response_letter写法
写信英文作文落款怎么写
写信英文作文落款怎么写Dear [Name],。
Thank you for your letter. I am delighted to hear from you and I hope this letter finds you well.英文，In response to your question, I would say that there are many ways to write a letter in English. The most common way to end a letter is to use "Sincerely" or "Best regards". However, there are many other options such as "Yours truly", "Warm regards", or "Kind regards". It really depends on the tone and formality of the letter. For example, if you are writing a formal business letter, "Sincerely" would be the best choice. On the other hand, if you are writing to a friend, "Warm regards" or "Best wishes" would be more appropriate.中文，回答你的问题，我认为在英文信函中，结束语有很多种。
最常见的方式是使用“Sincerely”或“Best regards”。
但是，还有很多其他选项，比如“Yours truly”，“Warm regards”或“Kind regards”。
英语书信模板范文图片
英语书信模板范文图片English Response:Dear [Recipient Name],。
Thank you for your email regarding the English letter template samples in image format. I have compiled a comprehensive set of examples to assist you with your request.Business Letter Templates:Formal Inquiry Letter.Business Proposal.Complaint Letter.Resignation Letter.Thank-You Note.Personal Letter Templates:Letter to a Friend or Family Member. Letter of Condolence.Letter of Congratulation.Letter of Gratitude.Apology Letter.Academic Letter Templates:Request for Recommendation Letter.Letter of Intent for Graduate School. Letter of Appeal for Grades.Letter of Research Proposal.Other Letter Templates:Invitation Letter.RSVP Letter.Cover Letter.Reference Letter.Letter of Authorization.How to Use the Templates:To use the templates, simply download the image and open it in an image editor. You can then customize the text and formatting to suit your specific needs.Additional Tips:Keep your letters concise and to the point.Proofread your letters carefully before sending them.Be professional and respectful in your tone.中文回答：尊敬的 [收件人姓名]，。
response or cover letter for submitting paper
Editor in Chief, OecologiaPlant Population and Community EcologyPlease find attached the revised version of our manuscript, A possible mechanism for "Darwin's Naturalization Hypothesis": exotic plants with closely related native confamilials experience more herbivory. This was originally submitted as ms OEC-KG-2008-0974 in October 2008, and was rejected (15 December 2008). However, on the basis of positive comments by the reviewers, we were invited to resubmit a revised version. We have included that revision as this resubmission. We also have substantially reduced the length of the manuscript, from 30 pp to 26 pp.This novel study represents the first phylogenetic support for a mechanism underlying Darwin's controversial observation that introduced species are less likely to invade areas where close native relatives occur. It also represents one of the first applications of community phylogenetics to invasion ecology. We demonstrate that herbivore damage does indeed decline with phylogenetic distance to native confamilials, suggesting an advantage for phylogenetically isolated invaders.We have greatly revised this manuscript. We have treated the reviewers' comments as we would in any revision; therefore we have included an itemized list of our responses below. We feel the reviewers made a number of excellent suggestions, particularly regarding the analyses, and we have adopted them wherever possible. We thank them for their comments; we feel the result is a much stronger manuscript which even more convincingly supports our original conclusions.The word count for our manuscript, excluding all but the Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion is 3834. This manuscript, including all Figures and Tables, has not been published or accepted for publication, and is not under consideration for publication by any other journal or book. It has been approved by all relevant authors and institutions, and all persons entitled to authorship have been so named. Both authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript.I am the correspondence author, and may be contacted at the address above.Best wishes ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Response to Reviewer Comments for manuscript OEC-KG-2008-0974Handling EditorEditor: your manuscript has now been reviewed by two experts. As you will see they are both positive but see some problems with the analysis. I therefore suggest that you should resubmit the paper. If you can do the additional analyses suggested by both reviewers (including abundance and considering the potential of confounding due to clumping of species within families) and if your conclusions then still hold I will send the new version to the more critical reviewer again for checking. Please also follow the advice of the less critical reviewer to tone done some of the claims.If you choose to resubmit, please enclose copies of submitted or accepted manuscripts that use all or part of the same data.moderating our interpretations, including the suggested analyses (where possible), and adding a test which demonstrates that phylogenetic clumping has not unduly influenced our results. Our main conclusions still hold, and in fact are somewhat strengthened by these reanalyses. Our detailed responses follow.