Responses_to_the_comments
(完整word版)英文回复信范例 Response Letter
Dear Editors and Reviewers,Thank you for your letter and comments on our manuscript titled “Temporal variability in soil moisture after thinning in semi—arid Picea crassifolia plantations in northwestern China” (FORECO_2017_459)。
These comments helped us improve our manuscript, and provided important guidance for future research。
We have addressed the editor’s and the reviewers’comments to the best of our abilities, and revised text to meet the Forest Ecology and Management style requirements。
We hope this meets your requirements for a publication.We marked the revised portions in red and highlighted them yellow in the manuscript。
The main comments and our specific responses are detailed below:Editor：Please explain how the results in this paper are significantly different from those in Zhu, X., He， Z。
B。
(完整版)如何回复审稿人意见(ResponsetoReviews)
Dear Editor,We have studied the valuable comments from you, the assistant editor and reviewers carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:Responds to the rev iewer’s comments:Reviewer 1Comment 1: in page 3, line 40, we fed rats..." changed to rats were fed with... Response: According to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected the sentence. Furthermore, we have had the manuscript polished with a professional assistance in writing.Comment 2:page 25. The style of reference 40 is not right (using initials for the first names). Since this paper has been published, the volume and page Nos should be provided.Response: Thank you for your careful work. We have added the volume and page numbers for reference 40.Reviewer 2Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the criticisms with additional experiments. The one criticism that they did not address was relating to energy expenditure as the reason that the animals on the low calcium diet gained more weight. While I understand that performing this experiment will not affect the conclusion of this manuscript, I do believe that this point could be discussed in the Discussion section.Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. Based on the previous revision, we further address the relationship between low calcium diet and energy expenditure in the section of discussion according to your thoughtful comments.Reviewer 3Comment 1: In the text you often write: “As previously described”. Unless that paper is from your lab or one of the method paper co-authors is on the present MS this is not quite proper since the statement infers method development from your lab. There are numerous instances like that in the methods section; these should all be changed “according to those described by…..”Response: We are sorry for this language mistake. We have carefully corrected this phrase throughout the manuscript according to your comment.Comment 2: There are still some wording, sentence structure and grammatical issues even in this basically well put together MS. For example, while authors may have been excited about the data you cannot start a sentence with “Excitedly” in line 418 or “Whatever” in line 395.Response: Thank you very much to point out the sentence structure and grammatical issues in our manuscript. According to the comments from you and the editors, we polished the manuscript with a professional assistance in writing, conscientiously.Comment 3:In my view a big omission in this work is ignoring the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues. For example all animals consumed the same amount of feed but we had extra fat storage in the low Ca diet groups. So where did the extra energy go? Zemel et al (citation 34) in similar work indicate that increased thermogenesis on the high Ca diet explains the dissipation of dietary energy. Further even though Zemel et al (#34) indicated lipogenesis was enhanced in the low Ca diets that was in 2000 and you should have monitored expression of FAS and UCP either as mRNA abundance or actual FAS/UCP changes via proteomics or blotting techniques. In any case these controls are missing here and not emphasized in the MS. Casual reading of this paper would lead to the conclusion that the dietary Ca effect on fat deposition is strictly a function of increased or decreased lipolysis. While lipolysis appears to be a major player, lipogenesis and thermogenesis cannot be ignored for completeness. In Fig 8 you also show a decline in cAMP for the low Ca diet. Well beta agonists or cAMP enhancers regulate transcription of adipose and liver FAS (in rats (J Biol Chem 271:2307, 1996) and recently with large animal models (Hausman et al J Animal Science 87:1218, 2009 and Halsey et al J Animal Science 89: 1011, 2011). In additioncAMP levels could have been monitored. I really do not like the last sentence in the Abstract line 47-50 where you state that “low calcium diet-induced increase in fat mass was due to enhanced lipogenesis mediated by an upregulated CaSR signaling pathway” Your results here show no such thing, this is a completely false statement based on data herein. Correct. You show that high Ca diets enhance lipolysis and low Ca diets are antilipolytic. You did not monitor lipid anabolism here at all. See also line 255-257 and lines 333-335 of your MS. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. As you suggested that the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues should be monitored. We really agree with your viewpoints. In the present study, we did find that low calcium diet increased the mRNA level of fatty acid synthase (FAS) in white adipose tissue. Furthermore, the FAS mRNA level were also increased in adipocytes after treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3in in-vitro experiments. However, the increased FAS mRNA levels were not affected by preventing either the nuclear vitamin D receptor (nVDR) or calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR), suggesting that FAS might not be involved in the CaSR pathway. In addition, we thought that FAS played its role in fatty acid synthesis mainly in liver previously. Besides, the manuscript was required to restrict number of total words and our previous focus was on the antilolytic role of CaSR in the process of fat accumulation. So we ignored to provide the data of FAS mRNA levels in the submitted manuscript. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the mRNA levels according to your helpful suggestion.We have reported the effects of dietary calcium on UCP2 mRNA levels in adipose tissue and UCP3 in skeletal muscle in our previous studies (1, 2). Thus, we believed that low calcium diet led to decreased thermogenesis in the present study. It was a pity that we did not measure the rat core temperature in those studies. The UCP2 mRNA levels in adipocytes were observed to be decreased after treatment of 1,25-(OH)2D3. This effect was prevented by using nVDR CaSR gene silencing but not by CaSR gene knockdown, suggesting that UCP2 was not involved in CaSR pathways. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the UCP2 results.Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are very sorry for our fault statement in the abstract. We have corrected it in the new manuscript.Comment 4: A point that does not emerge well from the discussion is how low Ca intakes result in higher intracellular [Ca] concentrations and really the effects on fatdeposition in the cells in many ways are due to an increased intracellular Ca level mediated via CaSR expression increases and the effect of VitD3 on nVDR show in Fig 8. The authors must remind readers that Ca levels in the blood are under hormonal regulation (Calcitonin, PTH and VitD3). Thus when diets low in Ca are consumed and blood Ca decline, PTH and VitD3 are called upon to mobilize bone Ca to replenish the blood Ca. Then coupled with an increase in CaSR more Ca actually is found in AT despite the fact that many would think the AT Ca level should decline. The reason is that tissue/circulating Ca levels are not diet depended but regulated. The vast bone stores of Ca will provide ample Ca here especially during a study of this length. While authors address these issues maybe could be presented in a less complicated discussion.Response:Thank you for your instructive suggestions. We are sorry for not describing the effect of low calcium diet on intracellular calcium concentrations mediated by CaSR, as well as the impact of hormone regulation on serum calcium levels clearly. According to your helpful advice, we have rewritten these two parts in the section of discussion. Thank you again.Comment 5: Not all citations are in JN styleResponse: We have careful recheck and corrected the style of the citations according to the requirement of JN.Comment 6: Abstract conclusion differs from lines 255-257 and 333-335; WHY? Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The conclusion from lines 255-257 is about the effect of low calcium diet on serum levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) and lipids. We considered FFA and glycerol as indicators of TG hydrolysis in adipose tissue. The low calcium diet caused decreased serum FFA and glycerol levels without influencing lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity, so we thought the lipolytic effect of adipose tissue to be suppressed by low calcium diet. The conclusion from lines 333-335 was about the effect of 1,25-(OH)2D3 whose levels were increased under low calcium conditions on lipolysis. We used the glycerol level as the indicator of TG hydrolysis in adipocytes. Both the in vivo and in vitro experiments showed low calcium status caused an antilipolytic effect.Comment 7: Line 150-153. The qRT-PCR methodology is not at all understandable as you cite a Texas A&M published paper. This is completely insufficient with the newly established standards on gene expression via qRT-PCR. There is no mention of efficiencies of amplifications in these data nor how the use of the reference gene was established etc. I think Pfaffl and Bustin have recently written an article on this; please totally revise 150-153 in line with what you did and applying the new standards.Response: Thank you very much. Because the JN restricts the number of total words of manuscript, we cited the Texas A&M published paper. In the newly submitted manuscript, we describe the detailed protocols in our lab.Comment 8:Line 179 on Not clear as in sentences talk about different AT cell sources etc..revise.Response: We are sorry for not addressing the adipose tissue cell sources clearly. We have rewritten the methods.Comment 9: Any previous documentable work with siRNA?Response: Yes, we have documentable work with siRNA in our research team. The results were published in the journal of Biochem Biophys Res Commun (3).Comment 10: Line 214.. Cultured primary rat adipocytes and SW872 adipocytes ……Response: Thank you very much. According to your comment, we have had the manuscript polished and corrected the mistakes.。
Respond to Reviewers
Dear Editor:We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their kind comments and valuable suggestions. We carefully read the reviewers’ reports and revised the manuscript according to their suggestion. All changes to the original manuscript were shown in red font.Following are the reviewer’ comments and our responses to the comments:Reviewer #1:The manuscript is well-revised according to the reviewer’s comments. All the reviewer’s questions are now all clear. The revised manuscript became b etter for understanding to readers.By these reasons the reviewer supposes this manuscript is now acceptable for the publication in Polymer International.Answer: Thank the reviewer for his kind suggestion.Reviewer #2:I had claimed 4 major comments in former review. Now figures are correctly revised. However, I still have a doubt for following points.Title and abstract are still hard to imagine the content. I suggest the sentence “air jet electrospinning” should be replaced by “bubble electrospinning”. I think that the essence of your spinning unit may be making threads from breaking bubbles. This technique is already published and well known as “Bubble electrospinning”[1]. So if you use this term, reader can image your essence more easily. In addition, the essence of your spinning system may be contain several sets of negative-charged spinning unit and positive-charged spinning unit to naturalize each charges. Why don’t you describe this point in the abstract?Answer: Thank the reviewer for his kind suggestion. Indeed, as noticed by reviewer, title and abstract are hard to imagine the content. T he sentence “air jet electrospinning” had been replaced by “bubble electrospinning”according to the advice of the reviewer and shown in red font in the text. In addition, the “the essence of your spinning system may be contain several sets of negative-charged spinning unit and positive-charged spinning unit to naturalize each charges” had been added in the abstract.Answer: Thank the reviewer for his kind suggestion. This careless mistake pointed out by the reviewer have been revised carefully, and shown in red font.Thank the reviewers for their kind comment over again!Best wishes,Dr. Your Name。
Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)
Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)Dear Editor-in-Chief in XXXXXXX:Thank you very much for your help in processing the review of our manuscript (Manuscript ID XXXXX). We have carefully read the thoughtful comments from you and reviewers and found that these suggestions are helpful for us to improve our manuscript. On the basis of the enlightening questions and helpful advices, we have now completed the revision of our manuscript. The itemized responses to the reviewers’ comments are listed in the su cceeding sheets. We hope that all these corrections and revisions would be satisfactory. Thanks a lot, again.1.Title: XXX2.Manuscript type: Article3.Corresponding author: XXX4.Full author names: XXXSincerely,Prof. XXXSchool of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,XX Key Laboratory of Controllable ChemistryReaction & Material Chemical Engineering,XX University,Wuhan, Hubei, 430072 , P R China.2015-03-05Responses to comments of EditorThank you for your serious and constructive comments on our manuscript. According to your suggestion, the manuscript has been revised as a letter to editor. The revisions we have made are as follows:➢ 1 Subtitles "5. Conclusions", "6. Acknowledgments", and "7. References" should be revised into "4. Conclusions", "Acknowledgments", and "References", respectively.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.The relevant subtitles have been revised in the revision.➢2 In the section of the References, title of cited paper should be removed, and in ref.35 the superfluous comma should be deleted.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.All the titles have been removed as you required and the superfluous comma in ref.35 has also been deleted.➢ 3 Numerous relevant papers have been published in recent years especially in 2014 and 2015. Some key, important or/and latest research results in this field, should be mentioned and cited in the section of introduction instead of outdated or earlier papers so that we can provide a solid background and progress to the readers regarding the current state-of-knowledge on this topic. Therefore, I strongly require you to rewrite this part and then update your citations.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.We have rewritten the section of introduction and updated corresponding citations as you required. In detail, some recent and excellent researches have been cited in the revision to replace those ofearlier papers which are no longer novel.➢4 Any changes or revisions in the text should be highlighted by different color in the revised manuscript compared with that of the previous version.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.All the changes and revisions have been highlighted by cyan.We have revised our manuscript againWe have made further modifications on the manuscript, especially the introduction section. The latest revisions are highlighted by green, while previous changes are highlighted by cyan.To be specific: a) Some adjustments about sentence structures have been made to increase the diversity of expression.b) The second example about N-doped carbon materials is relatively early research result published in 2009. Thus we have replaced it with a lasted and outstanding paper.c) The unique effects of S-doping have been expounded in the revision to correspond to the effects of N-doping introduced above.d) In addition to rewriting the part of introduction as you required, we have also polished and revised the chapters of experimental, results and discussion, conclusions and updated the section of references.The initial examples about N-S-codoped carbon materials (references16 and 17) are earlier results published in 2012 and 2013. Thus we have replaced them with some lasted and outstanding papers.。
Responses to the comments
Dear Reviewers:I want to express my very deep appreciation,and the appreciation of all of us,to the referees great efforts and suggestions for our manuscript.They are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper,as well as the important guiding to our researches.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The following is a point-to-point response to the reviewers’comments and responses are in black. The modification marked in red in revised version.------------------------------Responses to Reviewer#2Review Comments:In this paper,the authors propose an extended state observer based dual-loop controller to control rigid spacecraft attitude with consideration of inertia uncertainties, assigned velocity and control constraints through sliding mode algorithm.This problem is interesting.However,there are some doubts and typos in this present paper as follows:[1]In Sections1and3,the authors say“external state observer”should be“extended state observer”,please check and revise it.Response:The phrase"external state observer"has been changed to"extended state observer"in our revised paper.[2]In Eq.(1),what does the⨯ωstand for?Response:The operator⨯ωand⨯q denote the skew-symmetric matrices,which is given in equation(3).[3]According to Eqs.(5)and(10),there exist some mistakes in the Fig.1,please double check it. Response:Thanks for your suggestion;we have corrected the mistake in the Fig.1.[4]After Eq.(10),the authors say“…the estimation of angular velocityωδ…”,which is unreasonable description based on Eq.(5).Response:Right you are!We have taken your advice,the phrase"…the estimation of angular velocityωδ…"has been changed to"…the estimation of angular velocity errorωδ…"in our revised paper.[5]In the Abstract,the authors say that the dual-loop controller is designed using the sliding mode method,but in Section3.2,the authors discuss the virtual control laws.I just wonder the control method is sliding mode control or not in this paper,please give an explanation.Response:The control law is designed based on a two-loop structure in which the outer-loop control law implements by sliding mode control technique.The outer loop controller is designed to track the attitude command and generate limited virtual angular velocity command for the inner loop,and the inner loop controller is designed to track the command of outer loop in the presence of uncertainties and control constraints.[6]In numerical simulations section,the simulation results should give more detailed description, because the response time of CBS is better than CDL in Fig.1,whether is to say that the meaning of this work is questionable?Response:Thanks for your suggestion;we have given more description for the simulation results in numerical simulations section.Although the response time for CBS is smaller in Fig.2,the angular velocity is beyond the range of angular velocity limitation for CBS control law in Fig.3, and the angular velocity for CDL is kept within the limitation.This work is motivated by constrained adaptive backstepping method,and seeks to reduce the influence of correlation between the rings and keep the states within the limitations.[7]The contribution of this work is unclear in Section1.Please highlight it.Response:Thanks for your suggestion;I have taken your advice.We have rewritten the contribution of this works in Section1.------------------------------Responses to Reviewer#2Review Comments:[1]The authors should check wrong words:the followings are just examples.p4.L2.:to accomplish the attitude rotational as fast...rotational-->rotational motion?p7.L4.:the attitude manueve-->the attitude maneuver?Response:We are very sorry for our incorrect writing,thanks for pointing out our mistake;we have corrected the wrong words in our revised paper.[2]Dual-loop control techniques are very common to control rigid body motions.It can not be a major contribution of the authors.Response:Thank you very much for your great efforts on our manuscript.It is true that the dual-loop control techniques are widely used to control rigid body motions,and dual-loop control technique is not a contribution of us.In this study,the main contribution of us is proposing a constrained dual-loop attitude control scheme,which combines command filtered approach and extended state observer,for rigid spacecraft under the actuator limitations and angular velocity pared with the constrained adaptive backstepping control method,the constrained dual-loop control design reduces the influence of correlation between the rings and keeps the states within the limitations.[3]In simulation,The frequency of environmental disturbance may not be realistic.The authors have presented some fluctuating response for CBS method for Low actuator bandwidth.But the unrealistic frequency of disturbance may yield such fluctuating response.Sometimes,such scenarios may be misleading.So it is necessary to modify the model of disturbance.Response:Thanks for your thoughtful comments.Since the frequency of the environmental disturbance is not realistic,we have modified the model of disturbance.It is true that the frequency of disturbance may led to the fluctuating response,however,in this study,the environmental disturbance torque is very small,it has less effect on the fluctuating response,which can be seen from Figs.2-6.Extensive simulations were also done using different disturbance inputs,such as remove the disturbance,these results show that the fluctuating response still exist for CBS method under Low actuator bandwidth situation.Thence,the possibility of the unrealistic disturbance frequency may led such fluctuating response can be excluded.In each of the simulation case,the controller parameters setting unchanged,therefore, we attribute the fluctuating response for CBS method to low actuator bandwidth.------------------------------Responses to Reviewer#4Review Comments:The innovation of the paper is well emphasized;the organization of the paper is good,but the state of the art and the comparison with other papers'results are not consistent enough.I consider that the paper can be accepted for publication only after revision(see below).Suggestions for the paper improving:1.The state of the art must be improved;more papers dealing with the subject of this work must be discussed,analyzed and their weaknesses presented.2.The most important drawback of the paper is the lack of a comparison between the results obtained in this paper and the results obtained in other papers.A serious comparison must be included in the paper.Response:Thanks for your analysis and suggestions.We have taken your advice,and more papers, which dealing with the subject of this work,have added for section1in our revised paper.So far,to the best of authors’knowledge,only a few papers[14,15,16]research the problem of attitude control under the constraints on angular velocity and control input.The control input saturation cannot be achieved due to the design of Barrier Lyapunov function in[14](Refer to Remark3in[13]).Considering the angular velocity and control input constraints,a nonlinear quaternion feedback control logic is proposed for the spacecraft eigenaxis rotations in[15]and a constrained optimal PID(Proportional-Integral-Derivative)-like controller is presented in[16], however,both of them require that the nominal off-diagonal terms of the inertia matrix are zeros, and none of them consider the model uncertainties.Extensive comparison simulation for the controller in[15]were also done with the nominal off-diagonal terms of the inertia matrix are zeros,however,the convergence time for[15]is much longer than the convergence time for the proposed controller,which is not suitable for comparison on a single graph.The constrained adaptive backstepping method[19]is widely used in aircraft control with the constraints on the control variables and the virtual control states.However,it does not guarantee the intermediate states in the range of constraints.In this note,we seek to reduce the influence of correlation between the rings and keep the states within the limitations.Sincerely yours,学术资源大全新上线欢迎各位青椒访问学习所有资源免费下载有疑问可在反馈至留言板网址☞（学术资源大全首字母即为网址域名）。
response_letter写法
We are truly grateful to the reviewers’ suggestions on English. Based on these comments, we have made careful modifications on the manuscript.Dear Editor:We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red color. In addition, we have consulted native English speakers for paper revision before the submission this tim e. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions: 1234...Yours sincerely******Dear Prof.****:Thank you very much for your kindly comments on our manuscript (No******). Based on your and reviewer’s suggestions, we carefully revised the manuscript.We are now sending the revised article for your re-consideration to publish in Journal of Plant Physiology. Please see our point to point responses to all your comments below, and the corresponding revisions in the body of manuscript, both marked in blue. We look forward to hearing form you soon for a favorable 8 decision.Thank you again for your time and consideration.Sincerely,****1. *****2.*****3.*****Below, the original comments are in black, and our responses are in blue.****Following typographical and grammatical errors in original manuscript have been removedand corrected:(1) Line 20 page 1 in the original manuscript: the drag…..Revised in the revised manuscript: The drag……RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTSDear Dr:We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers’ critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red color. In addition, we have consulted native English speakers for paper revision before the submission this time. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions: Comments from the Editor-in-Chief:回复后1月，要求小休，并认为英文水平已经大大提高，要求明确我下一步想如何研究，因此老外由帮我写了回复信，如下是第二封信的开场白：Dear Dr. Chernick:We must thank you and all other reviewers for the critical feedback. We feel lucky that our manuscript went to these reviewers as the valuable comments from them not only helped us with the improvement of our manuscript, but suggested some neat ideas for future studies. Please do forward our heartfelt thanks to these experts.Based on the comments we received, careful modifications have been made to the R1 manuscript. All changes were marked in red text. In addition, we also have a native English speakers double-checked the English for the revised R2 version. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions:Dear Editor:Thank you very much for your supervision of the reviewing process of my manuscript (Ref. No. of XXXXXXX). We also highly appreciate the reviewer’s carefulness, conscientious, and the broad knowledge on the relevant research fields, since they have given me a number of beneficial suggestions. According to the reviewer’s instructions, we have made the following revisions on this manuscript:1. After examining the reviewer’s comments carefully, we must admitthat we havenot expressed our meaning correctly in the previous manuscript. Sorry for this confusion. In the revised version, t he “rougher” has been corrected as “weaker andbroader”. (See Line 7 from top, 3.1 Phase identification).2. As suggested by the reviewer, Fig. 3a has been referred into the revised manuscriptto reveal flattening of the milled powders. (See Line 4 from top, 3.2 Microstructure)3. In the review comments, the reviewer has pointed out that “The particle size of thepowders in Fig. 3b&c appear to be comparable?” We have again examined Fig. 3band 3c carefully. Compared with the particle size of powders in Fig. 3b, the particlesize of particles in Fig. 3c showed a very slight increase. (See Line 17 from top, 3.2Microstructure)4. As suggested by the reviewer, we have outlined the operating mechanism in the revised manuscript for the sake of better understanding and clarity. (See Lines 7-11 from top, 4.Conclusions)5. In the review comment, we are very appreciated to know that a marked hardcopy ofthe manuscript has been sent by post concerning additional corrections of Englishlanguage. We have waited the hardcopy for more than 2 months since May 9, 2008.However, we have not yet received the hardcopy till now, due to some unknownreasons. With the permission of XXXXXXX (Email: XXXXXXX), we have invited another native English speaker in our university, who is a visiting professor from USA engaged in the research field of Materials Science and Engineering, to go through the whole manuscript. The English language in the current manuscript has been polished and improved.We hope that these revisions are satisfactory and that the revised version will beacceptable for publication in XXXXXXX.Thank you very much for your work concerning my paper.Wish you all the best!Sincerely yours,XXXXXXX一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。
