如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer
如何回复sci论文的修改意见？
如何回复sci论文的修改意见？当我们向期刊投稿时，我们通常会收到期刊编辑对论文修改的意见。
得到SCI论文的修改意见，就意味着我们的论文质量可以在一定程度上得到提高。
一般情况下，很少有论文投稿后不需要修改。
面对修改意见，作者应根据意见对论文进行进一步的修改和完善。
毕竟审稿人的修改意见是我们文章被收录的关键很关键，所以审稿人的建议一定要妥善处理。
那么如何回复sci论文的修改意见呢？1.了解审稿人的意见，真诚地回答问题审稿人帮助审稿，但是他们没有任何工资和报酬，这种共产主义精神很少见。
因此，我们必须在措辞中尊重他们。
即使有时候因为研究方向不是很一致或者完全不一样，他们的一些问题有点业余，或者发表意见不太不礼貌，但我们还是应该尊重彼此的劳动成果。
这虽然只是一种立礼貌，但它会让编辑和审稿人可以感到舒适。
2.回答问题时附上一个coverletter第一段，先表示非常感谢，比如我们中国编辑安排审稿人审稿和审稿人提出的宝贵意见。
第二段，我们一一回答问题审稿人的要求，并根据审稿人的要求仔细修改文章。
对文章的所有修改都符合期刊的编辑要求，如高亮或低亮或低暗更改模式或标红（这一部分可以在审稿意见的电子邮件中看到，处理时应注意）当然这个coverletter不需要很长，几句话即可。
3.额外起草一个responseletter其实，这和coverletter可以放在一起，只是一种表达方式，没有必要区分太多。
在这里，每个审稿人的意见一一列出，一一作答。
然后，对每个审稿人的意见可以作出积极回应。
回答问题时，最好简明扼要，不要拖拖拉拉。
注意自己不要仅仅回答了一个重要问题就更多问题，尽量将讨论限制在一个小范围内。
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]。
如何回复审稿人意见-审稿回复
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: Man uscri pt IDWe would like to tha nk XXX (n ame of Journ al) for givi ng us the opportunity to revise our manu scri pt.We tha nk the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comme nts on prev ious draft.We have carefully take n their comme nts into con siderati on in preparing our revisi on.which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more comp elli ng, and broader. The followi ng summarizes how we respon ded to reviewer comme nts.Below is our res ponse to their comme nts.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorres ponding 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 comme nts4. 5. 6.1. 2. 3. The referee correctly no ted that our Ian guage about XXX was ambiguous.Therefore, we cha nged the text and the figures to emp hasize that ….To further support the concept that, we have an alyzed ….As depi cted in Supp leme ntary Fig. S1…As suggested by the reviewer we have emp hasized our observati ons of XXX in results and discussi on sect ions. We have added new findings (see above point) in Supp leme ntary Fig S. to support … As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (Suppl eme ntary Fig.) that summarizes … Minor comme nts 1. 2. 3.4.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title. We have added and impro ved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2. We have added statistics to Fig 5C. We have corrected the typ escri pt errors in the XXX p aragra ph. Reviewer #2: 1. 2. 3. 4. Because of the reviewer' s request, we have p erformed new exp erime nts to better clarify …The new Fig. shows that …This finding suggests that … As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify the point that … We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer ' s request we have used XXX to confirm that …The new data are depi cted in Supp leme ntary Fig . Because of reviewer ' s request, we have analyzed the efficiency of RNAi by qua ntitative RT-PCR the efficie ncy of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supp leme ntary Fig.Reviewer #3: 1. 2. 3. Because of the referee ' s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 into the new Figure 6 and we have added new exp erime nts to address The new Fig . 6 shows that …. In res ponse to the reviewerdepi cted in Suppp leme ntary Fig. We agree with reviewer that 's requests, we have studied ….The new data are ….However, a rece nt paper has show n that ….We have added this refere nee and mdified the sentence to un derl ineWe have changes Figure 1 with a picture that….The previous one was too week and the gree n fluoresce nee was lost duri ng the conv ersi on in PDF format.Because of review ' s request, we have changed as miosisiblepthe magn ificati on in orderto mai ntai n the same scale bar but also to p reserve details. The differe nee betwee n XXX and XXX is not statistically sig nifica nt. I n order to betterclarify this issue we cha nged the grap hics of our statistical an alysis in Fig.另外一篇5分杂志的回复: 1nd Revision -authors ' response Referee #1: We want to beg in by tha nking Referee #1 for writi ng that is gen erally in teresting and imp orta nt in the field. criticism and suggesti on. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below. 1. “ the finding in our manu scri pt ” We also appreciated the constructiv 2. 3. 4. Accord ing to the referee ' s suggesti on, the exp erime nt dem on strati ng exp erime nt, this result is p rese nted in the revised Fig.The referee suggests dem on strati ng that ….This exp erime nt was p erformed in XXX by comparing … The referee comme nts that it is un clear whether the effect of ….is due to ….T address the referee ' s comme nt, we revised Fig. and dem on strated that r ….To furthe confirm •….Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. dem on strate that Thanks to the referee ' s comment, the wrong figure numbers were corrected in the revised manu scri pt. …;in the new Referee #2: We want to tha nk Referee #2 for con structive and in sightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below. 1. 2. 3. 4. The referee recomme nds to show ….We p erformed the exp erime nt and its result is in cluded in the revised Fig. Accord ing to the referee ' s suggesti on, the exp erime nts in Fig. were rep eated several times and rep rese ntative data are in cluded in the revised Fig.Based on the referee ' s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1, above. As stated above, we have in cluded new results, which in clude: All minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordi ngly. 2nd Revision -authors ' responseWe would like to tha nk the referees for their thoughtful review of our manu scri pt. Webelieve that the additi onal cha nges we have made in res ponse to the reviewers comme nts have made this a sig nifica ntly stron ger manu scri pt. Below is our poin t-by-point res ponse to the referee ' s comments. Referee #1: Referee #1 request two minor editorial cha nges. Both cha nges have bee n made accord in gly in the revised manu scri pt. Referee #2:We sin cerely apo logize to Referee #2 for not comp letely address ing all of the p oi nts raised in the p revious res pon se. We have done so below and added additi onaldata in hopes that this reviewer will be supp ortive of p ublicati on.Referee #2 requests evidenee that ….According to the referee ' s suggestion, a XX assay was p erformed in XXX cells to dem on strate that ….The result is p rese nted in Fig.Page 17, “ the ” E3 was changed to “ an ” E3.Referee #2 asks whether ….We would like to note that we inv estigated ….in ourp revious study and found no evide nee that ….Therefore, in this manu scri pt we focused on 1.2. 3.。
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见之欧阳家百创编
望对大家有帮助 1.Dear Prof. XXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.Sincerely yours,Dr. XXXXResponse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments:1. XXXXXXX2. XXXXXXX2.Dear Professor ***,Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)by ***Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice ofthe above paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it.After carefully studying the reviewer’comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is ***, and Tel.is ***, and Fax is +***.Yours sincerely,Detailed response to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s adviceOverall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it. Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) Besidesthe above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.3.The manuscript is revised submission (×××－××××) with new line and page numbers in the text, some grammar and spelling errors had also been corrected. Furthermore, the relevant regulations had been made in the original manuscript according to the comments of reviewers, and the major revised portions were marked in red bold. We also responded point by point to each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the location of the revision.Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.List of MajorChanges:1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewers:1).........2).........3).........Res ponse to Reviewer XXWe very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of the reviewer. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments can be summarized as follows:1) XX2) XXDetailed responses1) XX2) XX4.Dear editor XXWe have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX”by XX. According to the comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript. The revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewer are attached.Sincerelyyours,XX5.Response to Reviewer AReviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealed himself tobe Professor Dr. Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig. I wrote him a general response to both reviews in January 2000, followed by these responses to specific points, both his own, and those of the other reviewer .Response to Specific PointsWhat follows is a brief and cursory discussion of the various issues raised by yourself and the other reviewer. If you should revise your judgment of the validity of the theory, these points will be addressed at greater length in a new version of the paper that I would resubmit to Psychological Review.