============================================================Reviewer 1Reviewer: This study tests a very interesting hypothesis, and I applaud the use of such a large number of species. At a first glance the results appear to be very straight forward. However, after closer inspection of the data, I got some doubts about the methods and the interpretation of the results. Response: We have substantially revised this manuscript and added entirely new analyses that we hope will address these doubts.Reviewer: It is not clear why distance to the nearest native species and nearest native family were used instead of average distance to all native species in the native community. The latter was done in the study of Strauss et al. 2006, and would better account for differences in the number of closely related species in the native community.Response: This is an excellent suggestion! Analyses were all rerun using the suggested distances; distances in the revised version include mean distance to all native taxa at Joker's Hill (new analysis), mean distance to only native family members at Joker's Hill (significantly improved analysis), and distance to the closest native (original analysis). Results still confirm that damage declines with distance to native confamilials.Reviewer: The only significant associations between herbivory damage and relatedness were found when phylogenetic distance to the closest native family was used. However, given that almost all exotic species had con-familial native species, it is not quite clear whether this is a measure of phylogenetic distance. Maybe I miss something, but it appears to me that this analysis effectively tests how herbivory damage relates to the age of the family instead of how herbivory damage relates to relatedness with the native community. Therefore, I have some doubts about how clear the evidence in favor of the posited hypothesis is.Response: We agree the original analysis suffered from this flaw. In response, we reevaluated these models using mean distance to family members, so the metric now represents the average distance of an exotic to native members of their family (or the closest lineage, if native family members were absent). Results still support the conclusion that damage declines with distance to native confamilials. Reviewer: One potential explanation for the observed pattern could be phylogenetic non-independence of the study species. It is likely that all exotic species within the same family have similar degrees of relatedness to the native community (this is certainly the case when phylogenetic distance to closest native family is used), and also that family members share similar defenses to herbivores. Therefore, the support for the hypothesis posited by the authors would be stronger if the correlations also hold after applying phylogenetic independent contrasts.Response: Where there was multiple representation of species from the same family, damage tended to be quite variable, making it unlikely that phylogenetic non-independence would be problematic. To formalize our intuition, where significant correlations between damage and phylogenetic distance were observed, we ran all possible regressions where only one species per family was used. If the observed slope was within the 2.5 and 97.5 quantiles, we concluded that phylogenetic non-independence was not biasing our results. For the three instances that we observed significant or close to significant results when all species were included, the observed slope fell within the 95% quantiles of all possible slopesphylogenetic distance. As well, these quantiles exclude a slope of zero. These results confirm that our significant regressions were not products of multiple species per family. We report these conclusions in the revised manuscript.Reviewer: Although I think that the proposed hypothesis is a plausible mechanism for Darwin's Naturalization Hypothesis, the study would be more convincing if it showed that Darwin's Naturalization Hypothesis holds for the study system. In other words, a potential mechanism is tested, but the phenomenon that it should explain is not tested. Given that many studies of the Toronto