文章review回来意见
文章review回来意见篇一：1.审稿意见分类a.分类式回复：如果意见很多，可以试着将它们进行分类，例如将方法相关的意见分在一起、语言相关的一组等等，如果将意见进行分组，记得在信里提及“I have separated my responses to the reviewers’ comments according to several categories in order to achieve an integrated approach in my responses.”。
b.点列式回复:如果评审员的意见是长长的段落，可以将意见分离成点各别回应，如果不确定某项意见的意思，可以先解释自己对该意见的理解，然后再进行回复。
2.与审稿意见的分歧处理同行评审的老师通常是领域内的专家，如果作者认为审稿人误解了论文里的任何段落，有时候很有可能是因为表达不够清楚。
这种情况下，可以礼貌性的指出误解然后提供必要的说明。
可以这么写“I am sorry that this part was not clear in the original manuscript.I should have explained that (……详细说明). I have revised the contents of this part”。
3.SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the response to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Response to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：We are very sorry for our negligence of ……...We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...It is really true as Reviewer suggested that ……We have made corrections according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestionAs Reviewer suggested that……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer #2:同上述Reviewer #3:××××××Other changes:1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………”2. Line 107, “……” was added3. Line 129, “……” was deleted××××××We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked them in red in the revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.实例修稿意见：Reviewers' comments:Reviewer #3: While revising the script, it is to be suggested that author should clearly indicate the aim & scope of the study and while making conclusion, it is to be mentioned how the study is useful for the practical purposes. In addition the following are the few suggestions/comments, which may be included while revision.1. Introduction part first para last line, author must avoid to write ambiguous statement i.e., much work is still ahead, may indicate properly.2. Author could not demonstrate the reason why, to select the organic compound such as ethyl pyruvate for this study?3. Experimental part: It is difficult to understand the in-situ RAIRS experiments with homemade liquid-solid RAIRS cell. More detailed information may be useful for the others those who are working in the area. Photograph of the assembled cell may be included.4. The description given for the experimental set up (page4) can be presented by flow diagram instead, as an ease to understand the set up.5. Resluts Part (Page 6): "CO adlayers with identical monolayer coverages", the monolayer coverage, is it been performed with some adsorption model? Further, it was suggested that CO-saturated Pt surface, but not mentioned about the saturation experiments. Is it obtained after 60 min of CO bubbling?6. Page 12, 2nd para: The displacement of EtPy by CCl4 flushing, is it confirmed by the EtPy peaks? If so, it has to be mentioned clearly in the para. Also in the same para, author referred for Fig. 7a and 7b but in the figures, it didn't appear, only figure 7 appeared. I feel it refers for figure 7, portion A and B, to be corrected. Similarly, in the text referred the fig 2a, 2b. etc but on the figure sheet it is mentioned as 2A, 2B .etc. to be corrected.7. Page 14, 1st para: 'contamination of the Pt surface by corrosion of o-rings in high concentration EtPy', but the statement has not been supported by other evidence/literature.8. Pages 14 through 17: the observed reactivity of various solvents for adsorbed CO on the Pt surface (figs 3 & 4) has to be discussed more precisely. This reviewer is unable to followthe reason why they showed different reactivity, is it principally due to the organic moieties, or due to the impurities of commercially available chemicals or a mixed effect. It has to be clearly demonstrated, however, the only experiment performed with CO/water? CCl4 would difficult to describe it in detail.9. The author try to restrain with repeated arguments in the text e.g., page 3 para 1: It was generalized that.......篇二科研论文投稿到期刊以后，都要经历一个同行评审（peer review）的过程。
Response to Reviewer Comments
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 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)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 t he 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 specificdifferences 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.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, 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 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 canonly 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 gra……….., Ph.D. ProfessorLaboratory of Plant Nutrition andEcological Environment Research,Huazhong Agricultural University,Wuhan, 430070, P.R.ChinaE-mail: .....................Jun 10, 2009RE: HAZMAT-D-09-00655Dear Editor，We would like to thank the editor for giving us a chance to resubmit the paper, and also thank the reviewers for giving us constructive suggestions which would help us both in English and in depth to improve the quality of the paper. Here we submit a ne w version of our manuscript with the title “………………………”, which has been modified according to the reviewers’ suggestions. Efforts were also made to correct the mistakes and improve the English of the manuscript. We mark all the changes in red in the revised manuscript.Sincerely yours,……………….., Ph.D. Professor------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is a point-to-point response to the two reviewers’ comments.Reviewer #1:General comments:Reviewer #1: The paper presents an interesting experimental investigation to assess the photocatalytic degradation of polyethylene plastic with goethite under UV irradiation. The research work is clearly presented but the conclusions, the introduction and other parts of the paper relate the results obtained with unjustified claims about the impact of the work. In addition, the background information provided in the introduction part needs significant enrichment. In particular: Answer: Thank you for the comments on the paper. We have revised the manuscript as suggested since we consider that some sentences or descriptions in the Conclusion part are not so accurate based on the results.Page 3, line 46: recycling is not available…Even though a large amount of agricultural plastic waste in burnt or buried in the fields, some quantities of specific categories of good quality agricultural plastic waste are recycled in several countries while research efforts and projects are in progress to improve the corresponding percentage. The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature.Answer:Yes. Your opinions inspired us and we revised the manuscript accordingly. In the revised paper, the sentence “Recycling is not available for economy,” was changed to “In order to reduce costs, the thickness of application agriculture films in some regions in China is less than 0.005 mm result in diffcult to recycle, And because the process of recycling is expensive and time-consuming, only a small percentage of the agricultural plastic waste is currently recycled at the end of cultivation in China [4]”(Page 3 line 49-52).Page 3, line 76: biodegradable and photodegradable….There are developments in the area of biodegradable materials that indicate the opposite. Concerning photodegradable materials, they are not considered to represent a solution as they have not been proven to be biodegradable. The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature.Answer: Thank you for reminding us the improper description on the study. We have the improper parts revised accordingly and hope that this new manuscript will be convincing ( Page 3 line 52-55).Page 4, line 65: find an eco-friendly….The best eco-friendly disposal for agricultural plastic waste is recycling and fornon-recyclable materials, energy recovery. Degrading materials produced from fossil sources is not an eco-friendly disposal! The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature.Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that some of the descriptions in the previous copy were really not so accurate and a little bit arbitrary due to our poor English level and the study on recent literature. After consulting more references, we therefore revised paper to be more reasonable and convincing.Page 4, line 66: to carbon dioxide and water….Conversion of fossil oil based materials into carbon dioxide and water is much worse than converting renewable-based materials into carbon dioxide and waterAnswer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that this description in the previous copy were not accurate, due to our poor study on recent literature. The sentence “it is very important to find an eco-friendly disposal of plastic waste where they degrade to carbon dioxide and water under the sunlight irradiation without producing toxic byproducts.” has been deleted.Page 6, line 112: volatile products….Define the products.Answer: We have defined the volatile products in Page 6 line 124-125.Page 9, line 185: eco-friendly disposal….The claims of the authors that this technique is an eco-friendly one are not justified. The conclusions and other parts of the paper need to be rewritten and limit the scope of the presented research work to the technical objectives without deriving unjustified general conclusions and claims about the impact of this work.Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that this description in the previous copy were not accurate. The sentence “The development of this kind of composite polymer can lead to an eco-friendly disposal of polymer wastes.” was changed to “The present paper intends to study goethite as photocatalytst for degradating plastic. Further attention could be focused on the application of the technique.” (Page 9 line 192-194).Reviewer #3:1. Title and abstract should indicate that the work has been done with PE-Goethite composite film.Answer: Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. We agree and therefore change the title to: Solid-phase photocatalytic degradation of polyethylene–goethite composite film under UV-light irradiation.2. Please revise the first paragraph of 'Introduction'. It is difficult to understand. In general, the language of the paper should be revisited.Answer: The Introduction part has been rewritten both in contents and in English. We particularly revised some sentences since they are not correct or so confusing.3. Materials and methods - Details of the chemicals to be furnishedAnswer: The r eviewer and editor’s s uggestions have been adopted and the details of the chemicals has been shown in Page 4 line 79-83.4. Characterization are required for PE (Molecular weight, grade) and Goethite prepared (particle size, BET surface area, SEM-EDS and XRD)Answer: The revie wer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the characterization for PE has been shown in Page 4 line 79. The Goethite prepared (particle size, BET surface area, SEM and XRD) has been reported by Liao et al. (2007), We clarify that in the revised manuscript in Page 5 line 91-93.5. A schematic diagram of the experimental set up to be givenAnswer: The r eviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and a schematic diagram of the experimental has been given in Fig. 1 in the present paper. The original Fig. 1. was changed to Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.6. Results - A rate equation should be proposed from the time-weight data Answer: The r eviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the rate equation a schematic diagram of the experimental has been given in Table. 1in the present paper.7. A few data are required to show the influence of process parameters such as goethite loading, intensity of UV radiation.Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the influence of goethite loading has been shown in Fig. 2 in the present paper. And the influence of intensity of UV radiation has been shown in Fig. 3 in the present paper. The original Fig. 2 was changed to Fig. 4 and The original Fig. 3 was changed to Fig. 5 in the present paper.8. Until other intermediates are isolated, upto Eqn.(7) (line 162) is sufficient. Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and We changed the Eqns as recommended. Eqs. (8)-(12) are deleted and Eqn.(7) was change to “–(CH2CH2)–+ .OH →degradationproducts” (Page 9 line 184).9. Figure 3 and 4: 3 pairs are required, namely (i) Only PE film before and after irradiation, (ii) PE-Goethite film (0.4wt %) - before and after irradiation (iii)PE-Goethite film (1.0 wt %) - before and after irradiation.Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the original Fig. 3 and 4 was changed to Fig .5 in the present paper.10. Point 3 above is also applicable for SEM photographs. Please rearrange and clearly mark the difference between the films before and after irradiation for both SEM and FTIR results.Answer: Thank the reviewer and editor’s for the comments. During the revision of the paper, we did a supplementary experiment got some new SEM photographs, whichhas been shown in Fig. 4 in the present paper. And The FTIR results has been rearranged in Fig.5 in the present paper, respectively.11. It should be clearly mentioned in the conclusion that the degradation was more when goethite loading and intensity of light both were moreAnswer: The r eviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the conclusions has been changed in Page 9 line 192-198.。