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 betweenthe 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, whereI 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.In part (2) (a) of your critique you say "it is not clarified whether the postulated properties ofGestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints." and "I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat just the case of hler: (1961, p. 7) "Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague." Wolfgang Kthe dog cited to demonstrate `emergence'. For this a hierarchy relation is needed." The principle of emergence in Gestalt theory is a very difficult concept to express in unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was presented to illustrate this rather elusive concept with a concrete example. I do not suggest that HR as proposed in this paper can address the dog picture assuch, since this is specifically a visual problem, and the HR model as presented is not a visual model. Rather, I propose that the feature detection paradigm cannot in principle handle this kind of ambiguity, because the local features do not individually contain the information necessary to distinguish significant from insignificant edges. The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the section on "Recognition by Reification" (p. 15-17) in which I propose that recognition is not simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, i.e. by the "lighting up" of a higher level feature node, but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which the higher level feature node reifies its particular pattern back at the inputlevel, modulated by the exact pattern of the input. I appeal to the reader to see the reified form of the dog as perceived edges and surfaces that are not present in the input stimulus, as evidence for this reification in perception, which appears at the same time that the recognition occurs. The remarkable property of this reification is that the dog appears not as an image of a canonical, or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture and configuration allowed by the input, as observed in the subjective experience of the dog picture. This explanation is subject to your criticism in your general comments, that "the author demonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions". I can only say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it isonly personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can be used to make the case.In the words of Wolfgang K?hler: (1961, p.7)"Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague."Wolfgang K?hler (K?hler 1923 p. 64)"Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptotheses, which cannot be verified by direct observation at the time when they are formed nor for a long time thereafter. Of such a kind were Ampere's theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gases, the electronic theory, the hypothesis of atomic disinte gration in the theory of radioactivity. Some of theseassumptions have since been verified by direct obser vation, or have at least come close to such direct verification; others are still far removed from it. But physics and chemistry would have been condemned to a permanent embryonic state had they abstained from such hypotheses; their development seems rather like a continuous effort steadily to shorten the rest of the way to the verification of hypotheses which survive this process"In section (2) (b) of your critique you complain that "there is no serious discussion of possible alternatives", and you mention Neo-Gibsonian approaches, PDP, Grossberg's ART model and Pribram's holographic theory. In the next version of the paper this omission will be corrected, approximately as follows. Gibson's use of the termresonance is really a metaphorical device, since Gibson offers no mechanisms or analogies of perceptual processes, but merely suggests that there is a two-way flow of information (resonance) between behavior and the environment. This is really merely a metaphor, rather than a model.The PDP approach does address the issue of emergence, but since the basic computational unit of the neural network model is a hard-wired receptive field, this theory suffers all the limitations of a template theory. The same holds for Grossberg's "Adaptive Resonance Theory", which also uses the word resonance metaphorically to suggest a bottom-up top- down matching, but in Grossberg's model that matching is actually performed by receptive fields, or spatial templates. The ART modeldemonstrates the limitations of this approach. For the only way that a higher-level detector, or "F2 node", can exhibit generalization to different input patterns, is for it to have synaptic weights to all of the patterns to which it responds. In essence, the pattern of synaptic weights is a superposition or blurring together of all of the possible input patterns to which the F2 node should respond. In top-down priming mode therefore that F2 node would "print" that same blurred pattern back at the lower "F1 node" level, activating all of the possible patterns to which that F2 node is tuned to respond. For example if an ART model were trained to respond to an "X"-shaped feature presented at all possible orientations, top-down priming of this node after training would "print" a pattern of allthose X-shaped features at all orientations superimposed, which is simply an amorphous blob. In fact, that same node would respond even better to a blob feature than to any single X feature. In the presence of a partial or ambiguous X-like pattern presented at a particular orientation, the ART model could not complete that pattern specific to its orientation. The HR model on the other hand offers a different and unique principle of representation, in which top-down activation of the higher level node can complete a partial or ambiguous input pattern in the specific orientation at which it appears, but that same priming would complete the pattern differently if it appeared in a different orientation. This generalization in recognition, but specification in completion, is a property that isunique to the harmonic resonance representation.Kuhn observes that the old paradigm can always be reformulated to account for any particular phenomenon addressed by the new paradigm, just as the Ptolomaic earth- centered cosmology could account for the motions of the planets to arbitrary precision, given enough nested cycles and epicycles of the crystal spheres. Similarly, a conventional neural network model can always be contrived to exhibit the same functional behavior of generalized recognition but specific completion described above, but only by postulating an implausible arrangement of spatial receptive fields. In this case that would require specific X-feature templates applied to the input at every possible orientation, any one of which canstimulate a single rotation-invariant X-feature node, to account for bottom-up rotation invariance in recognition. However in order to also account for top-down completion specific to orientation, top-down activation of the higher-level invariant node would have to feed back down to a set of top-down projection nodes, each of which is equipped with an X-shaped projective template at a particular orientation, able to project a complete X-shaped pattern on the input field. But the top-down completion must select only the specific orientation that best matches the pattern present in the input, and complete the pattern only at that best matching orientation. This system therefore requires two complete sets of X-feature receptive fields or templates, one set for bottom-uprecognition and the other set for top-down completion, each set containing X-feature templates at every possible orientation, and similar sets of receptive fields would be required for the recognition of other shaped patterns such as "T" and "V" features. This represents a "brute force" approach to achieving invariance, which although perhaps marginally plausible in this specific example, is completely implausible as a general principle of operation of neurocomputation, given the fact that invariance appears to be so fundamental a property of human and animal perception. However, as Kuhn also observes, a factor such as neural plausibility is itself a "personal and inarticulate aesthetic consideration" that cannot be determined unambiguously by the evaluativeprocedures characteristic of normal science.With regard to Pribram's Holographic theory, the concept of a hologram is closely related to a standing wave model, since it too works by interference of waveforms. The difference is that the hologram is "frozen in time" like a photograph, and therefore does not exhibit the tolerance to elastic deformation of the input, as does the standing wave model. Neither does the hologram exhibit rotation invariance as does the standing wave in a circular- symmetric system. However holograms can in principle be constructed of dynamic standing waves, as Pribram himself suggests, and this concept then becomes a harmonic resonance theory. The present proposal is therefore closely related to Pribram's approach, whichwill be discussed in the next version of the paper.The discussion of alternative models was indeed a significant omission in the version of the paper you reviewed, the next version will include such a discussion, which in turn will help to clarify the operational principles of the HR theory, and distinguish it from alternative approaches.In section (3) of your critique you propose that "notions like the receptive field concept are approximate descriptions of facts", and you propose a dualistic approach involving two forms of representations in the brain which are of different and complementary nature. While I do not dispute the anatomical facts of the shapes of neuron and the function of synapses, it has never been demonstrated that a neuron actually operates as a spatialtemplate, that theory arose as an explanation for the neurophysiological response of "feature detector" cells in the cortex. However the noisy stochastic nature of the neural response, and its very broad tuning function seem to argue against this view. My own hunch is that the feature detector behavior is itself a standing wave phenomenon, which is consistent with the fact that the response function of V1 cortical neurons resembles a Gabor function, which is itself a wavelet. However this issue is orthogonal to my main point, which is that whether or not some neurons behave as spatial templates, the limitations of a template theory suggest that the Gestalt properties of perception (emergence, invariance, reification, multistability) cannot be accountedfor in that manner, and that some other significant principle of computation must be invoked to account for the Gestalt properties of perception.In section (4) you complain that there is no discussion of the limitations in the scope of HR. For example merely to reflect outside reality does not contribute to the problem of conscious awareness of these objects. However this issue is not unique to HR, it is a general philosophical issue that applies just as well to the alternative Neuron Doctrine model. But the Neuron doctrine itself cannot even plausibly account for the reflection of outside reality in an internal representation, due to the problems of emergence, reification, and invariance, which is why the Neuron Doctrine suggests a more abstracted concept of visualrepresentation, in which the visual experience is encoded in a far more abstracted and abbreviated form. Therefore although HR does not solve the "problem of consciousness" completely, it is one step closer to a solution than the alternative. The philosophical issue of consciousness however is beyond the scope of this paper, which is a theory of neural representation, rather than a philosophical paper. I enclose a copy of my book, "The World In Your Head", which addresses these philosophical issues more extensively.Professor Geissler's ResponseProfessor Geissler kindly responded to my letter in April 2000 to say that he agreed with nearly everything I had said. He then gave me advice about the presentation of the idea. He recommended that Ibegin by describing the Neuron Doctrine in detail, and then point out the limitations of the idea before presenting the Harmonic Resonance theory as an alternative. I re-wrote the paper following Geissler's advice, and I included some ideas from the above letter in the new version of the paper. However it was too late to resubmit it to Psychological Review since the editor who was handling the paper was leaving. Furthermore, I am becoming convinced that the proper medium for presenting radically new and different theories is the open peer review format of the Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal, which is where I submitted the revised version of this paper.6.Dear Dr. S. Heller,Attached please the revised manuscript " A Group-Decision Approach for Evaluating EducationalWeb Sites" submitted to computers & Education for possible publication. A file containing the revision summary is also attached. Your acknowledgement will be highly appreciated.Thank you.Sincerely yoursGwo-Jen HwangInformation Management DepartmentNational Chi Nan UniversityPu-Li, Nan-Tou, Taiwan 545, R.O.C.FAX: 886-940503178TEL: 886-915396558Response to Reviewers and EditorPaper#: SMCC-03-06-0056Title: On the Development of a Computer-Assisted Testing System with Genetic Test Sheet-Generating Approach[Reviewer 1 Comments]:____ The paper should be shortened.