group have been performed in the same reserve, it is very likely that data are available on the abundance of each invasive species as well as the abundance of each native species in the reserve. If the authors combine this information with the phylogenetic distance information, they could test Darwin's Naturalization Hypothesis. If they do not have this information, they should at least admit this shortcoming in the Discussion. This shortcoming should, however, not preclude publication of the manuscript.Response: We agree this would be an interesting hypothesis to test. Unfortunately, the required data on species abundances do not exist, and are unlikely to be available in the near future. It would take a major new research effort to gather such data! We now have noted this limitation in the Discussion (ln 299-300). However, as the reviewer also notes, we do not believe this should preclude our investigation of phylogeny and herbivory.Reviewer: One other issue is that it appears that the authors have used the same data in another apparently similar paper that is currently under review. It would have been helpful to see this paper. Response: The paper in question is included with this resubmission. We also have informed the editor of this volume of our Oecologia submission.The citation is:Kotanen P.M. and S.B. Hill. Are phylogenetically isolated invaders more likely to escapetheir enemies? Darwin's Naturalization Hypothesis revisited. Refereed chapter for TheEcology and Management of Alien Plant Invasions 2007 (RG & FJ Richardson, Meridith,Australia). Submitted 21 April, 2008.In the original submission of our Oecologia manuscript, we cited this "conference proceedings" chapter as "in review". We now have removed all references to this chapter from the revised version of our manuscript. The reason is that, while technically this chapter is still in review, we have received no indication (despite repeated queries) that it has been sent to reviewers or that any other progress has been made since at least April 2008; the meeting itself was in September 2007. We suspect that this volume will never actually appear. If this chapter ever is published, it will report a much earlier analysis of these experiments, and several others, using an entirely different (non-phylogenetic) approach to test a distinctly different hypothesis (with a negative result): whether species diversity of native congeners is related to enemy attack. We believe there is no significant overlap with the current manuscript, and that the current manuscript depends in no way on these analyses. Given extremely slow editorial progress of this chapter, we also believe that our Oecologia manuscript would almost certainly be reviewed and published first, and (at this point) deserves intellectual precedence.Specific comments (numbers in reviewer section indicate lines in the original manuscript): Reviewer: 31 & 34: There was only one common garden; so, it should be singular.Response: Corrected.Reviewer: 35: Specify that this was only the case for the late-summer census.Response: Corrected.Reviewer: 57: Mitchell and Power 2003 did not really find variable results.Response: The citation was removed.Reviewer: 91: It should be ‘a common garden experiment’Response: Corrected.Reviewer: 98-99: Clarify here why both approaches are used.Response: This is clarified in the methods, lines 167 to 177.Reviewer: 123-124: Three of these species were also part of the experiment. It could be that herbivores from these native stands could more easily invade the same species in the garden. Do the results change when you exclude these three species from the analyses?Response: We did not run analyses without these species, since all of the species used in the common garden plots were present in the old field habitats used. The only exception was Dipsacus sylvestris. Also, descriptions of abundance were anecdotal and based on field notes and not quantification. Reviewer: 138: This is obvious, and can be deleted.Response: This sentence was deleted.Reviewer: 140: ‘exotic species’ instead of ‘exotics’Response: Corrected.Reviewer:1 72: delete 2nd ‘to be’Response: This section has been re-written.Reviewer: 176: insert a ‘)’ after ‘Weiblen et al. 2006’Response: Corrected.Reviewer: 179-180: Rather say ‘we used species means as data points’, because the ‘phylogenetically-related’ may falsely be interpreted as a correction for phylogenetic non-independence among species. Response: Corrected.Reviewer: 197: Rather say ‘For the analyses of damage by herbivores, we wished. Also clarify why you wished this.Response: This sentence was re-written (lines 196-198)Reviewer: 203-204: To save space, the figures on the June census