Responding to Reviewers’ Comments
Responding to Reviewers’Comments on Submitted ArticlesPeter Cummings,MD,MPH;Frederick P.Rivara,MD,MPHFew authors receive any training in how to respond to the comments of editors and re-viewers,although some advice on this topic has been published.1-3In this article,we present our suggestions.The letter from the editor generally comes in one of 4flavors.First,a manuscript may be accepted without any changes.If this happens to you,count yourself lucky;such an editorial response is rare.In our expe-rience,this has happened only once for each of us.Second,the manuscript may be accepted with suggestions for minor re-visions.Again,count your blessings,quickly make the suggested changes (if you can),and return the revised manuscript;hopefully the paper will be accepted.Dif-ficulties typically arise with the next 2cat-egories of response:outright rejection and provisional rejection with the opportu-nity to make major revisions.DEALING WITH REJECTION Getting a letter of outright rejection is pain-ful.We have been there many times.Suc-cessful researchers have to develop a thick hide regarding rejection;do not take it per-sonally.Rejection may not even reflect badly on your manuscript.It just means that for stated or unstated reasons,the edi-tors decided that your paper was not what they wanted.Editors strive to publish ar-ticles that make important new contribu-tions.In some instances,you may be the victim of bad timing;the journal might have just published or accepted a study very similar to yours.You should read any suggestions that you receive.If they can be used to im-prove your manuscript,by all means,makethose changes.If you still feel that your work deserves publication,send it to an-other journal.Do this quickly;delay wastes time,and some papers will eventually grow stale as the data become less relevant.An editor reviewing a manuscript in 2002may be less enthusiastic if all of the data were collected prior to 1996.You presumably did the work in the first place because you thought that it had value.Getting pub-lished requires fortitude about pushing your work.One of us wrote a paper that was rejected by 8journals but was finally published in a ninth.Should you appeal the editor’s deci-sion?We know of colleagues who have done this and prevailed.We have not done this ourselves,however,and suspect that urging the editors of most journals to re-consider is a low-yield strategy.RESPONDING WHEN MAJOR REVISIONS ARE REQUESTED The most common route to final publica-tion is to get a letter from the editor that rejects (or provisionally accepts)the cur-rent version of your paper but offers reconsideration after major revision and a response to reviewer comments.A let-ter like this gets your foot in the door.Now you need to plan a strategy for revising your paper and gaining full acceptance.We suggest that you carefully read all of the comments from reviewers and the editor.Some of these may be critical,and others may even seem ignorant or wrong.Allow yourself a couple of days to grind your teeth and grumble.After you shed any initial irritation,try a second,From the Harborview Injury Prevention and Research Center (Drs Cummings and Rivara),the Department of Epidemiology,School of Public Health and Community Medicine (Drs Cummings and Rivara),and the Department of Pediatrics,School of Medicine (Dr Rivara),University of Washington,Seattle.more dispassionate reading.Then set about crafting a response that is polite,thoughtful,clear,and detailed.It is a good idea to respond promptly.If you let many months go by,the editor will forget what was in your origi-nal manuscript,and you may give the impression that you are not interested in your own work.Be polite.You may be tempted to say that the re-viewer was an ignoramus,but this is not likely to get your paper accepted or to create the impression that you are a thoughtful scientist.Avoid a defensive or confronta-tional tone;you are not in a political debate.The goal is to glean helpful information from the comments,adopt any useful suggestions to improve the paper,and calmly explain your point of view when you disagree.There is no limit on the length of your response.If it takes you10pages to cover each point and explain all of the changes,the editors are willing to read a letter that long.Go through the reviewers’comments in an or-derly,outlined manner.In response to each comment, cut and paste into the letter any substantive changes made to the manuscript.Although this letter of response may be long,you actually ease the editors’job by putting ev-erything they need into one orderly document.Imagine that you have comments from both the edi-tor and reviewers A and B.In your manuscript you wrote,“Study subjects ranged in age from0to10years;27% were0to2years,and41%were2to6years.”Reviewer A wrote,“The description of the age distribution of study subjects was unclear.Were2-year-olds in the first group or the second group?And the2groups add up to only 68%.”Obviously,you meant that68%of the subjects were in the2youngest age categories and that32%were in the oldest group.However,the reviewer was correct in noting the vagueness of your age boundaries.You might respond with something like this:Reviewer A:4.The reviewer was concerned about the lack of clarity in our description of the age distribution of study subjects in the first paragraph of the“Results”section.The reviewer is correct,and we appreciate the chance to make ourselves clearer.We have revised the paper as follows:“Twenty-seven percent of study subjects were younger than2 years,41%were2to5years,and32%were6to10years.”By numbering your responses,first giving the re-viewer’s comment and then giving your answer,you make it easy for the editors and reviewers to follow the details of your response.By restating what you believe was the concern of the reviewer,you force yourself to think care-fully about what the reviewer wrote.This can some-times be illuminating,both for yourself and for the edi-tors.By giving the actual manuscript changes in the response letter,the editor can follow what you have done without searching for the changes in the revised manu-script.Notice that the previous response is polite and ex-presses gratitude.Reviewers are not paid,and they have other things to do in addition to reviewing manuscripts. If they offer you ways to improve your paper,thank them. Even though the hypothetical manuscript’s original word-ing is nearly as clear as the revision,the response con-veys the sense that you are happy to adopt reasonable suggestions.Some journals ask that you highlight changes on one copy of the returned manuscript.This can be done us-ing your word-processing software or by highlighting the changes with a marker.This procedure often creates a long manuscript that is hard to read,and fails to clearly juxtapose the reviewers’comments with your changes. Detailing the responses in a cover letter makes the whole process easier.Change and modify where it makes sense.You are not required to make every suggested change,but you do need to address all of the comments.If you reject a suggestion,the editor will want a good reason.Respond-ing at length to the reviewer and editor about their con-cerns without making changes in the manuscript may be appropriate for some comments.Rejecting a suggestion just because you prefer it your way is not good enough. For example,if a reviewer says that Figure2should be cut and the information placed in a table,you should do this even if you think that the use of a figure is clearer or more dramatic.Reviewers do not always agree with each other,and then you must make a choice.Decide which suggestion seems more valid,note your change in your response let-ter to that reviewer,and note in your response to the other reviewer that you received conflicting advice and made what you hope is the best choice.When you feel that your analytic method or choice of wording is superior to that suggested by the reviewer, lay out your argument.Remember,it is your name that will go on the article.If a letter to the editor criticizes something in your study,it will not be an acceptable de-fense to say that what you wrote or did was suggested by an anonymous reviewer.In the end,you will have to take responsibility for your work.Bear in mind that even a carefully crafted response letter and extensively revised manuscript may not be ac-cepted.Although the journal is giving you a second chance,the editors are under no obligation to publish the revised paper.If the ultimate decision is rejection, take heart that the journal was interested enough to re-view2versions of your work.The revised version will usually be an improvement,and you can quickly sub-mit elsewhere.CUTTING TEXTMost journals,including Archives of Pediatrics&Adoles-cent Medicine,state the typical length for manuscripts in their instructions to authors.It is not uncommon for the editor to note that whereas your manuscript is4000words, a length of3000words is more suitable from the jour-nal’s point of view.You may receive such advice with ei-ther an invitation to resubmit or an acceptance that asks for minor changes.You should follow this advice;the edi-tor is trying to balance priorities and believes that your pa-per can be shorter.If you want a final acceptance,you will have to trim.Cutting text with acceptance in sight does not need to be painful.Often you can find entire sen-tences that can go,or even a paragraph.Then start look-ing at each word within a sentence.We have had to do this many times with our own work.One of us had a paper accepted by a major jour-nal.Although the original draft was4000words,we knew that the journal would not accept this length,so we trimmed it to2500.To our dismay,the editors said that they would accept the paper if it were cut to1500words! At first this seemed impossible,but the final version was compressed to1650words and was actually a better paper.Sometimes there is a conflict between reviewer sug-gestions and the need to trim the manuscript.If the edi-tor tells you to cut1000words and a reviewer asks for a new analysis or discussion that might add500words,your best option may be to offer to do what the reviewer sug-gested but point out that you did not follow the sugges-tion in the interest of saving space.THE ROLE OF REVIEWSAs authors,we sometimes succumb to the feeling that reviewer comments are simply a barrier that we must breach to get our obviously brilliant work published. As editors,however,we appreciate that reviewers are donating their time to improve our manuscripts.A care-ful review is usually our last defense against a faulty analy-sis,incorrect reasoning,or muddled language.Review-ers read our papers with a fresh eye and offer us the chance to improve our work;we,not the reviewers,will get the credit for those improvements.Although responding to reviews may be burdensome,the chore is usually well worth the effort.Corresponding author:Peter Cummings,MD,MPH,Har-borview Injury Prevention and Research Center,325Ninth Ave,Box359960,Seattle,WA98104-2499(e-mail: peterc@).1.Huth EJ.Writing and Publishing in Medicine.3rd ed.Baltimore,Md:LippincottWilliams&Wilkins;1999.2.Browner WS.Publishing and Presenting Clinical Research.Baltimore,Md:Lip-pincott Williams&Wilkins;1999.3.Samet JM.Dear author:advice from a retiring editor.Am J Epidemiol.1999;150:433-436.2001Domestic Violence and Child Abuse Sourcebook,edited by Helene Henderson,Detroit,Mich,Omnigraphics Inc,2001.Cool Parents,Drug-Free Kids:A Family Survival Guide,by Robert H.Coombs,PhD,Boston,Mass,Allyn and Bacon,2002.Introduction to Podopediatrics,edited by Peter Thomson,BSc,DpodM,MChS and Russel G.Volpe,DPM,Edinburgh,Scot-land,Churchill Livingstone,2001.On Call Pediatrics,2nd ed,by David A.Lewis,MD,FAAP,FACC,and James J.Nocton,MD,FAAP,Philadelphia,Pa,WB Saunders Co,2001.Early Diagnosis and Interventional Therapy in Cerebral Palsy:An Interdisciplinary Age-Focused Approach,3rd ed,edited by Alfred L.Scherzer,New York,NY,Marcel Dekker Inc,2001.You and Leukemia:A Day at a Time,2nd ed,by Lynn S.Baker,MD,Philadelphia,Pa,WB Saunders Co,2002.Parenting Well When You’re Depressed:A Complete Resource for Maintaining a Healthy Family,by Joanne Nicholson,PhD, Alexis D.Henry,ScD,Jonathan C.Clayfield,MA,and Susan M.Phillips,Oakland,Calif,New Harbinger Publications,2001.。
Response to comment
List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “XXX”(Ref: XXX). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s com ments:1. Page 2, Introduction, first paragraph, line 7 …and final invalidation. It should be … final validation.Response: The statement of “… which will result in rapid reduction of equipment usability and final invalidation” is not clear enough, and it has been rewritten as “… which will result in rapid reduction of equipment usability and cause final invalidation.”2. Page 3, second paragraph, second line….and material properties. The… It should be capital letter.Response:We are very sorry for our incorrect writing, and the word of “the” has been corrected as “The”.3. Page 5, Table 2-1. It should be Table 1, as stated in the line above.Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of table number, and the “2-”has been deleted.We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.。
如何回复审稿人意见(Response-to-Reviews)