[Response to Reviewer 1]:The paper has been shortened to 24 pages by removing some redundant descriptions of genetic models andalgorithms; moreover, Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to condense the entire paper.[Reviewer 2 Comments]:No innovative contribution was found both in the theory of genetic algorithms and in the application of them.[Response to Reviewer 2]:(1)_We have re-written the abstract and Sections 1 and 2 to explain the importance about the construction of a good test sheet. The major contribution of this paper is not in its technical part. Instead, we tried to cope with an important problem arising from real educational applications. Such a problem is known to be critical and has not been efficiently and effectively solved before.(2)_Since the innovative contribution of this paper might not be significant, we have re-written the paper as a technical correspondencebased on the editor's suggestion.[Reviewer 3 Comments]:Make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise, so that the revised paper will be improved in its readability and correctness.[Response to Reviewer 3]:Te mixed integer models and the genetic algorithms in Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise (please refer to Pages 6-17). Moreover, a colleague who is an English expert has carefully checked the paper to correct potential grammatical errors.。
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。
英文论文修改回复模板
如何回复修稿信件模板Dear Editor,We are pleased to answer the questions of the reviewers’and the manuscript (Manuscript number...）) has also been extensively revised according to the comments (resubmitted online). Question #1:Answer:Question #2:Answer:Best wishes,Sincerely yours,Name在修回时，最头痛的是如何满足个别revewer的"不可实现"的要求。
我建议主要是引用理论和文献加以解释，作到精练有逻辑有说服力。
毕竟，写比做还是要简单些。
效果吗，就要看个人的写作能力和编辑的心情了。
当然，你能补数据和你有时间补数据的例外。
Dear editor:Thanks a lot for having reviewed our manuscript.Now we have revised the manuscript according to the revewers'Thanks a lot for having revewed our manuscript. Now we have revised the manuscript according to the reviewerscomments.Most of the revisions are in the manuscript.Some explanations regarding the reisions of our manuscriptare as follows.Dear Prof.XXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to x0.x (MSNumber x000).We have checked the manuscript and rewsed it according to the comments. We submit here therevsed manuscript as well as a list of changes.lf you have any question about this paper, please don't hesitate to letme know.Sincerely yours,Dr. xXxxXResponse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revsed our paper according to your comments:1.xxxXXXX2.xxXXXX或Dear editor:Thanks a lot for having reviewed our manuscript. Now we have rewised the manuscript according to the reviewers'comments.Most of the revisions are in the manuscript.Some explanations regarding the revisions of our manuscriptare as follows.。
如何回复审稿人意见审稿回复
如何回复审稿人意见审稿回复The Standardization Office was revised on the afternoon of December 13, 2020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 theconcept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted in Supplementary Fig. S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations of XXX inresults 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 (Supplementary Fig.) thatsummarizes…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 to betterclarify… The new Fig. shows that… This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify the pointthat…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s request we have usedXXX to confirm that… The new data are depicted in Supplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed the efficie ncy 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 into the newFigure 6 and we have added new exper iments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that….2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied…. The new data are depictedin Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper has shown that …. We haveadded this reference and modified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. The previous one was too week andthe green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDF format.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much as possible the magnificationin order to maintain the same scale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statistically significant. In order tobetter 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 appreci ated 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…; in the newexperiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performed in XXXby comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effect of ….is due to …. Toaddress 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 corrected in therevised 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 its result isincluded in the revised Fig.2.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. were repeated severaltimes and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1, above. Asstated 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’s suggestion, a XXXassay 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 ….in ourprevious study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in this manuscript we focused on ….。
面对sci论文修改意见该如何回信
面对sci论文修改意见该如何回信
面对sci论文修改意见该如何回信
Sci论文修改是sci论文发表流程中几乎必经的一步，小编几乎没听说过没有修改就直接被接收的文章，那么，收到修改意见之后我们该如何回信呢？
首先，我们的回信一定要礼貌，无论你的文章被审稿人和编辑把你的文章批得多么一无是处，你都不能表露出不满，相反，你要对他们的辛勤工作表示诚挚的谢意，要知道sci论文期刊的审稿人几乎都是义务劳动，没有报酬的在给你审稿，他们如此辛苦地审稿，理所应当希望得到作者的肯定和感谢，大家都是高文化水平的人，对人家的共走表示感谢是基本的尊重，但是又很多sci论文作者在回复编辑和审稿人时只顾着反驳修改意见，而忘记了这种基本的尊重，这是万万不可的，如果你惹得编辑或者审稿人不爽，你觉得最后是谁比较吃亏呢？因此我们在回信时不管是赞成修改意见还是有所反驳，都要有礼貌。
其次，是回信的格式问题，要注意在开头写上文章的基本信息，比如manuscript tracking number, title, author 等。
总之，在回复sci论文修改意见时一定要注意从审稿人的角度看看这封信写得好不好，不能掉以轻心，如果你的文章处于接收也可拒绝也可的地步，那修回信的分量是很大的。
sci回复编辑的修改意见模板
sci回复编辑的修改意见模板1.请注意在这个段落中使用了过多的从句，可以尝试简化句子结构以提高可读性。
2.这句话的意思不够清晰，请明确表达你的意思。
3.这个词的使用可能会造成误解，请换个更准确的词语。
4.这里需要提供更多的支持性证据来支持你的观点。
5.这个观点需要更多的解释来使其更具可信度。
6.建议使用更具体的实例来说明你的观点。
7.这句话过于笼统，请更具体地描述你的意图。
8.这个观点无法与前面的句子相呼应，请改写以保持逻辑连贯性。
9.这个段落的结构需要调整以更好地组织思路。
10.这句话的措辞可能会引起误解，请重新表达。
11.这个例子不够恰当，请选择一个更合适的例子来支持你的观点。
12.这个观点与前文不一致，请调整以保持一致性。
13.这部分没有有效地连接到前文和后文，请重新安排段落结构。
14.这个观点缺乏充分的证明，请提供更多具体的细节。
15.这个段落需要更好地引导读者，以使其更容易理解你的意图。
16.这个解释过于复杂，请尝试用更简单的方式表达。
17.这个论据缺乏逻辑连贯性，请重新组织以获得更好的逻辑推理。
18.这个例子不够具体，请提供更多相关的细节来支持你的观点。
19.这句话的措辞可能会冒犯读者，请使用更客观和中立的表达方式。
20.这个段落缺少一个明确的主题句，请提供一个明确的主题来引导读者。
21.这个解释过于晦涩，请重新组织以达到更清晰的表达。
22.这个段落需要更好地连接上下文，以使读者更容易理解你的思路。
23.这个观点需要更多的支持性证据来加强其可信度。
24.这部分的论证过于片面，请考虑其他相关因素。
25.这句话的结构不够平衡，请尝试调整以提高语法流畅度。
26.这个观点过于绝对化，请更客观地表达你的意见。
27.这个例子可能会引起误解，请选择一个更清晰的例子。
28.这个段落的逻辑关系不够明确，请重新组织以获得更清晰的结构。
29.这个解释过于琐碎，请整合相关信息以获得更有说服力的观点。
30.这个论据缺乏因果关系的证明，请对其进行更详细的阐述。
如何回复审稿人意见-审稿回复之欧阳道创编
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 XXXwas ambiguous. Therefore, we changed the text and thefigures to emphasize that …. To further support the concept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted in Supplementary Fig. S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized ourobservations of XXX in results and discussion sections. We have added new findings (see above point) inSupplementary Fig S. to support…3.As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme(Supplementary Fig.) 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 1and 2.3.We have added statistics to Fig 5C.4.We have corrected the typescript errors in the XXXparagraph.Reviewer #2:1.Because of the revi ewer’s request, we have performed newexperiments to better clarify… The new Fig. shows that…This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data ofXXX to clarify the point that…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of thereviewer’s request we have used XXX to confirm that…The new data are depicted in Supplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed theefficiency of RNAi by quantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the new panel inSupplementary Fig.Reviewer #3:1.Because of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panelof Fig. 5 into the new Figure 6 and we have added newexperiments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that…. 2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied….The new data are depicted in Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper hasshown that …. We have added this reference and modified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. Theprevious one was too week and the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDF format.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much aspossible the magnification in order to maintain the samescale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statisticallysignificant. In order to 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 Re feree #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.Accordi ng to the referee’s suggestion, the experimentdemonstrating…; in the new experiment, this result ispresented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experimentwas performed in XXX by comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effectof ….is due to …. To address the referee’s comment, werevised Fig. and demonstrated that…. To further confirm….Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. Insummary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks to the referee’s comment, the wrong figure numberswere corrected in 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 theexperiment and its result is included in the revised Fig.2.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig.were repeated several times and representative data areincluded in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4of Referee #1, above. As stated above, we have includednew results, which include:4.All minor points raised by the reviewer were correctedaccordingly.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 t o 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 thereferee’s suggestion, a XXX assay was performed in XXX cells t o 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 weinvestigated ….in our previous study and found noevidence that …. Therefore, in this manuscript we focused。