can be deleted. Instead, you can give the mean damage levels (and standard errors) in the text.Response: We have deleted this Figure as suggested.Reviewer: 204, 206, 217, 235: Use consistent formatting for references to multiple figures. Response: The revised manuscript has no references to multiple figures.Reviewer: 217: Cut the superfluous ‘and trends were very weak’Response: Corrected.Reviewer: 235: Insert ‘that’ before ‘uncontrolled variation’Response: CorrectedReviewer: 239-240: You should test the importance of habitat type by including it as a factor in the analyses.Response: We can't really do this, since (1) we don't have appropriate data, (2) some habitat types would have little or no replication, and (3) it would make the analyses extremely complicated for little return.Reviewer: 243: insert ‘of’ before ‘the principal’Response: Corrected.Reviewer: 257-259: If this would be true, one would expect the opposite result of what you found, i.e. that species of families with deep nodes (the ones with a large phylogenetic distance to the closest native family) should have higher levels of damage by herbivores.Response: We clarified that what was meant by deeper nodes is that they represent families, and thus may represent a larger group of hosts where ecological/functional similarities are likely to be phylogenetically conserved (lines 269-270)Reviewer: 441: the reference to Strauss et al. 2006 is missing.Response: Added.Reviewer: Table 2: This table could be cut, when the statistics are included in the text. Response: Not all these statistics can easily be presented in the text. We have compromised by including the regression and AIC statistics from the new analyses in Table 2.Reviewer: Table 3, 4th line of caption: delete ‘and’Response: Table 3 has been removed in the revised manuscriptReviewer: Table 3, in the column ‘Damage estimate’: included ‘damaged’ for both types of estimates or delete ‘damaged'Response: Table 3 has been removed in the revised manuscript.Reviewer:Fig. 1 and 2: The graphs for June can be cut to save space.Response: Removed.============================================================Reviewer 2Reviewer: This study takes an explicitly phylogenetic perspective in exploring ERH. Basically, I like the paper, though I feel that the tone could be more muted. These authors are refining hypotheses that have put forward by others. Data collected by Strong, Gilbert and many others have shown that more closely related taxa share enemies, even if they are only explored using ranks. Similarly, tests of Darwin's Naturalization hypothesis have been conducted before (as cited by authors), and the specific point that invaders’ success depends on the match between invader and invaded community was made explicitly by Ricciardi, Strauss and others. These papers also discuss the variety of mechanisms that might be responsible for these patterns. Thus, the tone of the paper, esp. the discussion, needs to be adjusted.Response: We have tried to give credit where credit is due: we have cited Strong, Gilbert, and many tests of Darwin's Naturalization Hypothesis, though few of these test a possible mechanism, as we have attempted to do. Nonetheless, we have made changes to the tone where we felt that our claims were too strong.Reviewer: That said, I commend the more explicitly phylogenetic approach to ERH in this paper and find it a valuable contribution.Response: Thanks!Reviewer: The authors should use mean and/or maximal damage level of each plant species over the season. It doesn’t make sense to compare date by date, given that the diverse plants and herbivores likely have different phenologies, etc.Getting rid of the June data throughout the paper and sticking with these other measures would be better.Response: It's difficult to standardize sampling for so many species; we instead opted to use standard sampling dates. However, we have removed Figures for June and have greatly de-emphasized these results, as suggested.Reviewer: The common gardens have a lot of confamilials in them, and may be unusually clumped with respect to the concentration of these families. It would be good to include how much more clumped with respect to confamilials the common gardens are relative to the field communities. I know the species lists have more confamilials total, but in the spatial area of a garden, in the natural community, I doubt that natural communities are this aggregated. These aggregations may represent concentrated resources that attract herbivores of particular families, and may contribute to why the authors found patterns that are significant in the gardens and not in the field. However, I commend the authors for looking in the field and