Dear Editor,We have studied the valuable comments from you, the assistant editor and reviewers carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:Responds to the rev iewer’s comments:Reviewer 1Comment 1: in page 3, line 40, we fed rats..." changed to rats were fed with... Response: According to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected the sentence. Furthermore, we have had the manuscript polished with a professional assistance in writing.Comment 2:page 25. The style of reference 40 is not right (using initials for the first names). Since this paper has been published, the volume and page Nos should be provided.Response: Thank you for your careful work. We have added the volume and page numbers for reference 40.Reviewer 2Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the criticisms with additional experiments. The one criticism that they did not address was relating to energy expenditure as the reason that the animals on the low calcium diet gained more weight. While I understand that performing this experiment will not affect the conclusion of this manuscript, I do believe that this point could be discussed in the Discussion section.Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. Based on the previous revision, we further address the relationship between low calcium diet and energy expenditure in the section of discussion according to your thoughtful comments.Reviewer 3Comment 1: In the text you often write: “As previously described”. Unless that paper is from your lab or one of the method paper co-authors is on the present MS this is not quite proper since the statement infers method development from your lab. There are numerous instances like that in the methods section; these should all be changed “according to those described by…..”Response: We are sorry for this language mistake. We have carefully corrected this phrase throughout the manuscript according to your comment.Comment 2: There are still some wording, sentence structure and grammatical issues even in this basically well put together MS. For example, while authors may have been excited about the data you cannot start a sentence with “Excitedly” in line 418 or “Whatever” in line 395.Response: Thank you very much to point out the sentence structure and grammatical issues in our manuscript. According to the comments from you and the editors, we polished the manuscript with a professional assistance in writing, conscientiously.Comment 3:In my view a big omission in this work is ignoring the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues. For example all animals consumed the same amount of feed but we had extra fat storage in the low Ca diet groups. So where did the extra energy go? Zemel et al (citation 34) in similar work indicate that increased thermogenesis on the high Ca diet explains the dissipation of dietary energy. Further even though Zemel et al (#34) indicated lipogenesis was enhanced in the low Ca diets that was in 2000 and you should have monitored expression of FAS and UCP either as mRNA abundance or actual FAS/UCP changes via proteomics or blotting techniques. In any case these controls are missing here and not emphasized in the MS. Casual reading of this paper would lead to the conclusion that the dietary Ca effect on fat deposition is strictly a function of increased or decreased lipolysis. While lipolysis appears to be a major player, lipogenesis and thermogenesis cannot be ignored for completeness. In Fig 8 you also show a decline in cAMP for the low Ca diet. Well beta agonists or cAMP enhancers regulate transcription of adipose and liver FAS (in rats (J Biol Chem 271:2307, 1996) and recently with large animal models (Hausman et al J Animal Science 87:1218, 2009 and Halsey et al J Animal Science 89: 1011, 2011). In additioncAMP levels could have been monitored. I really do not like the last sentence in the Abstract line 47-50 where you state that “low calcium diet-induced increase in fat mass was due to enhanced lipogenesis mediated by an upregulated CaSR signaling pathway” Your results here show no such thing, this is a completely false statement based on data herein. Correct. You show that high Ca diets enhance lipolysis and low Ca diets are antilipolytic. You did not monitor lipid anabolism here at all. See also line 255-257 and lines 333-335 of your MS. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. As you suggested that the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues should be monitored. We really agree with your viewpoints. In the present study, we did find that low calcium diet increased the mRNA level of fatty acid synthase (FAS) in white adipose tissue. Furthermore, the FAS mRNA level were also increased in adipocytes after treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3in in-vitro experiments. However, the increased FAS mRNA levels were not affected by preventing either the nuclear vitamin D receptor (nVDR) or calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR), suggesting that FAS might not be involved in the CaSR pathway. In addition, we thought that FAS played its role in fatty acid synthesis mainly in liver previously. Besides, the manuscript was required to restrict number of total words and our previous focus was on the antilolytic role of CaSR in the process of fat accumulation. So we ignored to provide the data of FAS mRNA levels in the submitted manuscript. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the mRNA levels according to your helpful suggestion.We have reported the effects of dietary calcium on UCP2 mRNA levels in adipose tissue and UCP3 in skeletal muscle in our previous studies (1, 2). Thus, we believed that low calcium diet led to decreased thermogenesis in the present study. It was a pity that we did not measure the rat core temperature in those studies. The UCP2 mRNA levels in adipocytes were observed to be decreased after treatment of 1,25-(OH)2D3. This effect was prevented by using nVDR CaSR gene silencing but not by CaSR gene knockdown, suggesting that UCP2 was not involved in CaSR pathways. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the UCP2 results.Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are very sorry for our fault statement in the abstract. We have corrected it in the new manuscript.Comment 4: A point that does not emerge well from the discussion is how low Ca intakes result in higher intracellular [Ca] concentrations and really the effects on fatdeposition in the cells in many ways are due to an increased intracellular Ca level mediated via CaSR expression increases and the effect of VitD3 on nVDR show in Fig 8. The authors must remind readers that Ca levels in the blood are under hormonal regulation (Calcitonin, PTH and VitD3). Thus when diets low in Ca are consumed and blood Ca decline, PTH and VitD3 are called upon to mobilize bone Ca to replenish the blood Ca. Then coupled with an increase in CaSR more Ca actually is found in AT despite the fact that many would think the AT Ca level should decline. The reason is that tissue/circulating Ca levels are not diet depended but regulated. The vast bone stores of Ca will provide ample Ca here especially during a study of this length. While authors address these issues maybe could be presented in a less complicated discussion.Response:Thank you for your instructive suggestions. We are sorry for not describing the effect of low calcium diet on intracellular calcium concentrations mediated by CaSR, as well as the impact of hormone regulation on serum calcium levels clearly. According to your helpful advice, we have rewritten these two parts in the section of discussion. Thank you again.Comment 5: Not all citations are in JN styleResponse: We have careful recheck and corrected the style of the citations according to the requirement of JN.Comment 6: Abstract conclusion differs from lines 255-257 and 333-335; WHY? Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The conclusion from lines 255-257 is about the effect of low calcium diet on serum levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) and lipids. We considered FFA and glycerol as indicators of TG hydrolysis in adipose tissue. The low calcium diet caused decreased serum FFA and glycerol levels without influencing lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity, so we thought the lipolytic effect of adipose tissue to be suppressed by low calcium diet. The conclusion from lines 333-335 was about the effect of 1,25-(OH)2D3 whose levels were increased under low calcium conditions on lipolysis. We used the glycerol level as the indicator of TG hydrolysis in adipocytes. Both the in vivo and in vitro experiments showed low calcium status caused an antilipolytic effect.Comment 7: Line 150-153. The qRT-PCR methodology is not at all understandable as you cite a Texas A&M published paper. This is completely insufficient with the newly established standards on gene expression via qRT-PCR. There is no mention of efficiencies of amplifications in these data nor how the use of the reference gene was established etc. I think Pfaffl and Bustin have recently written an article on this; please totally revise 150-153 in line with what you did and applying the new standards.Response: Thank you very much. Because the JN restricts the number of total words of manuscript, we cited the Texas A&M published paper. In the newly submitted manuscript, we describe the detailed protocols in our lab.Comment 8:Line 179 on Not clear as in sentences talk about different AT cell sources etc..revise.Response: We are sorry for not addressing the adipose tissue cell sources clearly. We have rewritten the methods.Comment 9: Any previous documentable work with siRNA?Response: Yes, we have documentable work with siRNA in our research team. The results were published in the journal of Biochem Biophys Res Commun (3).Comment 10: Line 214.. Cultured primary rat adipocytes and SW872 adipocytes ……Response: Thank you very much. According to your comment, we have had the manuscript polished and corrected the mistakes.。
Response to paper comments
Dear Editor and Reviewers,We highly appreciate the detailed valuable comments of the referees on our manuscript of ‘OA-05021’. The suggestions are quite helpful for us and we incorporate them in the revised paper. During the last two months, we have referred to literatures and papers and re-analyzed the collected data and reconstructed the paper to improve the quality of our paper.As below, on behalf of my co-authors, I would like to clarify some of the points raised by the Reviewers. And we hope the Reviewers and the Editors will be satisfied with our responses to the ‘comments’ and the revisions for the original manuscript.Thanks and Best Regards!Yours Sincerely,ZHANG Gong2005-11-12Journal of Forest ResearchReviewer's Comment to the AuthorManuscript No. OA-05021Title: Deposition Pattern of Precipitation and Throughfall in a Subtropical Forest, Central-south ChinaAuthors: G. Zhang, G.-M. Zeng, G.-H. Huang, Y.-M. Jiang, J.-M. Yao, R. Jiang & C. ZhangComment to Author:General Comments:1. The explicit hypotheses or objective of this study in the third paragraph of the Introduction are not well developed in the first two paragraphs of the Introduction. For example, why would you expect a “differences in precipitation quantity, ion concentrations and fluxes in bulk precipitation and throughfall”? It would seem much more relevant to address the literature on dry deposition, canopy leaching and ecological factors for effecting the process of canopy exchange in the first paragraph than briefly mentioning topics like chemical species, forest type and interception of forest. Also the second paragraph of the introduction largely considers the effects of different methods, and the differences of forests in Taiwan and in Hunan, which is not part of this paper. Surely this paragraph would be better exploring the expected pattern with a seasonal basis to support putting up hypotheses or objective in the last paragraph of the Introduction.2. That the site is located in the central-south China. A map showing geographical location of the site would be better than the description of characters. This site represents a forest type dominated by fir and other tree species. An analysis of species composition and age structure would be required for the study forest.3. Seasonal trends of mean value of ion concentrations in the data (Table 2, Table 3) need to be assessed statistically. Not only we need to know that the change of ion concentrations with seasons are significant but we need to know the differences of ionconcentration among rainfall events sampled.4. Results and discussion would be separated in the paper. Discussion should be consistent with introduction of the paper.Response to general comments: (1) The section of ‘Introduction’ has been re-written and the comments of the Reviewer were adopted in our revision.(2) The Figure 1, including the geographical location of the study site and the 10 plots and the layout of the throughfall collectors in each plot, was added in the revised manuscript. The ages and the species analysis were also conducted (see detailed response), which was also listed in the revised manuscript.(3) The tables have been re-analyzed and slightly modified during revision; we think the modifications will improve the expression and clearance.(4) The structure of this manuscript was also reconstructed in our revision the paper. To be consistent with the objectivities of this paper, the section of ‘Results and discussion’ was provided again in the revised manuscript.Specific comments:P5L2 - delete sampleResponse: The word of ‘sample’ was deleted in the revised manuscript.P5L2 at what altitude and in what soil type was the study forest.Response: (1) The study site is at an altitude of 290 m.