(完整版)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 furthersupport the concept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted in Supplementary Fig.S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations of XXX inresults 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 (Supplementary Fig.) thatsummarizes…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 to betterclarify… The new Fig. shows that… This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify the pointthat…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s request we have usedXXX to confirm that… The new data are depicted in Supplementary 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 into the newFigure 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 data aredepicted in Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper has shown that …. Wehave added this reference and mo dified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. The previous one was too weekand the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDF format.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much as p ossible 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 order tobetter 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…; in the newexperiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performed in XXXby comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effect of ….is due to …. Toaddress the referee’s comment, we revised Fig. and demonstrated that…. To furthe r 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 corrected in therevised 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 its result isincluded in the revised Fig.2.Acc ording to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. were repeated severaltimes and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1, above. Asstated 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’s suggestion, a XXXassay 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 ….in ourprevious study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in this manuscript wefocused on ….。
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见
望对大家有帮助1.Dear Prof. XXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know. Sincerely yours,Dr. XXXXResponse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments:1. XXXXXXX2. XXXXXXX2.Dear Professor ***,Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)by ***Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice of the above paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it.After carefully studying the reviewer’ comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is ***, and ***, and Fax is +***.Yours sincerely,Detailed response to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s adviceOverall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it. Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.3.The manuscript is revised submission (×××－××××) with new line and page numbers in the text, some grammar and spelling errors had also been corrected. Furthermore, the relevant regulations had been made in the original manuscript according to the comments of reviewers, and the major revised portions were marked in red bold. We also responded point by point to each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the location of the revision. Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.List of Major Changes:1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewers:1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewer XXWe very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of the reviewer. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments can be summarized as follows:1) XX2) XXDetailed responses1) XX2) XX4.Dear editor XXWe have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX” by XX. According to the comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript. The revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewer are attached.Sincerely yours,XX5.Response to Reviewer AReviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealed himself to be Professor Dr. Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig. I wrote him a general response to both reviews in January 2000, followed by these responses to specific points, both his own, and those of the other reviewer .Response to Specific PointsWhat follows is a brief and cursory discussion of the various issues raised by yourself and the other reviewer. If you should revise your judgment of the validity of the theory, these points will be addressed at greater length in a new version of the paper that I would resubmit to Psychological Review.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 topinpoint 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, . 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.In part (2) (a) of your critique you say "it is not clarified whether the postulated properties of Gestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints." and "I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat just the case of hler: (1961, p. 7) "Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague." Wolfgang Kthe dog cited to demonstrate`emergence'. For this a hierarchy relation is needed." The principle of emergence in Gestalt theory is a very difficult concept to express in unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was presented to illustrate this rather elusive concept with a concrete example. I do not suggest that HR as proposed in this paper can address the dog picture as such, since this is specifically a visual problem, and the HR model as presented is not a visual model. Rather, I propose that the feature detection paradigm cannot in principle handle this kind of ambiguity, because the local features do not individually contain the information necessary to distinguish significant from insignificant edges. The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the section on "Recognition by Reification" (p. 15-17) in which I propose that recognition is not simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, . by the "lighting up" of a higher level feature node, but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which the higher level feature node reifies its particular pattern back at the input level, modulated by the exact pattern of the input. I appeal to the reader to see the reified form of the dog as perceived edges and surfaces that are not present in the input stimulus, as evidence for this reification in perception, which appears at the same time that the recognition occurs. The remarkable property of this reification is that the dog appears not as an image of a canonical, or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture and configuration allowed by the input, as observed in the subjective experience of the dog picture. This explanation is subject to your criticism in your general comments, that "the author demonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions". I can only say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can be used to make the case.In the words of Wolfgang Khler: (1961, p. 7)"Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague."Wolfgang Khler (Khler 1923 p. 64)"Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptotheses, which cannot be verified by direct observation at the time when they are formed nor for a long time thereafter. Of such a kind were Ampere's theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gases, the electronic theory, the hypothesis of atomic disinte gration in the theory of radioactivity. Some of these assumptions have since been verified by direct obser vation, or have at least come close to such direct verification; others are still far removed from it. But physics and chemistry would have been condemned to a permanent embryonic state had they abstained from such hypotheses; their development seems rather like a continuous effort steadily to shorten the rest of the way to the verification of hypotheses which survive this process"In section (2) (b) of your critique you complain that "there is no serious discussion of possible alternatives", and you mention Neo-Gibsonian approaches, PDP, Grossberg's ART model and Pribram's holographic theory. In the next version of the paper this omission will be corrected, approximately as follows. Gibson's use of the term resonance is really a metaphorical device, since Gibson offers no mechanisms or analogies of perceptual processes, but merely suggests that there is a two-way flow of information (resonance) between behavior and the environment. This is really merely a metaphor, rather than a model.The PDP approach does address the issue of emergence, but since the basiccomputational unit of the neural network model is a hard-wired receptive field, this theory suffers all the limitations of a template theory. The same holds for Grossberg's "Adaptive Resonance Theory", which also uses the word resonance metaphorically to suggest a bottom-up top- down matching, but in Grossberg's model that matching is actually performed by receptive fields, or spatial templates. The ART model demonstrates the limitations of this approach. For the only way that a higher-level detector, or "F2 node", can exhibit generalization to different input patterns, is for it to have synaptic weights to all of the patterns to which it responds. In essence, the pattern of synaptic weights is a superposition or blurring together of all of the possible input patterns to which the F2 node should respond. In top-down priming mode therefore that F2 node would "print" that same blurred pattern back at the lower "F1 node" level, activating all of the possible patterns to which that F2 node is tuned to respond. For example if an ART model were trained to respond to an "X"-shaped feature presented at all possible orientations, top-down priming of this node after training would "print" a pattern