826, line 14: remove colon after ‘showing that’Reply: The correction has been made.4) p.7827, lines 17-25: don’t need to name here all conferences and media, can be shortened (while keeping the link to the website).Reply: We have shortened the paragraph, as suggested.5) p.7827, line 26 and onwards: this should be in the introduction.Reply: We have moved the paragraph to the Introduction.6) p.7829, line 24 and onwards: this is what I suggest to include in the introduction (see first minor comment above)Reply: We have moved the paragraph to the Introduction.7) p.7833, line 12: ‘and more’ -> ‘and a more’Reply: The correction has been made.8) p.7848, line 25: remove ‘is’Reply: The correction has been made.9) p.7850, line 13: ‘constrains’ -> ‘constraints’, line 19: comma around ‘respectively’Reply: The correction has been made.10) p.7853, lines 2 and 3: write ‘the UC Irvine group’ and ‘T0 and T1 sites’.Reply: The correction has been made.11) p.7854, line 11: ‘were’ -> ‘was’Reply: The correction has been made.12) p.7864, line 1: remove ‘reflects the partitioning between OH and HO2, and’Reply:The text has been revised as suggested:“The HO2/OH ratio can be used as a measure of the efficiency of radical propagation.”13) p.7865, line 12: you mean ‘early afternoon’? (as opposed to late afternoon which is VOC limited)Reply:The text has been revised as suggested:“An analysis of ratio of radical loss from the formation of nitric acid and organic nitrates to the total radical production for MCMA 2003 also suggests that ozone production is VOC-limited in the early morning and late afternoon, but becomes NOx-limited during the early afternoon [Mao et al., 2009].”14) p.7870, line 18: ‘composition’ -> ‘compositions’, and: PMcoarse is shown, not PM2.5 Reply:The text is indeed incorrect. The subject figure shows PM2.5 and PM Coarse and not PM2.5 andPM10 as indicated in the text. The sentence has been corrected to read:“The fractional compositions of PM2.5 and PM Coarse are illustrated in Fig. 12.15) p.7887, line 1: ‘leads’ -> ‘lead’Reply: The correction has been made.16) p.7888, line 2: move ‘were’ to after ‘aerosols’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.17) p.7890: The sentences in lines 12 and 18, referring to Hodzic et al., 2009, Mugica et al., 2009, and Christian et al., 2010, are very similar. Combine.Reply:As suggested by the reviewer, the second occurrence of these citations has been eliminated 18) p.7892, line 5: ‘Previous work’ refers to the past, and ‘will’ to the future. Rather write‘missed’, or, e.g., ‘the method used in previous work . . . did not detect’Reply: The suggested correction has been made. The sentence now reads:“Previous work using single wavelengths, particularly at wavelengths longer than 500 nm, did not detect these changes in absorption in the 300 to 500 nm range that are primarily due to oxidized organics (both aged primary and SOA coatings).”19) p.7903, line 23: move comma after ‘NO’ to after the parenthesis.Line 24: factor of 1.4 to 1.9?Reply:The suggested correction has been made. The sentence now reads:“These include slight overpredictions of CO and NO (<30% and <20%, respectively), and a probable underprediction of VOCs by a factor of 1.4 to 1.9 in the inventory.”20) Fig.3: ‘except MCM-2006’? So why is it included in the figure? Mention that the measurements were performed in the Mexico City basin, or refer to section 3.1 or Fig.4. Reply:The suggested correction has been made. The figure caption now reads:“MILAGRO Campaign: Geographic Coverage. Measurements were performed in the MCMA (see Fig. 4). The size of the circle (MAX-Mex, MIRAGE-Mex and INTEX-B) indicates the geographic coverage of the aircraft deployed.”21) Fig.5: ‘9 March’ -> ‘9 March 2006’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.22) Fig.6, NOx, don’t private cars include any Diesel vehicles?Reply:The private cars in Mexico are mostly gasoline-powered; there are very few diesel-powered private cars.23) Fig.7: ‘insert’ -> ‘inset’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.24) Fig.9: ‘at T0’ -> ‘at the supersites T0’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.25) Fig.10: ’19 March’ -> ’19 March 2006’ In the text replace ‘Fig.’ with ‘Figure’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.26) Fig. 11: I don’t see the ‘Modeling Domain’. Guess it’s the whole figure, so the red box in the legend can be omitted. Furthermore, the figure has rather poor print quality.Reply:As suggested by the reviewer, we have revised Figure 11. We have also added a panel showing the percentage change in Ox formation rate as a function of the indicator, ratio of H2O2 production rate to HNO3 production rate.27) Fig.13: ‘March 15’ -> ‘March 15, 2006’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.。
SCI修改稿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 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. 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。
- 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)。
Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)
Dear Editor-in-Chief in XXXXXXX:
Thank you very much for your help in processing the review of our manuscript (Manuscript ID XXXXX). We have carefully read the thoughtful comments from you and reviewers and found that these suggestions are helpful for us to improve our manuscript. On the basis of the enlightening questions and helpful advices, we have now completed the revision of our manuscript. The itemized responses to the reviewers’ comments are listed in the su cceeding sheets. We hope that all these corrections and revisions would be satisfactory. Thanks a lot, again.
1.Title: XXX
2.Manuscript type: Article
3.Corresponding author: XXX
4.Full author names: XXX
Sincerely,
Prof. XXX
School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,
XX Key Laboratory of Controllable Chemistry
Reaction & Material Chemical Engineering,
XX University,
Wuhan, Hubei, 430072 , P R China.
2015-03-05
Responses to comments of Editor
Thank you for your serious and constructive comments on our manuscript. According to your suggestion, the manuscript has been revised as a letter to editor. The revisions we have made are as follows:
➢ 1 Subtitles "5. Conclusions", "6. Acknowledgments", and "7. References" should be revised into "4. Conclusions", "Acknowledgments", and "References", respectively.
Reply:
Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.
The relevant subtitles have been revised in the revision.
➢2 In the section of the References, title of cited paper should be removed, and in ref.35 the superfluous comma should be deleted.
Reply:
Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.
All the titles have been removed as you required and the superfluous comma in ref.35 has also been deleted.
➢ 3 Numerous relevant papers have been published in recent years especially in 2014 and 2015. Some key, important or/and latest research results in this field, should be mentioned and cited in the section of introduction instead of outdated or earlier papers so that we can provide a solid background and progress to the readers regarding the current state-of-knowledge on this topic. Therefore, I strongly require you to rewrite this part and then update your citations.
Reply:
Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.
We have rewritten the section of introduction and updated corresponding citations as you required. In detail, some recent and excellent researches have been cited in the revision to replace those of
earlier papers which are no longer novel.
➢4 Any changes or revisions in the text should be highlighted by different color in the revised manuscript compared with that of the previous version.
Reply:
Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.
All the changes and revisions have been highlighted by cyan.
We have revised our manuscript again
We have made further modifications on the manuscript, especially the introduction section. The latest revisions are highlighted by green, while previous changes are highlighted by cyan.
To be specific: a) Some adjustments about sentence structures have been made to increase the diversity of expression.
b) The second example about N-doped carbon materials is relatively early research result published in 2009. Thus we have replaced it with a lasted and outstanding paper.
c) The unique effects of S-doping have been expounded in the revision to correspond to the effects of N-doping introduced above.
d) In addition to rewriting the part of introduction as you required, we have also polished and revised the chapters of experimental, results and discussion, conclusions and updated the section of references.
The initial examples about N-S-codoped carbon materials (references16 and 17) are earlier results published in 2012 and 2013. Thus we have replaced them with some lasted and outstanding papers.。