(2) The soil types are yellow and yellowish-brown soils according to Chinese soil classification.The two points mentioned above about Shaoshan forest are listed in the revised manuscript.P5L4 – provide a map showing geographical location of the study siteResponse: A geographical map (see Fig. 1 in the revised paper) described the location of the study site, the disposition of the 10 plots and the layout of the 16 throughfall collectors.P5L7 – shows the sources of climatic dataResponse: the climatic data are from the measurement by the weather station built in the Shaoshan forest. The data are also available in the papers (Zeng et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2005).P5 L11 - age structure analysis of the study forest is neededResponse: The projected canopy coverage of the stand is about 82 % and the age of the trees in Shaoshan forest ranges from 20 to 70 years old.P6L1 – How big was the catchment and how far apart were the 10 plots in this study? Response: The area of the forested catchment is about 27 ha and the 10 plots are set at different altitudes: 3 (A-C plot) plots are assigned to the lower parts of the catchment (25-50 m altitude), 5 (D-H plot) to the middle of the catchment (75-100 m altitude) and 2 (I-J plot) to the upper parts (125-170 m altitude) (see Fig. 1 in the revised manuscript).P6 L2 - how can forest types and composition of canopy trees not change if the 10 plots are in different parts of the catchmentResponse: The trees species in Shaoshan forest are mainly the following four species, i.e. Chinese fir (Cunninghamia lanceolata) dominates the stand, and massoniana pine (Pinus Massoniana) and camphor wood (Cinnamomum camphora) are frequent species; in addition, some bamboos (Phyllostachys pubescens) grow here. Chinese fir approximately accounts for 44 %, massoniana 31 %, camphor 20 %, and bamboo 5 % of the total stand volume (300 m3 ha-1).The dispositions of the ten plots in shaoshan forest are described in Fig. 1. Generally, bamboo dominates the plot-C in the lower parts of Shaoshan catchment, but the relatively mixed species of Chinese fir, massoniana and camphor are distributed in the other 9 plots of Shaoshan stand.P7 L2 – shows the reason or relevant literature for checking the quality of analyzed data.Response: The quality of the analytical data was checked by comparing the measured conductivity with that calculated from the concentration of all measured ions and their specific conductivities. If the differences were less than 10 %, we consider that the major ions had been analyzed. The analytical procedures are taken from EMEP (Cooperative programme for monitoring and evaluation of long-range transmission of air pollutants in Europe) (1996).P9 L10 – interception (25%) of the study forest is lower than that (15%) of fir plantation in east-southern China! Are there differences in age structure and canopy density between two fire forests?Response: The age structure and canopy density between Shaoshan forest and the fir plantation in southeast China are really different from each other. But there are some similar properties. For example, the dominant specie in the two sites is fir and the climate in the two regions is similar, that is the subtropical climate. The comparison of the interceptions is to obtain the interception capacity of the similar specie in different regions.P9L20 – Fig. 2 ---legend: BP-Bulk precipitation; TF-Throughfall?Response: The legend of BP is the bulk precipitation and TF the throughfall in Fig. 2, which has been explained in the revised manuscript.P11 - Table 2- provides the variation (SD or SE) for seasonal mean values for ion concentrations in different seasons.Response: The standard errors for the parameters are given in Table 2 in the revised manuscript. The Table 2 on the concentrations in the original text was deleted, because the Table 2 and Table 3 differed only by a factor of ‘precipitation quantity’, which was also suggested by the Reviewer.Table 3 was divided into two tables in the revised manuscript: one wasTable 2-‘the seasonal mean ion flux in bulk precipitation and throughfall’; the other was Table 3-‘the seasonal net throughfall flux (NTF)’.P12L10 – “Shaoshan forest is located in the H2SO4 –type acid rain polluted region” ---- “This site is 30km away from……, without any significant sulfur emissions” (P5L10). Illogicality?Response: The statement is not illogical. The reasons why are as following:(1) Shaoshan forest is 30 km away from the nearest town and 150 km away from Changsha city, the capital city of Hunan province. The surroundings of Shaoshan forest is without sulphur emissions.(2) Hunan province, including Changsha and other many cities, is under the severe H2SO4 –type acid rain pollution, which results from industrial activities in the cities. The atmospheric transportation of pollutants strongly influences the atmospheric chemistry of the regions in or near Hunan region. Shaoshan forest is with no exception. Therefore, we stated that Shaoshan forest is located in the H2SO4-type acid rain pollution region, but this statement was modified in the revised manuscript.P13L4 – Fig. 3 -- BC = Base cation?Response: The ‘BC’ means base cations in Fig.3.Literature citedChinese Soil Taxonomy Research Group, Institute of Soil Science, the Chinese Academy of Science, 1995, Chinese Soil Taxonomy (Revised Proposal), Beijing: Chinese Agricultural Scientific Publishing House.Draaijers GPJ, Erisman JW (1995) A canopy budget model to assess atmospheric deposition from throughfall measurements. Water Air Soil Pollut. 85: 2253-2258. EMEP (1996) EMEP Manual for Sampling and Chemical Analysis, Norwegian Institute for Air Research, EMEP/CCC-Report 1/95.Zeng GM, Zhang G, Huang GH, Jiang YM, Liu HL (2005) Exchange of Ca2+, Mg2+and K+ and the uptake of H+, NH4+ for the canopies in the subtropical forest influenced by the acid rain in Shaoshan forest located in Central-south China.Plant Science 168: 259-266.Zhang G, Zeng GM, Jiang YM, Yao JM, Huang GH, Jiang XY, Tan W, Zhang XL, Zeng M (2005) Effects of weak acids on canopy leaching and uptake processes ina coniferous-deciduous mixed evergreen forest in central-south China. Water AirSoil Pollut. In revision.Journal of Forest ResearchReviewer's Comment to the AuthorManuscript No. OA-05021Title: Deposition Pattern of Precipitation and Throughfall in a Subtropical Forest, Central-south ChinaRelevance: the manuscript reports about measurements and analyses of precipitation and throughfall in a subtropical forest. As such, it is not a contribution with new methods, but an application to a new site. The number plots, samplers and analyses is high compared to usual standards and the duration of the measurements is sufficient to draw conclusions. It is thus more the achieved precision than its novelty which makes this contribution worth a publication.Abstract: the abstract covers the content of the article, but on several points it is not clear enough (see details below).Introduction and objective: the introduction gives a good overview of the topic. However, a few points in the logical construction should be improved (see details below). The objective of the study is clearly stated and in line with the content. Material and methods: most of the necessary information is given, but some aspects are missing. Too many points are unclear, partly (it appears) because of writing errors. Results and interpretations: the structure of the results and discussion is not really logical, which results in several redundancies and in a text going several times back and forth between topics. Most interpretations are correct, but some must be questioned (see details below).Conclusion: the conclusion is more a summary of the results and discussion. Make it a real conclusion (with some new ideas) or just drop it.Writing: for a reviewer not speaking English as first language, the writing of the manuscript appears to contain too many mistakes, making it often difficult to understand.Figures and tables: they are appropriate. Table 2 (concentrations) and 3 (fluxes) are essentially redundant as they differ only by a factor (precipitation amount). In this case, however, this can be accepted because it helps reading the text if both concentrations and fluxes are given.Response to General comments: We thank the Reviewer very much for his/her kind comments on Abstract, Introduction, Results and interpretations, conclusions, and Figures and tables. The detailed comments have been replied one by one.Generally, the section of ‘Results and discussion’ was re-written and the original section of ‘Results and discussion’ was divided into three-sections: Precipitation and canopy interception; Ion flux in bulk precipitation and throughfall; Factors regulating throughfall flux which includes four sub-sections: Dry deposition; Canopy leaching; Precipitation ion concentration; and Precipitation acidity.The mentioned Table 2 was deleted in the revised manuscript and Table 3 was divided into two parts as following: Table 2: The seasonal ion flux in bulk precipitation (BP) and throughfall (TF) (mmol m-2 season-1) and precipitation quantity (H2O, mm) in Shaoshan forest; Table 3: Seasonal net throughfall flux (NTF) of ions in Shaoshan forest (mmol m-2 season-1).And Fig.4 was deleted (see our response to the comment on Fig.4) in the revised manuscript.DETAILLED COMMENTSp.2: is this an evergreen or a deciduous forest (from the abstract, it can be supposed that it is evergreen, but this information is too important to be omitted).Response: The studied Shaoshan forest belongs to a deciduous and coniferous mixed evergreen forest.p.2: balanced / unbalanced chemistry: this concept is neither common (at least for me) nor defined in the abstract.Response: The definition of the balanced / unbalanced chemistry was deleted in the revised version.p.2: contributions of dry deposition vs. canopy leaching: it is not clear from which measurements and calculations this comparison can be done.Response: The mentioned contribution of dry deposition and canopy leaching to the NTF was from calculations.p. 2: precipitation quantity controlling leaching: it should at least be written in which direction this effect goes.Response: The relation between precipitation and canopy leaching is positive, indicating that the canopy leaching increases along with the precipitation quantity.p. 2: the multiple regression model: this is written as if this model would be unique or already defined in the abstract, neither of which is the case.Response: In the abstract, “the multiple regression model” should be a multiple regression analysis method or approach, which was taken into account in the revised manuscript.p. 2: leaching of base cations corrected by the weak acid: what is the purpose of this correction and how is it done?Response: The process of the canopy leaching of base cations induced by proton neutralizes the acid precipitation. However, the canopy leaching of base cations induced by weak acids does not neutralize the acid precipitation. The correction in our original manuscript is to estimate the canopy leaching of base cations flux, which neutralized the acid precipitation. The correction method was referred to Draaijers and Erisman (1995) and Zeng et al. (2005).p. 2: net throughfall flux: it would be better to define it (throughfall - precipitation). Response: We thank the reviewer for his/her comment, so we defined the net throughfall flux (NTF) as throughfall minus precipitation in the revised paper.p. 2: potential damages: not enough support is given to this hypothesis. Response: We agree with the viewpoint on potential damages. The hypothesis was not listed in the revised abstract in the revised paper.p. 3: the atmospheric species: this is not clear. Even if one understands that these are chemical species, then the main atmospheric species are molecular nitrogen, oxygen, water, carbon dioxide... and not those substances considered here.Response: We are in agreement with the reviewer’s comments on the atmospheric species in the original manuscript. The term of ‘atmospheric species’ was changed to ‘atmospheric chemical compositions’ in the revised version.p. 3: below-canopy chemistry: what kind of canopy is meant here? Only forests or also other plant canopies like grassland or crops?Response: Below-canopy chemistry means the chemistry of the forested throughfall and stemflow, which only means the Shaoshan forest canopies.p. 3: chemistry of events: too much a shortcut (it is the chemistry of the water of a precipitation event).Response: We agree with the comment of the Reviewer and the suggestion has been applied in the revised manuscript.p. 3: ecological factors of the canopy exchange: the list (1-5) somehow mixes causes (factors) and mechanisms (processes).Response: The original five ecological factors have been incorporated into three in the revised paper as following: (i) the duration, quantity and acidity of precipitation (Cao et al. 1989; Baumler and Zech 1997; Feng et al. 2001), (ii) the species and ecological settings (Lindberg et al. 1986; Campo et al. 2000; Fan and Hong 2001), and (iii) forest soil characteristics, such as extractable amount of base cations and soil types (Lovett and Lindberg 1984; Lovett and Schaefer 1992).p. 3: reference Lovett & Lindberg: 1986 in the text, but 1984 in the reference list. Response: There is a mistake about the reference of ‘Lovett & Lindberg 1986’ in the original manuscript. This cited reference in the text should be ‘Lovett & Lindberg 1984’.p. 4: distinguished seasonality: redundancy (if there is a seasonality, that the seasons are distinguished).Response: We are in agreement with the Reviewer at this point for seasonality, and correct it in the revision.p. 4: Hunan, Taiwan, Shaoshan: it is not clear why the Hunan and Taiwan forests are described in particular and what is their relation to the Shaoshan forest of the present study.Response: (1) Shaoshan is situated in the central part of Hunan province. The subtropical climate in Hunan province (Central-south China) is similar to that of Taiwan, but the climate of Taiwan is influenced by typhoon (Lin et al. 2003).(2) The studies on the atmosphere-canopy interactions in these similar subtropical climate forests are few or limited to be available.The results in Shaoshan forest have been compared with that of Nanping fir plantations in Fujian province and Fushan forest in Taiwan to obtain the representative dynamics of elements in the atmosphere-canopy interactions in the subtropical forests.p. 5: first sentence: too complicated (and wrong) structure.Response: The mentioned sentence has been corrected to: “The study was conducted on Shaoshan evergreen forest catchment (27 ha) in the central part of Hunan Province, Central-south China (27o 51´ N, 112o 24´ E) (Fig. 1a). The catchment varies in elevation from 25 to 290 m. The obtained data were collected from ten 30 m × 30 m plots in the forest from January 2000 to December 2003.’’