of all those X-shaped features at all orientations superimposed, which is simply an amorphous blob. In fact, that same node would respond even better to a blob feature than to any single X feature. In the presence of a partial or ambiguous X-like pattern presented at a particular orientation, the ART model could not complete that pattern specific to its orientation. The HR model on the other hand offers a different and unique principle of representation, in which top-down activation of the higher level node can complete a partial or ambiguous input pattern in the specific orientation at which it appears, but that same priming would complete the pattern differently if it appeared in a different orientation. This generalization in recognition, but specification in completion, is a property that is unique to the harmonic resonance representation.Kuhn observes that the old paradigm can always be reformulated to account for any particular phenomenon addressed by the new paradigm, just as the Ptolomaic earth- centered cosmology could account for the motions of the planets to arbitrary precision, given enough nested cycles and epicycles of the crystal spheres. Similarly, a conventional neural network model can always be contrived to exhibit the same functional behavior of generalized recognition but specific completion described above, but only by postulating an implausible arrangement of spatial receptive fields. In this case that would require specific X-feature templates applied to the input at every possible orientation, any one of which can stimulate a single rotation-invariant X-feature node, to account for bottom-up rotation invariance in recognition. However in order to also account for top-down completion specific to orientation, top-down activation of the higher-level invariant node would have to feed back down to a set of top-down projection nodes, each of which is equipped with an X-shaped projective template at a particular orientation, able to project a complete X-shaped pattern on the input field. But the top-down completion must select only the specific orientation that best matches the pattern present in the input, and complete the pattern only at that best matching orientation. This system therefore requires two complete sets of X-feature receptive fields or templates, one set for bottom-up recognition and the other set for top-down completion, each set containing X-feature templates at every possible orientation, and similar sets of receptive fields would be required for the recognition of other shaped patterns such as "T" and "V" features. This represents a "brute force" approach to achieving invariance, which although perhaps marginally plausible in this specific example, is completely implausible as a general principle of operation of neurocomputation, given the fact that invariance appears to be so fundamentala property of human and animal perception. However, as Kuhn also observes, a factor such as neural plausibility is itself a "personal and inarticulate aesthetic consideration" that cannot be determined unambiguously by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science.With regard to Pribram's Holographic theory, the concept of a hologram is closely related to a standing wave model, since it too works by interference of waveforms. The difference is that the hologram is "frozen in time" like a photograph, and therefore does not exhibit the tolerance to elastic deformation of the input, as does the standing wave model. Neither does the hologram exhibit rotation invariance as does the standing wave in a circular- symmetric system. However holograms can in principle be constructed of dynamic standing waves, as Pribram himself suggests, and this concept then becomes a harmonic resonance theory. The present proposal is therefore closely related to Pribram's approach, which will be discussed in the next version of the paper.The discussion of alternative models was indeed a significant omission in the version of the paper you reviewed, the next version will include such a discussion, which in turn will help to clarify the operational principles of the HR theory, and distinguish it from alternative approaches.In section (3) of your critique you propose that "notions like the receptive field concept are approximate descriptions of facts", and you propose a dualistic approach involving two forms of representations in the brain which are of different and complementary nature. While I do not dispute the anatomical facts of the shapes of neuron and the function of synapses, it has never been demonstrated that a neuron actually operates as a spatial template, that theoryarose as an explanation for the neurophysiological response of "feature detector" cells in the cortex. However the noisy stochastic nature of the neural response, and its very broad tuning function seem to argue against this view. My own hunch is that the feature detector behavior is itself a standing wave phenomenon, which is consistent with the fact that the response function of V1 cortical neurons resembles a Gabor function, which is itself a wavelet. However this issue is orthogonal to my main point, which is that whether or not some neurons behave as spatial templates, the limitations of a template theory suggest that the Gestalt properties of perception (emergence, invariance, reification, multistability) cannot be accounted for in that manner, and that some other significant principle of computation must be invoked to account for the Gestalt properties of perception.In section (4) you complain that there is no discussion of the limitations in the scope of HR. For example merely to reflect outside reality does not contribute to the problem of conscious awareness of these objects. However this issue is not unique to HR, it is a general philosophical issue that applies just as well to the alternative Neuron Doctrine model. But the Neuron doctrine itself cannot even plausibly account for the reflection of outside reality in an internal representation, due to the problems of emergence, reification, and invariance, which is why the Neuron Doctrine suggests a more abstracted concept of visual representation, in which the visual experience is encoded in a far more abstracted and abbreviated form. Therefore although HR does not solve the "problem of consciousness" completely, it is one step closer to a solution than the alternative. The philosophical issue of consciousness however is beyond the scope of this paper, which is a theory of neural representation, rather than a philosophical paper. I enclose a copy of my book, "The World In Your Head",which addresses these philosophical issues more extensively.Professor Geissler's ResponseProfessor Geissler kindly responded to my letter in April 2000 to say that he agreed with nearly everything I had said. He then gave me advice about the presentation of the idea. He recommended that I begin by describing the Neuron Doctrine in detail, and then point out the limitations of the idea before presenting the Harmonic Resonance theory as an alternative. I re-wrote the paper following Geissler's advice, and I included some ideas from the above letter in the new version of the paper. However it was too late to resubmit it to Psychological Review since the editor who was handling the paper was leaving. Furthermore, I am becoming convinced that the proper medium for presenting radically new and different theories is the open peer review format of the Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal, which is where I submitted the revised version of this paper.6.Dear Dr. S. Heller,Attached please the revised manuscript " A Group-Decision Approach for Evaluating Educational Web Sites" submitted to computers & Education for possible publication. A file containing the revision summary is also attached. Your acknowledgement will be highly appreciated.Thank you.Sincerely yoursGwo-Jen HwangInformation Management DepartmentNational Chi Nan UniversityPu-Li, Nan-Tou, Taiwan 545,FAX: 8TEL: 8Response to Reviewers and EditorPaper#: SMCC-03-06-0056Title: On the Development of a Computer-Assisted Testing System with Genetic Test Sheet-Generating Approach[Reviewer 1 Comments]:____ The paper should be shortened.[Response to Reviewer 1]:The paper has been shortened to 24 pages by removing some redundant descriptions of genetic models and algorithms; moreover, Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to condense the entire paper.[Reviewer 2 Comments]:No innovative contribution was found both in the theory of genetic algorithms and in the application of them.[Response to Reviewer 2]:(1)_We have re-written the abstract and Sections 1 and 2 to explain the importanceabout the construction of a good test sheet. The major contribution of this paper is not in its technical part. Instead, we tried to cope with an important problem arising from real educational applications. Such a problem is known to be critical and has not been efficiently and effectively solved before.(2)_Since the innovative contribution of this paper might not be significant, we have re-written the paper as a technical correspondence based on the editor's suggestion.[Reviewer 3 Comments]:Make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise, so that the revised paper will be improved in its readability and correctness. [Response to Reviewer 3]:Te mixed integer models and the genetic algorithms in Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise (please refer to Pages 6-17). Moreover, a colleague who is an English expert has carefully checked the paper to correct potential grammatical errors.。
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
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majorrevision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。