trying to establish that the same patterns exist there as in the common garden. Many studies would not have taken that extra step.Response: Our common garden experiment was composed of study species that commonly co-occur in old field habitats in our region; we have no reason to suspect that patterns of aggregation were on average significantly different from those that would occur naturally, but in any case, this is one of the costs of doing a common garden experiment! The idea suggested however, is an interesting one that deserves investigating.Reviewer: One way of dealing with field heterogeneity in damage would be to standardize levels of damage by site and look at deviations from mean damage per site. But part of the field issue will be the patchiness of distributions and abundances of naturally occurring confamilials at field sites. Actually, there are newish methods to incorporate abundance data in Phylocom, and if the authors had data on surrounding natural communities, perhaps abundance data could be incorporated into the field analyses. Response: As noted above, we don't have reliable data on abundance. As well, these data were collected from many (hundreds) of locations; it would be very difficult to model this, even if we had the data. The compensation is that we have a good level of spatial replication!Reviewer: How much are results influenced by branch lengths? it might be heuristic to see if patterns differ based on number of nodes versus actual divergence times. phylocom does both.Response: The phylogenetic distance measures all depended on the branch lengths of the community phylogeny used here. Since the community tree is a sub-sample of the 'Tree of Life' for this group, node counting may not necessarily be phylogenetically informative. We feel it best to remain with our original assertion that using branch length estimates from the community tree is a more appropriate and powerful approach.Reviewer: Some advantages of a rank-free approach might be to identify at what level of divergence these patterns still hold. This could be tricky, and it just a suggestion.Response: This is an interesting idea, but probably needs a higher sample size that what we have here.Reviewer: Are the P values in the paper one-tailed? They could be given the a priori hypothesis that we expect more closely related taxa to share enemies (that has been shown fairly convincingly in the majority of studies).Response: The p-values presented in this study were based on linear regression; specifically we evaluated whether the slope differed from 0. If we used a 1-tailed test our results arguably would be even more highly significant; however, we feel this is risky, given the fairly exploratory nature of our research.。
·response
·response·n. [rɪ'spɒns] ( responses )··双解释义·C U 回答,回音,答复 reply; answer·C U 反应,响应 an action done in answer ·词汇搭配动词+～call forth no response 不起反应elicit〔evoke〕 a response 引起反响give〔make〕 a response 给予答复receive〔win〕 response 得到响应形容词+～active response 积极响应instinctive response 本能反应·常用短语in response to对…作出反应give an action done to sb/sthShe laughed in response to his jokes.他的话引起她大笑。
The quick recovery was truly in response to medication.这次迅速康复确实是对药物治疗的反应。
·句型例句She has received a response from that college to her applicati on.她已经收到那所大学对她申请的答复。
She made no response to my letter.她没有回复我的信。
Students wrote their response on a blank sheet of paper.学生们将答案写在空白纸上。
There has been very little response to our call for help.我们求助的号召没有多少响应。
·补充资料［同义词］ reply·response·n. [rɪ'spɒns] ( responses )··双解释义·C U 回答,回音,答复 reply; answer·C U 反应,响应 an action done in answer·词汇搭配动词+～call forth no response 不起反应elicit〔evoke〕 a response 引起反响give〔make〕 a response 给予答复receive〔win〕 response 得到响应形容词+～active response 积极响应instinctive response 本能反应·常用短语in response to对…作出反应give an action done to sb/sthShe laughed in response to his jokes.他的话引起她大笑。
论文修改意见回复模板
论文修改意见回复模板首先，诚恳的态度是至关重要的，提交文章修改后要附上一个cover letter。
里面包含这些内容：（1）感谢编辑安排审稿以及审稿人提出的宝贵意见。
（2）作者已经认真按照审稿人的要求对问题一一作答，并对文章进行了仔细的修改，文章的所有修改都着重标出。
（3）因为你们的建议，经过修改后的文章变得更好，读者们可以获得更有价值的信息。
（4）再次感谢编辑和审稿人的帮助。
虽然cover letter的内容也都是客套话，但是编辑跟审稿人看着也会舒心不少。
特别是审稿人，需要认真地无偿地审阅文章，难能可贵的是还需要找出不足的地方。
即便有时因为研究方向不是很一致，他们有的问题有点业余，又或者提意见时比较不客气，回复审稿意见的时候也一定要尊重他们。
第二，另外起草一个单独的response letter。
在这里用问答式一一列出每个审稿人的意见并且一一作答。
对于文字的修改要求，直接接受就行了。
有的审稿人要求增加参考文献，也许这是审稿人唯一显示他私心的地方——比如要求引用他的文章，不是很离谱的情况下也可以照办，或者打个折嘛，要求引用三篇最后加上一篇嘛。
回答问题的时候，最好简洁和就事论事，不要拖泥带水。
要注意不要为了回答某个问题而导致更多的疑问，尽量将讨论局限在有限的范围内。
第三，有的审稿人与文章的研究方向有差异，或者没有认真读文章，导致对文章的理解有误，从而提出一些莫名其妙的问题。
回答这些问题的时候，可以首先引用一下文章的相关句子，然后指出文章的真正意思。
接着承认是自己的表达出现问题了，让审稿人曲解了意思，最后指出句子已经重写，表达的意思已经更准确了。
这样的回答，既巧妙地回答了该问题，也避免了让审稿人尴尬。
第四，如果遇到了非常难回答的问题，比如审稿人质疑文章的创新性有限，价值不大。
这些是文章的硬伤，是没有办法修改的。
赞同审稿人的意见肯定不好，但是用回避的方式不回答更不好，既不礼貌也侧面赞同了审稿人。