.p. 5: two-dimensioned canopy structure: what does this mean?Response: “two-dimensioned canopy structure” means that the canopy structures in Shaoshan forest are the two layers, i.e. the top-layer and the sub-layer. The top-canopy layer is about 10-30 m-high, while the sub-canopy layer is approximate 0.8-3.5 m-high.p. 5: altitude: this precision (0.1 m) is not necessary. If the study area covers different parts of a catchment (p. 6), then the altitude is anyway not a constant, and a range should be given.Response: For the 10 plots in the studied stand, 3 plots are located in the lower parts of the forest (25-50 m altitude), 5 plots in the middle of the forest (75-100 m altitude) and 2 plots in the upper parts (125-170 m altitude).p. 5: seasons: in meteorology, the 4 seasons have a different standard definition (in the northern hemisphere, spring is from March to May etc.).Response: The definition of the seasons has been carefully referred to the local meteorological literatures during the revision and the statement of seasons has been corrected to: “The climate of Hunan province is subtropical and monsoonal with four seasons a year, i.e. spring (March to May), summer (June to August), autumn (September to November) and winter (December to February)”.p. 5: missing information: the soil type and the age of the trees should be given. The deposition climate should be described in just a few more words (something on a scale between pristine and heavily impacted by S, N, acidity).Response: The information of the soil type and the trees ages are given as below: (1) Forest soil types in Shaoshan stand are yellow and yellowish-brown soils according to Chinese soil classification (Chinese Soil Taxonomy Research Group et al. 1995); (2) The trees’ age in Shaoshan forest ranges from 20 to 40 years old.The deposition climate has been described as: “The site is 30 km away from the nearest town, Xiangtan city (60 thousand inhabitants) and 150 km away from Changsha city, the capital city of Hunan province (1.7 million inhabitants). Hunan province is heavily impacted by sulphur compounds”.The two points mentioned above are also listed in our revised paper.p. 5: plant species: most of them are not correctly spelled: Cunninghamia lanceolata, Pinus massoniana, Cinnamomum camphora, Euonumus (or Euonymus) japonicus. Check if it is requested or not to give the authorities of species names in J. For. Res.(e.g. Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook.)Response: The names of the four plant species have been re-spelled carefully according to the suggestions of the Reviewer.p. 5: MISU: is this an abbreviation, the name of the model, the name of the factory? (As a rule, apparatus are described by: model, manufacturer, place).Response: The wet-only collector used in our study is from MISU (Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Sweden).p. 5: wet-only collector: incorrect sentence construction.Response: This sentence has been rewritten in our revised manuscript. For example, “A wet-only collector from MISU (Department of Meteorology, Stockholm University, Sweden) was placed on a 10 m-high tower adjacent to canopy covered throughfall plots.”.p. 5: bulk collector: not understandable (wrong sentence construction). Which collector was used for the precipitation: bulk or wet-only (or both)?Response: The sentence has been changed as: “The throughfall collector is made of a plastic bottle (2 L), a plastic funnel (d=11.5 cm), a connector with a filter (nylon screen), and a mounting equipment” in the revised paper. The wet-only collector has been used in our study.p. 6: the catchment: which catchment?Response: The catchment is the Shaoshan forested catchment.p. 6: disposition of the collectors: avoiding clearings means no random placement, i.e. the collectors are not representative of the entire forest, only of its denser parts. Response: There is a mistake in the expressions in our original version. The expression of the disposition of the collectors has been revised. The placements of the collectors were placed to avoid trunks but not clearings in our present study.p. 6: collectors placed on the selected trunk: in contradiction with fig. 1, where the collectors are around the selected trunk.Response: The schematic trunk in Fig.1 means the tree with DBH (diameter at breast height) normally larger than 15 cm. The selected trunks (DBH: 4-6 cm) are used as the mounting equipment to install the throughfall collectors. So the throughfall collectors were marked in Fig.1 but not the mounting equipment.p. 6: nucleopore: same comment as for MISU.Response: The nucleopore (0.45 µm membrane filter) is used to filter the precipitation and the throughfall samples prior to analysis.p. 6: the fiber plugs were displaced: unclear (which plugs, displaced from where to where?)Response: The word of displace should be a mistake in expression in the original text. The throughfall collectors are placed under vegetation canopies and 1.0 m above the forest ground. The throughfall collector is made of a plastic bottle (2 L), a plasticfunnel (d=11.5 cm), a connector with a filter (nylon screen), and a mounting equipment. The filter is replaced by a new one after weekly collection.p. 6: for determination: determination of what? Better use the word analysis, which is sufficient by itself.Response: The word of analysis instead of determination was used in our revised manuscript.p. 6: Dionex: same comment as for MISU. Do not write several sentences within parentheses.Response: The ion chromatography (IC) is operated on the ‘Dionex 320 system’ from USA, i.e. Dionex 320 system, USA.p. 7: making the necessary conversions: should be obvious, can thus be dropped. Response: We are in agreement with the comments of the Reviewer. The words of “making the necessary conversions” were deleted in the revised version.p. 7: same comment as for MISU; (R) sign usually not necessary in scientific publications.Response: We are in agreement with the comments of the Reviewer. The sign was deleted in the revised paper.p. 7: NTF: undefined abbreviation!Response: We defined the net throughfall flux (NTF) as throughfall minus precipitation in the revised paper.p. 8: eq. 1: single characters (symbols) should be used instead of abbreviations like NTF in equations (even if this rule is often violated). Use subscripts if necessary. Also: X and i are here redundant: just use i.p. 8: still about eq. 1: b3 could also be explained (saturation effect). Since acid-induced leaching is discussed further in the article, why do not use the acidity in the equation, like in Lovett et al. (1996)?Response to the two comments above: The two comments seem to be both on Eq.1. We are in agreement with the suggestions of the Reviewer. To be consistent with Lovett et al. (1996) and take the suggestion on the acidity into account, the original regression equation was changed as following:i X i X C b P b A b a NTF ⋅+⋅+⋅+=321 (Original) +⋅+⋅+⋅+⋅+=H x x TF C b C b P b A b a N 4321, (Revised)where x TF N , is the net throughfall flux of solutes (x ) (mmol m -2), A the dry period (day), P the amount of precipitation (mm), C x and +H C the concentration (µmol L -1) of particular solute (x ) and H + in incident precipitation. a is the intercept term and b 1-b 4 are the regression coefficients. Units of the regression coefficients are mmol m -2 per day for A (representing mean dry deposition rates) and mmol m -2 per mm for P (representing mean canopy exchange rates) and mmol m -2 per µmol L -1 for C x and +H C (representing effects of acid precipitation on the NTF).p. 8: eq. 2: X is the given ion: is it the concentration or the flux or what?Response: The given ion in the original text was the concentration. But Eq.2 was deleted in the revised manuscript; because we think the sentence is of the same function of Eq.2, i.e. the data series of this study are the averaged values of the same season in the four observed years.p. 8: w. a.: this abbreviation is apparently never used in the text, only in tables; then better define it in the tables, not here.Response: We agree with the Reviewer’s comment on the weak acids, and we define it in the tables but not in text in the revised paper.p. 8: no statistical differences in throughfall and bulk precipitation: this must be a mistake, because if nothing is significant then you can finish the article right here! Response: We are grateful with the Reviewer’s kind comment. Indeed, there is a mistake in the expression of the statistical differences in throughfall and bulk precipitation in our original text.It was corrected to “No statistical difference in the bulk precipitation quantity as well as that in the throughfall was found among the 10 plots in Shaoshan forest”.p. 9: 210 rain samples: from p. 6, the rain samples are analysed daily; does this mean that it rained during 210 days within the 4 years?Response: In our original text, the expression of the sampling and laboratory analysis may be too shortcut. In the revised manuscript the statement of this part may be much clearer than the original one. And we hope these revisions and statements will be clearly understood:The rain samplings are described as “The wet deposition samples are collected daily, but the daily samples are pooled to weekly samples prior to chemical analysis”. The throughfall samples are described as: “At weekly intervals, the collected throughfall volume in the 16 collectors per plot is pooled and weighed. Chemical analysis for throughfall is done at monthly intervals in pooled samples”.。
responsetoreviewercomments
1.2.3.Dear Prof. XXXX,4.5.Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees aboutour paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).6.We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submithere the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.7.If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let meknow.8.9.Sincerely yours,10.11.Dr. XXXX12.13.Response to Reviewer 1:14.Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according toyour comments:15.1. XXXXXXX16.2. XXXXXXX17.18.19.20.2.21.22.Dear Professor ***,23.24.Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)25.26.by ***27.28.Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and adviceof the above paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it.29.30.After carefully studying the reviewer’ comments and your advice, we have madecorresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.31.32.If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. Myemail account is ***, and ***, and Fax is +***.33.34.Yours sincerely,35.36.Detailed response to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s advice37.38.Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We havelearned much from it. Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.39.40.(1)41.(2)42.(3)43.(4)44.(5)45.(6)46.47.Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.48.49.Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of ourmanuscript.50.51.52.53.3.54.55.The manuscript is revised submission (×××－××××) with new line and pagenumbers 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.56.Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.57.58.List of Major Changes:59.1).........60.2).........61.3).........62.63.Response to Reviewers:64.1).........65.2).........66.3).........67.68.Response to Reviewer XX69.70.We very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuablesuggestions of the reviewer. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments can be summarized as follows:71.72.1) XX73.2) XX74.75.Detailed responses76.77.1) XX78.2) XX79.80.81.82.4.83.84.Dear editor XX85.86.We have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX” by XX. Accordingto the comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript. The revisedmanuscript and the detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewer are attached.87.88.Sincerely yours,89.90.XX91.92.93.94.5.95.96.Response to Reviewer A97.98.Reviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealed himself to beProfessor 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 .99.100.Response to Specific Points101.102.What 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. 103.104.Response to Specific Points- Reviewer A:105.106.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 isa 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.107.108.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 experiencein 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". Ican only say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can be used to make the case.109.In the words of Wolfgang Khler: (1961, p. 7)110.111."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."112.Wolfgang Khler (Khler 1923 p. 64)113.114."