2345、对678、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literaturereview: Thetopicisnovelbuttheapplicationproposedisnotsonovel.9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification: Thereisnoexperimentalcomparisonofthealgorithmwithpreviouslyknownwork,soitisimpossible tojudgewhetherthealgorithmisanimprovementonpreviouswork.10、严谨度问题：MNQiseasierthantheprimitivePNQS,howtoprovethat.11、格式（重视程度）：Inaddition,thelistofreferencesisnotinourstyle.Itisclosebutnotcompletelycorrect.Ihavea ttachedapdffilewith"InstructionsforAuthors"whichshowsexamples. Beforesubmittingarevisionbesurethatyourmaterialisproperlypreparedandformatted.Ifyouar eunsure,pleaseconsulttheformattingnstructionstoauthorsthataregivenunderthe"Instructio nsandForms"buttoninheupperright-handcornerofthescreen.12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：ItisnotedthatyourmanuscriptneedscarefuleditingbysomeonewithexpertiseintechnicalEnglis heditingpayingparticularattentiontoEnglishgrammar,spelling,andsentencestructuresothat thegoalsandresultsofthestudyarecleartothereader.个人认为文章还是有一些创新的，所以作为审稿人我就给了66分，（这个分正常应该足以发表），提了一些修改意见，望作者修改后发表！登录到编辑部网页一看，一个文章竟然有六个审稿人，详细看了下打的分数，60分大修，60分小修，66分（我），25分拒，（好家伙，竟然打25分，有魄力），拒但没有打分（另一国人审），最后一个没有回来！两个拒的是需要我们反思和学习的！（括号斜体内容为我注解）Reviewer4ReviewerRecommendationTerm:Rejectm.eraturedata,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION-discussion),-ithastobeaddedinthemanuscriptwhatkindofXXXXXXbyothermethodscomparedtothisnovelone(IN TRODUCTION-literaturedata,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION-discussion),-ithastobeoutlinedwhatisthebenefitofthismethod(ABSTRACT,RESULTSANDDISCUSSION,CONCLUSI ONS).（很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊）2.WhendiscussingXRDdataXXXauthors-statethatXXXXX-statethatXXXX-Thisusuallyhappenswithincreasingsinteringtime,butarethereanydatatopresent,density,pa rticlesize?（很多人用XRD，结果图放上去就什么都不管了，这是不应该的）3.Whendiscussingluminescencemeasurementsauthorswrite"XXXXXIfthereissecondharmonicinex4.Name:Deareditor:Thankyouforinvitingmetoevaluatethearticletitled"XXXX“.Inthispaper,theauthorsinvestig atedtheinfluencesofsinteringconditiononthecrystalstructureandXXXXXX，However,itisdifficultforustounderstandthemanuscriptbecauseofpoorEnglishbeingused.Thetextisnotwellarrangedandthelogicisnotclear.ExceptEnglishwriting,therearemanymistak esinthemanuscriptandtheexperimentalresultsdon'tshowgoodandnewresults.SoIrecommendtoyo uthatthismanuscriptcannotbeaccepted.Thefollowingarethequestionsandsomemistakesinthism anuscript:（看看总体评价，不达标，很多人被这样郁闷了，当然审稿人也有他的道理）1.TheXXXXXXX.However,thiskindmaterialhadbeeninvestigatedsince1997asmentionedintheauth or'smanuscript,andsimilarworkshadbeenpublishedinsimilarjournals.Whatarethenovelfindin gsinthepresentwork?Thesynthesismethodandluminescencepropertiesreportedinthismanuscrip tdidn'tsupplyenoughevidencetosupporttheprimenoveltystatement.（这位作者好猛，竟然翻出自己1997年的中文文章翻译了一边就敢投国际知名杂志，而且没有新的创新！说实不说了）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。
sci回复编辑的修改意见模板 -回复
sci回复编辑的修改意见模板-回复此文章是根据您所提供的主题（[sci回复编辑的修改意见模板]）进行撰写的，希望能够帮助您完善和修改文章。
以下是一步一步回答的1500-2000字文章：文章标题：SCI回复编辑的修改意见引言：在学术界，发表一篇SCI论文是学者追求的目标之一。
然而，SCI文章的写作和修改过程常常是一个令人头疼的过程。
此时，编辑的修改意见就变得至关重要，因为这代表着您的论文能否最终得到发表的机会。
本文将一步一步回答SCI回复编辑的修改意见，帮助您提高文章的质量和完整性。
第一步：详细审阅编辑的修改意见首先，仔细阅读和理解审稿人和编辑提出的修改意见。
他们的修改建议通常是基于论文的内容、逻辑、结构、语言等多个方面。
好的修改意见可能会提出一些重要的问题或者建议一些改进方向。
花些时间仔细审阅，确保完全理解修改的要求。
第二步：重新审视文章在审阅完修改意见后，您应该重新审视自己的文章。
检查是否有明显的漏洞、逻辑不清晰或者语法错误。
确保您的文章结构完整，表达清晰。
第三步：逐个回应修改意见对于每一个修改意见，您应该予以正面回应并详细解释您对问题的理解和相应的改进。
在回应中，您可以引用修改后的句子或段落，并解释为什么这些修改可以加强您的论点或者提高文章的可读性。
第四步：解释任何争议点有时候，您可能会对一些修改意见持不同意见。
在这种情况下，您需要清楚地表明您的立场，并用合适的论据来支持您的观点。
站在读者或编辑的角度上解释您的论点，以确保您的论文最终能够得到接受。
第五步：仔细审查细节一旦您完成了所有必要的修改和回应，您应该对整篇文章进行仔细审查。
检查语法、标点、拼写和格式等细节错误。
确保您的参考文献格式正确，并进行最后的校对。
结论：通过认真审阅编辑的修改意见，并逐步回应和改进您的文章，您可以为最终发表SCI论文提供更好的机会。
这个过程可能需要花费一定的时间和精力，但是它将有助于提高您的学术声誉和研究成果的影响力。
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见
望对大家有帮助1.Dear Prof. XXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.Sincerely yours,Dr. XXXXResponse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments:1. XXXXXXX2. XXXXXXX2.Dear Professor ***,Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)by ***Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice of the above paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it.After carefully studying the reviewer’ comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is ***, and ***, and Fax is +***.Yours sincerely,Detailed response to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s adviceOverall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it. Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) ?Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.3.The manuscript is revised submission (×××－××××) with new line and page numbers in the text, some grammar and spelling errors had also been corrected. Furthermore, the relevant regulations had been made in the original manuscript according to the comments of reviewers, and the major revised portions were marked in red bold. We also responded point by point to each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the location of the revision.Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.List of Major Changes:1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewers:1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewer XXWe very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of the reviewer. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments can be summarized as follows:1) XX2) XXDetailed responses1) XX2) XX4.Dear editor XXWe have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX” by XX. According to the comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript. The revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewer are attached.Sincerely yours,XX5.Response to Reviewer AReviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealed himself to be Professor Dr. Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig. I wrote him a general response to both reviews in January 2000, followed by these responses to specific points, both his own, and those of the other reviewer .Response to Specific PointsWhat follows is a brief and cursory discussion of the various issues raised by yourself and the other reviewer. If you should revise your judgment of the validity of the theory, these points will be addressed at greater length in a new version of the paper that I would resubmit to Psychological Review.Response to Specific Points- Reviewer A:In part (1) of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is presented, which wasdiscussed 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, . 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.In part (2) (a) of your critique you say "it is not clarified whether the postulated properties of Gestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints." and "I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat just the case of hler: (1961, p. 7) "Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague." Wolfgang Kthe dog cited to demonstrate `emergence'. For this a hierarchy relation is needed." The principle of emergence in Gestalt theory is a very difficult concept to express in unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was presented to illustrate this rather elusive concept with a concrete example. I do not suggest that HR as proposed in this paper can address the dog picture as such, since this is specifically a visual problem, and the HR model as presented is not a visual model. Rather, I propose that the feature detection paradigm cannot in principle handle this kind of ambiguity, because the local features do not individually contain the information necessary to distinguish significant from insignificant edges. The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the section on "Recognition by Reification" (p. 15-17) in which I propose that recognition is not simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, . by the "lighting up" of a higher level feature node, but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which the higher level feature node reifies its particular pattern back at the input level, modulated by the exact pattern of the input. I appeal to the reader to see the reified form of the dog as perceived edges and surfaces that are not present in the input stimulus, as evidence for this reification in perception, which appears at the same time that the recognition occurs. The remarkable property of this reification is that the dog appears not as an image of a canonical, or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture and configuration allowed by the input, as observed in the subjective experience of the dog picture. This explanation is subject to your criticism in your general comments, that "the authordemonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions". I can only say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can be used to make the case.In the words of Wolfgang K?hler: (1961, p. 7)"Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague."Wolfgang K?hler (K?hler 1923 p. 64)"Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptotheses, which cannot be verified by direct observation at the time when they are formed nor for a long time thereafter. Of such a kind were Ampere's theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gases, the electronic theory, the hypothesis of atomic disinte gration in the theory of radioactivity. Some of these assumptions have since been verified by direct obser vation, or have at least come close to such direct verification; others are still far removed from it. But physics and chemistry would have been condemned to a permanent embryonic state had they abstained from such hypotheses; their development seems rather like a continuous effort steadily to shorten the rest of the way to the verification of hypotheses which survive this process"In section (2) (b) of your critique you complain that "there is no serious discussion of possible alternatives", and you mention Neo-Gibsonian approaches, PDP, Grossberg's ART model and Pribram's holographic theory. In the next version of the paper this omission will be corrected, approximately as follows. Gibson's use of the term resonance is really a metaphorical device, since Gibson offers no mechanisms or analogies of perceptual processes, but merely suggests that there is a two-way flow of information (resonance) between behavior and the environment. This is really merely a metaphor, rather than a model.The PDP approach does address the issue of emergence, but since the basic computational unit of the neural network model is a hard-wired receptive field, this theory suffers all the limitations of a template theory. The same holds for Grossberg's "Adaptive Resonance Theory", which also uses the word resonance metaphorically to suggest a bottom-up top- down matching, but in Grossberg's model that matching is actually performed by receptive fields, or spatial templates. The ART model demonstrates the limitations of this approach. For the only way that a higher-level detector, or "F2 node", can exhibit generalization to different input patterns, is for it to have synaptic weights to all of the patterns to which it responds. In essence, the pattern of synaptic weights is a superposition or blurring together of all of the possible input patterns to which the F2 node should respond. In top-down priming mode therefore that F2 node would "print" that same blurred pattern back at the lower "F1 node" level, activating all of the possible patterns to which that F2 node is tuned to respond. For example if an ART model were trained to respond to an "X"-shaped feature presented at