这个问题尽管很难回答，但是还是要去争取一下，比如再强调一下文章里面相关的几个句子。
回复感谢信的英语作文
Im thrilled to share a personal experience that unfolded in the form of a heartfelt thankyou letter and my response to it. It was a moment that not only touched my heart but also served as a reminder of the power of gratitude and the importance of acknowledging the kindness of others.It all began when I volunteered at a local community center, where I helped organize a charity event for underprivileged children. The event was a grand success, and the joy on the faces of the children was truly priceless. Little did I know that my efforts would be recognized and appreciated in such a profound way.A few days after the event, I received a letter from a mother of one of the children who attended. The letter was beautifully handwritten and filled with warmth and gratitude. She expressed her heartfelt thanks for the time and effort I had put into making the event a memorable one for her child. She wrote about how her son had been looking forward to the event for weeks and how it had brought a smile to his face that she hadnt seen in a long time.Reading the letter, I was deeply moved. It was a reminder of the impact that even the smallest acts of kindness can have on someones life. It was also a testament to the fact that our actions can create ripples of positivity that extend far beyond our immediate surroundings.In my response, I wanted to convey my appreciation for her kind words and to express my own gratitude for the opportunity to be a part of something so meaningful. I wrote:Dear Mothers Name,I am truly touched by your heartfelt letter and the kind words you shared. It is an honor to know that our efforts at the community center have brought joy and happiness to your family, especially to your son. It is moments like these that remind us of the power of kindness and the difference we can make in the lives of others.Please know that your letter has not only made my day but has also reinforced my belief in the importance of giving back to our community. It is a privilege to be able to contribute in any way, no matter how small, to make a positive impact on the lives of those around us.I am grateful for the opportunity to have been a part of this event and to have met such wonderful people like you and your son. Your gratitude is a gift in itself, and I am humbled by your kind words.Thank you once again for taking the time to write such a beautiful letter. It has truly brightened my day and inspired me to continue on this path of service.With warm regards,Your NameIn writing my response, I aimed to express my sincere appreciation for herletter and to convey the impact that her words had on me. I wanted to let her know that her gratitude was not only acknowledged but deeply appreciated.This experience has taught me the importance of taking the time to express gratitude and to acknowledge the kindness of others. It has shown me that even the smallest acts of kindness can have a profound impact on someones life and that a simple thankyou can be a powerful reminder of the goodness in the world.So, whether its a heartfelt letter or a simple thank you, lets not underestimate the power of gratitude. Lets take the time to acknowledge the kindness of others and to express our appreciation for the positive impact they have on our lives. After all, its these small acts of gratitude that can make all the difference in the world.。
给一个答复审稿人意见的coverletter
给一个答复审稿人意见的coverletter,希望对大家有帮助Cover letterManuscript number: BXXXXXKMS Type: ArticleTitle: "XXXX"Correspondence Author: XXXDear Dr. Fay Riordan:Thank you very much for your attention and the referee’s evaluation and comments on our paper BXXXXK. We have revised the manuscript according to your kind advices and referee’s detailed suggestions. Enclosed please find the responses to the referees. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on XXX.Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.Best regardsSincerely yoursDr. XXXPlease find the following Response to the comments of referees:Response to the referee’s commentsReferee AComment 1: The titania material formed after calcining at 450 oC is not characterized. XRD of these calcined materials should be provided to understand the crystallinity and phase.Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. According to his/her advices, X-ray diffractometry spectroscopy (XRD) of the calcined TiO2 film was given in Supporting Information (Figure S1) in this revised version. It illustrated that the hydrothermal synthesized TiO2 materials after calcining at 450 oC is entire anatase, which was confirmed by the X-ray diffractometer with Cu Kα radiation (Rigaku D/ max-2500).Comment 2: The authors must state the mechanical strength of these materials after the removal of PS by calcinations.Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. By a scotch tape peel test, the TiO2 film can’t be stripped from the conducting glass substrate, which indicates that the mechanical strength of as-prepared composite film is strong enough for the fabrication of solar cell devices. The revised details can be found in Line 165-168, page 2.Referee BComment 1: The microtube structure with the size of 500-800 nm cannot only scatter the visible light in the region of 500-800 nm, but also can scatter more efficiently the visible light in the region below 500 nm, and can scatter near infrared light. This point should be clarified in the main text.Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind advice. Just like what the referee said, the microtube network structure can scatter not only visible light but also near infrared light. We added this point in revised manuscript and the detailed revision can be found in Line 194-205, Page 2-3.Comment 2: They described the simulated sunlight as "one-simulating-sunlight condition (AM1.5, 100 mW cm-2)". But in my opinion, it would be better to use the phrase like "AM 1.5 simulated solar light (100 mW cm-2)".Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. "one-simulating-sunlight condition (AM1.5, 100 mW cm-2)" has been changed to "AM 1.5 simulated solar light (100 mW cm-2)" in our revised manuscript. (Line 217, Page 3)Comment 3: They correctly pointed out that the increased ratio of solar energy conversion efficiency by the microtube-network structure was smaller than that estimated from the absorption spectra. It is understandable, considering that a TiO2 porous film was filled with solvent in a device, while that for spectroscopic measurements is filled with air.Response: Thanks for the referee’s good evaluation and kind suggestion. The referee’s explanation is very correct. Light absorptions of TiO2 photoelectrodes are different when they are filled with electrolytes and air, respectively. It is ascribed to that a part of solar light will be absorbed by the electrolytes and also different medium in the porous film will induce the different refractive indices. This is one reason that increased ratio of conversion efficiency by the microtube-network structure was smaller than that estimated from the absorption spectra. We added this point into our revised manuscript and the details can be found in Line 325-330, Page 4.【论坛浏览】【我来说两句】【打印】【大】【中】【小】【关闭】相关评论作者: hxszhy 发布日期: 2007-11-28这里还给一个在某论坛上看到的一个帖子,关于答复审稿人,只是供大家参考:很多人都遇到过回复审稿人意见的时候。
回信的格式英语作文
The Format of a Reply LetterWhen writing a reply letter, it is important to follow a formal and professional format. Here is an outline of the basic structure to help you compose a clear and concise response:Heading: Start your letter with the date, followed by the recipient's name and address. If you are writing to a business or organization, include their official title or department. markdown[Your Address][City, State, ZIP Code][Date][Recipient's Name][Recipient's Position][Recipient's Company or Organization][Recipient's Address][City, State, ZIP Code]Greeting: Begin the letter with a formal greeting, such as "Dear [Recipient's Name]," or "To Whom It May Concern," depending on the context.Acknowledgment: Express gratitude for receiving the original letter or email. Briefly mention the subject matter to establish a connection with the previous communication. englishI am writing in response to your letter dated [Original Letter's Date], regarding [Brief Description of the Topic].Response: Address each point raised in the original letter in a clear and organized manner. Use paragraphs to separate different topics or points. If necessary, provide additional information, clarify misunderstandings, or offer solutions.Conclusion: Summarize your response and provide a closing statement. Thank the recipient for their inquiry or assistance and express your willingness to further discuss the matter if necessary.englishThank you for your time and consideration. If you have any further questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.Closing: End the letter with a formal closing, such as "Sincerely," "Best regards," or "Yours faithfully," depending on the formality of the communication.Signature: If the letter is printed, include your name and contact information below the closing. If the letter is emailed, your name and contact information can be included in the email signature.Remember to proofread your letter for grammar and spelling errors before sending it. Adhering to this format will ensure that your reply is professional, easy to read, and respectful of the original communication.。