all possible orientations, top-down priming of this node after training would "print" a pattern of all those X-shaped features at all orientations superimposed, which is simply an amorphous blob. In fact, that same node would respond even better to a blob feature than to any single X feature. In the presence of a partial or ambiguous X-like pattern presented at a particularorientation, the ART model could not complete that pattern specific to its orientation. The HR model on the other hand offers a different and unique principle of representation, in which top-down activation of the higher level node can complete a partial or ambiguous input pattern in the specific orientation at which it appears, but that same priming would complete the pattern differently if it appeared in a different orientation. This generalization in recognition, but specification in completion, is a property that is unique to the harmonic resonance representation.Kuhn observes that the old paradigm can always be reformulated to account for any particular phenomenon addressed by the new paradigm, just as the Ptolomaic earth- centered cosmology could account for the motions of the planets to arbitrary precision, given enough nested cycles and epicycles of the crystal spheres. Similarly, a conventional neural network model can always be contrived to exhibit the same functional behavior of generalized recognition but specific completion described above, but only by postulating an implausible arrangement of spatial receptive fields. In this case that would require specific X-feature templates applied to the input at every possible orientation, any one of which can stimulate a single rotation-invariant X-feature node, to account for bottom-up rotation invariance in recognition. However in order to also account for top-down completion specific to orientation, top-down activation of the higher-level invariant node would have to feed back down to a set of top-down projection nodes, each of which is equipped with an X-shaped projective template at a particular orientation, able to project a complete X-shaped pattern on the input field. But the top-down completion must select only the specific orientation that best matches the pattern present in the input, and complete the pattern only at that best matching orientation. This system therefore requires two complete sets of X-feature receptive fields or templates, one set for bottom-up recognition and the other set for top-down completion, each set containing X-feature templates at every possible orientation, and similar sets of receptive fields would be required for the recognition of other shaped patterns such as "T" and "V" features. This represents a "brute force" approach to achieving invariance, which although perhaps marginally plausible in this specific example, is completely implausible as a general principle of operation of neurocomputation, given the fact that invariance appears to be so fundamental a property of human and animal perception. However, as Kuhn also observes, a factor such as neural plausibility is itself a "personal and inarticulate aesthetic consideration" that cannot be determined unambiguously by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science.With regard to Pribram's Holographic theory, the concept of a hologram is closely related to a standing wave model, since it too works by interference of waveforms. The difference is that the hologram is "frozen in time" like a photograph, and therefore does not exhibit the tolerance to elastic deformation of the input, as does the standing wave model. Neither does the hologram exhibit rotation invariance as does the standing wave in a circular- symmetric system. However holograms can in principle be constructed of dynamic standing waves, as Pribram himself suggests, and this concept then becomes a harmonic resonance theory. The present proposal is therefore closely related to Pribram's approach, which will be discussed in the next version of the paper.The discussion of alternative models was indeed a significant omission in the version of the paper you reviewed, the next version will include such a discussion, which in turn will help to clarify the operational principles of the HR theory, and distinguish it from alternative approaches.In section (3) of your critique you propose that "notions like the receptive field concept are approximate descriptions of facts", and you propose a dualistic approach involving two forms of representations in the brain which are of different and complementary nature. While I do not dispute the anatomical facts of the shapes of neuron and the function of synapses, it has never been demonstrated that a neuron actually operates as a spatial template, that theory arose as an explanation for the neurophysiological response of "feature detector" cells in the cortex. However the noisy stochastic nature of the neural response, and its very broad tuning function seem to argue against this view. My own hunch is that the feature detector behavior is itself a standing wave phenomenon, which is consistent with the fact that the response function of V1 cortical neurons resembles a Gabor function, which is itself a wavelet. However this issue is orthogonal to my main point, which is that whether or not some neurons behave as spatial templates, the limitations of a template theory suggest that the Gestalt properties of perception (emergence, invariance, reification, multistability) cannot be accounted for in that manner, and that some other significant principle of computation must be invoked to account for the Gestalt properties of perception.In section (4) you complain that there is no discussion of the limitations in the scope of HR. For example merely to reflect outside reality does not contribute to the problem of conscious awareness of these objects. However this issue is not unique to HR, it is a general philosophical issue that applies just as well to the alternative Neuron Doctrine model. But the Neuron doctrine itself cannot even plausibly account for the reflection of outside reality in an internal representation, due to the problems of emergence, reification, and invariance, which is why the Neuron Doctrine suggests a more abstracted concept of visual representation, in which the visual experience is encoded in a far more abstracted and abbreviated form. Therefore although HR does not solve the "problem of consciousness" completely, it is one step closer to a solution than the alternative. The philosophical issue of consciousness however is beyond the scope of this paper, which is a theory of neural representation, rather than a philosophical paper. I enclose a copy of my book, "The World In Your Head", which addresses these philosophical issues more extensively.Professor Geissler's ResponseProfessor Geissler kindly responded to my letter in April 2000 to say that he agreed with nearly everything I had said. He then gave me advice about the presentation of the idea. He recommended that I begin by describing the Neuron Doctrine in detail, and then point out the limitations of the idea before presenting the Harmonic Resonance theory as an alternative. I re-wrote the paper following Geissler's advice, and I included some ideas from the above letter in the new version of the paper. However it was too late to resubmit it to PsychologicalReview since the editor who was handling the paper was leaving. Furthermore, I am becoming convinced that the proper medium for presenting radically new and different theories is the open peer review format of the Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal, which is where I submitted the revised version of this paper.6.Dear Dr. S. Heller,Attached please the revised manuscript " A Group-Decision Approach for Evaluating Educational Web Sites" submitted to computers & Education for possible publication. A file containing the revision summary is also attached. Your acknowledgement will be highly appreciated.Thank you.Sincerely yoursGwo-Jen HwangInformation Management DepartmentNational Chi Nan UniversityPu-Li, Nan-Tou, Taiwan 545,FAX: 8TEL: 8Response to Reviewers and EditorPaper#: SMCC-03-06-0056Title: On the Development of a Computer-Assisted Testing System with Genetic Test Sheet-Generating Approach[Reviewer 1 Comments]:____ The paper should be shortened.[Response to Reviewer 1]:The paper has been shortened to 24 pages by removing some redundant descriptions of genetic models and algorithms; moreover, Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to condense the entire paper.[Reviewer 2 Comments]:No innovative contribution was found both in the theory of genetic algorithms and in the application of them.[Response to Reviewer 2]:(1)_We have re-written the abstract and Sections 1 and 2 to explain the importance about the construction of a good test sheet. The major contribution of this paper is not in its technical part. Instead, we tried to cope with an important problem arising from real educationalapplications. Such a problem is known to be critical and has not been efficiently and effectively solved before.(2)_Since the innovative contribution of this paper might not be significant, we have re-written the paper as a technical correspondence based on the editor's suggestion.[Reviewer 3 Comments]:Make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise, so that the revised paper will be improved in its readability and correctness.[Response to Reviewer 3]:Te mixed integer models and the genetic algorithms in Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise (please refer to Pages 6-17). Moreover, a colleague who is an English expert has carefully checked the paper to correct potential grammatical errors.。
如何回复审稿人意见-审稿回复
如何回复审稿⼈意见-审稿回复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: Man uscri pt IDWe would like to tha nk XXX (n ame of Journ al) for givi ng us the opportunity to revise our manu scri pt.We tha nk the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comme nts on prev ious draft.We have carefully take n their comme nts into con siderati on in preparing our revisi on.which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more comp elli ng, and broader. The followi ng summarizes how we respon ded to reviewer comme nts.Below is our res ponse to their comme nts.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorres ponding 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 comme nts4. 5. 6.1. 2. 3. The referee correctly no ted that our Ian guage about XXX was ambiguous.Therefore, we cha nged the text and the figures to emp hasize that ….To further support the concept that, we have an alyzed ….As depi cted in Supp leme ntary Fig. S1…As suggested by the reviewer we have emp hasized our observati ons of XXX in results and discussi on sect ions. We have added new findings (see above point) in Supp leme ntary Fig S. to support … As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (Suppl eme ntary Fig.) that summarizes … Minor comme nts 1. 2. 3.4.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title. We have added and impro ved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2. We have added statistics to Fig 5C. We have corrected the typ escri pt errors in the XXX p aragra ph. Reviewer #2: 1. 2. 3. 4. Because of the reviewer' s request, we have p erformed new exp erime nts to better clarify …The new Fig. shows that …This finding suggests that …As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify the point that … We agree with the reviewer that …Because of the reviewer ' s request we have used XXX to confirm that …The new data are depi cted in Supp leme ntary Fig . Because of reviewer ' s request, we have analyzed the efficiency of RNAi by qua ntitative RT-PCR the efficie ncy of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supp leme ntary Fig.Reviewer #3: 1. 2. 3. Because of the referee ' s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 into the new Figure 6 and we have added new exp erime nts to address The new Fig . 6 shows that …. In res ponse to the reviewerdepi cted in Suppp leme ntary Fig. We agree with reviewer that 's requests, we have studied ….The new data are….However, a rece nt paper has show n that ….We have added this refere nee and mdified the sentence to un derl ineWe have changes Figure 1 with a picture that….The previous one was too week and the gree n fluoresce nee was lost duri ng the conv ersi on in PDF format.Because of review ' s request, we have changed as miosisiblepthe magn ificati on in orderto mai ntai n the same scale bar but also to p reserve details. The differe nee betwee n XXX and XXX is not statistically sig nifica nt. I n order to betterclarify this issue we cha nged the grap hics of our statistical an alysis in Fig.另外⼀篇5分杂志的回复: 1nd Revision -authors ' response Referee #1: We want to beg in by tha nking Referee #1 for writi ng that is gen erally in teresting and imp orta nt in the field. criticism and suggesti on. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below. 1. “ the finding in our manu scri pt ” We also appreciated the constructiv 2. 3. 4. Accord ing to the referee ' s suggesti on, the exp erime nt dem on strati ng exp erime nt, this result is p rese nted in the revised Fig.The referee suggests dem on strati ng that ....This exp erime nt was p erformed in XXX by comparing ... The referee comme nts that it is un clear whether the effect of ....is due to ....T address the referee ' s comme nt, we revised Fig. and dem on strated that r ....To furthe confirm ?....Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. dem on strate that Thanks to the referee ' s comment, the wrong figure numbers were corrected in the revised manu scri pt. (i)the new Referee #2: We want to tha nk Referee #2 for con structive and in sightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below. 1. 2. 3. 4. The referee recomme nds to show ….We p erformed the exp erime nt and its result is in cluded in the revised Fig. Accord ing to the referee ' s suggesti on, the exp erime nts in Fig. were rep eated several times and rep rese ntative data are in cluded in the revised Fig.Based on the referee ' s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1, above. As stated above, we have in cluded new results, which in clude: All minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordi ngly. 2nd Revision -authors ' response We would like to tha nk the referees for their thoughtful review of our manu scri pt. Webelieve that the additi onal cha nges we have made in res ponse to the reviewers comme nts have made this a sig nifica ntly stron ger manu scri pt. Below is our poin t-by-point res ponse to the referee ' s comments. Referee #1: Referee #1 request two minor editorial cha nges. Both cha nges have bee n made accord in gly in the revised manu scri pt. Referee #2:We sin cerely apo logize to Referee #2 for not comp letely address ing all of the p oi nts raised in the p revious res pon se. We have done so below and added additi onaldata in hopes that this reviewer will be supp ortive of p ublicati on.Referee #2 requests evidenee that ….According to the referee ' s suggestion, a XX assay was p erformed in XXX cells to dem on strate that ….The result is p rese nted in Fig.Page 17, “ the ” E3 was changed to “ an ” E3.Referee #2 asks whether ….We would like to note that we inv estigated ….in ourp revious study and found no evide nee that ….Therefore, in this manu scri pt we focused on 1.2. 3.。
如何回复审稿人意见-审稿回复
如何回复英文论文编纂部的修改意见之老阳三干创作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 XXXwas ambiguous. Therefore, we changed the text and thefigures to emphasize that …. To further support theconcept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted inSupplementary Fig. S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized ourobservations of XXX in results and discussion sections.We have added new findings (see above point) inSupplementary Fig S. to support…3.As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme(Supplementary Fig.) 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 1and 2.3.We have added statistics to Fig 5C.4.We have corrected the typescript errors in the XXXparagraph.Reviewer #2:1.Because of the re viewer’s request, we have performed newexperiments to better clarify… The new Fig. shows that…This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data ofXXX to clarify the point that…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of thereviewer’s request we have used XXX to confirm that…The new data are depicted in Supplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed theefficiency of RNAi by quantitative 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 thepanel of Fig. 5 into the new Figure 6 and we have added new experiments to address …. The new Fig. 6 showsthat….2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we hav estudied…. The new data are depicted in Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paperhas shown that …. We have added this reference andmodified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. Th eprevious one was too week and the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDF format.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much aspossible the magnification in order to maintain the same scale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statisticallysignificant. In order to better clarify this issue wechanged 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.Accor ding to the referee’s suggestion, the experimentdemonstrating…; in the new experiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. Thisexperiment was performed in XXX by comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether theeffect of ….is due to …. To address the referee’scomment, we revised Fig. and demonstrated that…. Tofurther confirm…. Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks t o the referee’s comment, the wrong figurenumbers were corrected in 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 theexperiment and its result is included in the revised Fig.2.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experimentsin Fig. were repeated several times and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4of Referee #1, above. As stated above, we have included new results, which include:4.All minor points raised by the reviewer were correctedaccordingly.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 thereferee’s suggestion, 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 weinvestigated ….in our previous study and found noevidence that …. Therefore, in this manuscript w e。
审稿意见英文回复范文
审稿意见英文回复范文English: Thank you for your valuable feedback on my manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into carefully reviewing my work. I will take into consideration all of your comments and suggestions to make necessary revisions and improvements to the manuscript. Your insights have provided me with a new perspective on my research, and I believe that incorporating your feedback will significantly enhance the quality of the paper. I will address each of your concerns in detail and ensure that the revised version meets the standards of the journal. Once again, I want to express my gratitude for your thorough review and constructive criticism.中文翻译: 感谢您对我的稿件提供宝贵的反馈意见。
我非常感激您花费时间和精力仔细审阅我的作品。
我将考虑您所有的评论和建议，对稿件进行必要的修改和改进。
您的洞察力为我研究提供了新的视角，我相信融入您的反馈将显著提升论文的质量。
我将详细解决您所关注的每个问题，并确保修订版本符合期刊的标准。
- 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)。
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.
Sincerely yours,
XX
5.
Response to Reviewer A
Reviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealed himself to be Professor Dr. Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig. I wrote him a general response to both reviews in January 2000, followed by these responses to specific points, both his own, and those of the other reviewer .
1. XXXXXXX
2. XXXXXXX
2.
Dear Professor ***,
Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)
by ***
Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice of the above paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it.
1) XX
2) XX
Detailed responses
1) XX
2) XX
4.
Dear editor XX
We have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX” by XX. According to the comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript. The revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewer are attached.
Detailed response to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s advice
Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it. Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.
We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.
If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.
Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.
List of Major Changes:
1).........
2).........
3).........
Response to Reviewers:
1).........
2).........
3).........
Response to Reviewer XX
We very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of the reviewer. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments can be summarized as follows:
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer
英文修改稿回复信，希望对大家有帮助
1.
Dear Prof. XXXX,
Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).
If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is ***, and Tel.is ***, and Fax is +***.
Yours sincerely,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.
Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.