- 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)。
We are truly grateful to the reviewers’ suggestions on English. Based on these comments, we have made careful modifications on the manuscript.Dear Editor:We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red color. In addition, we have consulted native English speakers for paper revision before the submission this tim e. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions: 1234...Yours sincerely******Dear Prof.****:Thank you very much for your kindly comments on our manuscript (No******). Based on your and reviewer’s suggestions, we carefully revised the manuscript.We are now sending the revised article for your re-consideration to publish in Journal of Plant Physiology. Please see our point to point responses to all your comments below, and the corresponding revisions in the body of manuscript, both marked in blue. We look forward to hearing form you soon for a favorable 8 decision.Thank you again for your time and consideration.Sincerely,****1. *****2.*****3.*****Below, the original comments are in black, and our responses are in blue.****Following typographical and grammatical errors in original manuscript have been removedand corrected:(1) Line 20 page 1 in the original manuscript: the drag…..Revised in the revised manuscript: The drag……RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTSDear Dr:We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red color. In addition, we have consulted native English speakers for paper revision before the submission this time. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions: Comments from the Editor-in-Chief:回复后1月，要求小休，并认为英文水平已经大大提高，要求明确我下一步想如何研究，因此老外由帮我写了回复信，如下是第二封信的开场白：Dear Dr. Chernick:We must thank you and all other reviewers for the critical feedback. We feel lucky that our manuscript went to these reviewers as the valuable comments from them not only helped us with the improvement of our manuscript, but suggested some neat ideas for future studies. Please do forward our heartfelt thanks to these experts.Based on the comments we received, careful modifications have been made to the R1 manuscript. All changes were marked in red text. In addition, we also have a native English speakers double-checked the English for the revised R2 version. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions:Dear Editor:Thank you very much for your supervision of the reviewing process of my manuscript (Ref. No. of XXXXXXX). We also highly appreciate the reviewer’s carefulness, conscientious, and the broad knowledge on the relevant research fields, since they have given me a number of beneficial suggestions. According to the reviewer’s instructions, we have made the following revisions on this manuscript:1. After examining the reviewer’s comments carefully, we must admitthat we havenot expressed our meaning correctly in the previous manuscript. Sorry for this confusion. In the revised version, t he “rougher” has been corrected as “weaker andbroader”. (See Line 7 from top, 3.1 Phase identification).2. As suggested by the reviewer, Fig. 3a has been referred into the revised manuscriptto reveal flattening of the milled powders. (See Line 4 from top, 3.2 Microstructure)3. In the review comments, the reviewer has pointed out that “The particle size of thepowders in Fig. 3b&c appear to be comparable?” We have again examined Fig. 3band 3c carefully. Compared with the particle size of powders in Fig. 3b, the particlesize of particles in Fig. 3c showed a very slight increase. (See Line 17 from top, 3.2Microstructure)4. As suggested by the reviewer, we have outlined the operating mechanism in the revised manuscript for the sake of better understanding and clarity. (See Lines 7-11 from top, 4.Conclusions)5. In the review comment, we are very appreciated to know that a marked hardcopy ofthe manuscript has been sent by post concerning additional corrections of Englishlanguage. We have waited the hardcopy for more than 2 months since May 9, 2008.However, we have not yet received the hardcopy till now, due to some unknownreasons. With the permission of XXXXXXX (Email: XXXXXXX), we have invited another native English speaker in our university, who is a visiting professor from USA engaged in the research field of Materials Science and Engineering, to go through the whole manuscript. The English language in the current manuscript has been polished and improved.We hope that these revisions are satisfactory and that the revised version will beacceptable for publication in XXXXXXX.Thank you very much for your work concerning my paper.Wish you all the best!Sincerely yours,XXXXXXX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。