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 gra……….., . ProfessorLaboratory of Plant Nutrition andEcological Environment Research,Huazhong Agricultural University,Wuhan, 430070,E-mail: .....................Jun 10, 2009RE: HAZMAT-D-09-00655Dear Editor，We would like to thank the editor for giving us a chance to resubmit the paper, and also thank the reviewers for giving us constructive suggestions which would help us both in English and in depth to improve the quality of the paper. Here we submit a new version of our manuscript with the title “………………………”, which has been modified according to the reviewers’ suggestions. Efforts were also made to correct the mistakes and improve the English of the manuscript. We mark all the changes in red in the revised manuscript.Sincerely yours,……………….., . Professor-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The following is a point-to-point response to the two reviewers’ comments.Reviewer #1:General comments:Reviewer #1: The paper presents an interesting experimental investigation to assess the photocatalytic degradation of polyethylene plastic with goethite under UV irradiation. The research work is clearly presented but the conclusions, the introduction and other parts of the paper relate the results obtained with unjustified claims about the impact of the work.In addition, the background information provided in the introduction part needs significant enrichment. In particular:Answer: Thank you for the comments on the paper. We have revised the manuscript as suggested since we consider that some sentences or descriptions in the Conclusion part are not so accurate based on the results.Page 3, line 46: recycling is not available…Even though a large amount of agricultural plastic waste in burnt or buried in the fields, some quantities of specific categories of good quality agricultural plastic waste are recycled in several countries while research efforts and projects are in progress to improve the corresponding percentage. The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature.Answer:Yes. Your opinions inspired us and we revised the manuscript accordingly. In the revised paper, the sentence “Recycling is not available for economy,” was changed to “In order to reduce costs, the thickness of application agriculture films in some regions in China is less than mm result in diffcult to recycle, And because the process of recycling is expensive and time-consuming, only a small percentage of the agricultural plastic waste is currently recycled at the end of cultivation in China [4]”(Page 3 line 49-52).Page 3, line 76: biodegradable and photod egradable….There are developments in the area of biodegradable materials that indicate the opposite. Concerning photodegradable materials, they are not considered to represent a solution as they have not been proven to bebiodegradable. The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature.Answer: Thank you for reminding us the improper description on the study. We have the improper parts revised accordingly and hope that this new manuscript will be convincing ( Page 3 line 52-55).Page 4, line 65: find an eco-friendly….The best eco-friendly disposal for agricultural plastic waste is recycling and for non-recyclable materials, energy recovery. Degrading materials produced from fossil sources is not an eco-friendly disposal! The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature. Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that some of the descriptions in the previous copy were really not so accurate and a little bit arbitrary due to our poor English level and the study on recent literature. After consulting more references, we therefore revised paper to be more reasonable and convincing.Page 4, line 66: to carbon dioxide and water….Conversion of fossil oil based materials into carbon dioxide and water is much worse than converting renewable-based materials into carbon dioxide and waterAnswer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that this description in the previous copy were not accurate, due to our poor study on recent literature. The sentence “it is very important to find an eco-friendly disposal of plastic waste where they degrade to carbon dioxide and water under the sunlight irradiation without producing toxic byproducts.” has been deleted.Page 6, line 112: volatile products….Define the products.Answer: We have defined the volatile products in Page 6 line 124-125.Page 9, line 185: eco-friendly disposal….The claims of the authors that this technique is an eco-friendly one are not justified. The conclusions and other parts of the paper need to be rewritten and limit the scope of the presented research work to the technical objectives without deriving unjustified general conclusions and claims about the impact of this work.Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that this description in the previous copy were not accurate. The sentence “The development of this kind of composite polymer can lead to an eco-friendly disposal of polymer wastes.”was changed to “The present paper intends to study goethite as photocatalytst for degradating plastic. Further attention could be focused on the application of the technique.” (Page 9 line 192-194).Reviewer #3:1. Title and abstract should indicate that the work has been done with PE-Goethite composite film.Answer: Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. We agree and therefore change the title to: Solid-phase photocatalytic degradation of polyethylene–goethite composite film under UV-light irradiation.2. Please revise the first paragraph of 'Introduction'. It is difficult to understand. In general, the language of the paper should be revisited.Answer: The Introduction part has been rewritten both in contents and in English. We particularly revised some sentences since they are not correct or so confusing.3. Materials and methods - Details of the chemicals to be furnished Answer: The r eviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the details of the chemicals has been shown in Page 4 line 79-83.4. Characterization are required for PE (Molecular weight, grade) and Goethite prepared (particle size, BET surface area, SEM-EDS and XRD) Answer: The re viewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the characterization for PE has been shown in Page 4 line 79. The Goethite prepared (particle size, BET surface area, SEM and XRD) has been reported by Liao et al. (2007), We clarify that in the revised manuscript in Page 5 line 91-93.5. A schematic diagram of the experimental set up to be given Answer: The r eviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and a schematic diagram of the experimental has been given in Fig. 1 in the present paper. The original Fig. 1. was changed to Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.6. Results - A rate equation should be proposed from the time-weight data Answer: The r eviewer and editor’s suggestion s have been adopted and the rate equation a schematic diagram of the experimental has been given in Table. 1in the present paper.7. A few data are required to show the influence of process parameters such as goethite loading, intensity of UV radiation.A nswer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the influence of goethite loading has been shown in Fig. 2 in the present paper. And the influence of intensity of UV radiation has been shown in Fig. 3 in the present paper. The original Fig. 2 was changed to Fig. 4 and The original Fig. 3 was changed to Fig. 5 in the present paper.8. Until other intermediates are isolated, upto Eqn.(7) (line 162) is sufficient.Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and We changed the Eqns as recommended. Eqs. (8)-(12) are deleted and Eqn.(7)was change to “–(CH2CH2)– + .OH → degradationproducts” (Page 9 line184).9. Figure 3 and 4: 3 pairs are required, namely (i) Only PE film before and after irradiation, (ii) PE-Goethite film %) - before and after irradiation (iii) PE-Goethite film wt %) - before and after irradiation. Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the original Fig. 3 and 4 was changed to Fig .5 in the present paper.10. Point 3 above is also applicable for SEM photographs. Please rearrange and clearly mark the difference between the films before and after irradiation for both SEM and FTIR results.Answer: Thank the reviewer and editor’s for the comments. During the revision of the paper, we did a supplementary experiment got some new SEM photographs, which has been shown in Fig. 4 in the present paper. And The FTIR results has been rearranged in in the present paper, respectively.11. It should be clearly mentioned in the conclusion that the degradation was more when goethite loading and intensity of light both were more Answer: The r eviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the conclusions has been changed in Page 9 line 192-198.。
Responsestocomments(英文期刊审稿意见回复)
Dear Editor-in-Chief in XXXXXXX:Thank you very much for your help in processing the review of our manuscript (Manuscript ID XXXXX). We have carefully read the thoughtful comments from you and reviewers and found that these suggestions are helpful for us to improve our manuscript. On the basis of the enlightening questions and helpful advices, we have now completed the revision of our manuscript. The itemized responses to the reviewers’ comments are listed in the succeeding sheets. We hope that all these corrections and revisions would be satisfactory. Thanks a lot, again.1.Title: XXX2.Manuscript type: Article3.Corresponding author: XXX4.Full author names:XXXSincerely,Prof. XXXSchool of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,XX Key Laboratory of Controllable ChemistryReaction & Material Chemical Engineering,XX University,Wuhan, Hubei, 430072 , P R China.2015-03-05Responses to comments of EditorThank you for your serious and constructive comments on our manuscript. According to your suggestion, the manuscript has been revised as a letter to editor. The revisions we have made are as follows:➢ 1 Subtitles "5. Conclusions", "6. Acknowledgments", and "7. References" should be revised into "4. Conclusions", "Acknowledgments", and "References", respectively.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.The relevant subtitles have been revised in the revision.➢ 2 In the section of the References, title of cited paper should be removed, and in ref.35 the superfluous comma should be deleted. Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.All the titles have been removed as you required and the superfluous comma in ref.35 has also been deleted.➢ 3 Numerous relevant papers have been published in recent years especially in 2014 and 2015. Some key, important or/and latest research results in this field, should be mentioned and cited in the section of introduction instead of outdated or earlier papers so that we can provide a solid background and progress to the readers regarding the current state-of-knowledge on this topic. Therefore, I strongly require you to rewrite this part and then update your citations.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.We have rewritten the section of introduction and updated corresponding citations as you required. In detail, some recent and excellent researches have been cited in the revision to replace those of earlier papers which are no longernovel.➢ 4 Any changes or revisions in the text should be highlighted by different color in the revised manuscript compared with that of the previous version.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.All the changes and revisions have been highlighted by cyan.We have revised our manuscript againWe have made further modifications on the manuscript, especially the introduction section. The latest revisions are highlighted by green, while previous changes are highlighted by cyan.To be specific: a) Some adjustments about sentence structures have been made to increase the diversity of expression.b) The second example about N-doped carbon materials is relatively early research result published in 2009. Thus we have replaced it with a lasted and outstanding paper.c) The unique effects of S-doping have been expounded in the revision to correspond to the effects of N-doping introduced above.d) In addition to rewriting the part of introduction as you required, we have also polished and revised the chapters of experimental, results and discussion, conclusions and updated the section of references.The initial examples about N-S-codoped carbon materials (references16 and 17) are earlier results published in 2012 and 2013. Thus we have replaced them with some lasted and outstanding papers.。
论文的response
论文的response前段时间投稿了一篇综述，在收到意见的时候人差点背过去，小小大概30多条意见，当场裂开。
历尽艰辛，修改好论文，写好Response，发给导师看，结果被导师劈头盖脸一顿骂：你这个意见回复，审稿人看都不用看你的论文，直接给你拒掉！由于是第一次回复审稿意见，出现这样的状况，实属难免。
在导师的悉心指导下，这几天终于完成了投稿。
结合这段时间的经历和网上关于Response回复的博客，总结了一些有关于回复审稿意见的技巧和方法，希望可以给读者们一些启发！步骤：1.仔细阅读审稿人的每一条意见，并对审稿意见进行分类；2.结合自己的论文，仔细揣摩审稿人的意图，尝试记录下每一个意见的解决方案；3.依据审稿意见修改论文；4.撰写Response。
回复原则：1. Response开头接下来简述自己对文章的改动：自己现在来看觉得写的简单了些，为了获得审稿人的好感，应该写的充实一些，建议大家对自己的主要修改进行提炼，写于最后：In our revisions, we paid specific attention to 1).... , 2)......, 3)......., and 4).......2. 接下来是针对审稿人的具体意见进行回复3. We gratefully thanks for the precious time the reviewer spent making constructive remarks.4. We feel sorry for the inconvenience brought to the reviewer.5. Thank you so much for your careful check.6. We totally understand the reviewer's concern.7. Thank you for pointing out this problem in manuscript.9. Thank you for the above suggestions.10. It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……11. We are very sorry for our negligence of ……...12. We he re-wri tten this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion13. We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...15. As Reviewer suggested that……16. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we he ……这个时候一般会出现审稿人对于整篇论文的一个评价，只要你的论文有一定的价值，都会收到审稿人的一些肯定的描述：那么这个时候我们要感谢审稿人对你的肯定：Response:当审稿人觉得你的论文没有太多的价值，他想reject你的论文的时候：In this manuscript, the authors proposed a survey study, reviewing the applications of ***, in the framework of ****. Thisis a critical topic and the number of research studies that came outin the last 2 years is immense; however, the number of recent papers included in this survey are quite low, which negatively effects the timeliness/currentness of the study. There are many critical issues related to the current state of the manuscript. Below,I list my specific concerns/issues:大家也不用慌，只需要感谢他的意见就好：Response:好的，到了这一步，我们就要开始直面恐惧，那就是逐条逐点的回复审稿人提出的具体的意见。
response用法
response用法
response是一个英语单词，它源自拉丁文“respondere”，意思是“回应，回答”，是一个非常常见的词汇，用于表达对某人说话或
行动所做出的反应。
它主要指某人对他人所说或所做之事作出的反应，可以是用口头或肢体语言表达的。
response可以用作名词和动词。
作为名词时，它通常指某人对
他人言行所作出的表示，而作为动词时，它表示某人回答或反驳他人的言行。
因此，response用法有以下几种：
1. response作为名词：在这种情况下，response指的是某人对另一人说话或行动之后的反应，无论是用口头还是肢体语言表达的，都可以叫做response。
例如：
She gave a positive response to his proposal.
她对他的提议给予了积极反应。
2. response作为动词：当用作动词时，response表示对他人所说或所做之事作出的回答或反驳。
例如：
He responded quickly to the question.
他迅速回答了这个问题。
3. response作为表达方式：response还可以用作非语言方式，例如礼貌性地鞠躬或点头表示肯定，以及摇头表示否定。
总之，response是一个常用词，它可以用作名词和动词，表达
某人对他人说话或行动所作出的反应，可以是用口头语言表达的，也可以是用非语言方式表达的，例如礼貌的鞠躬或点头或摇头，只要它
表达了自己的态度或立场，都可以叫做response。
如何回复审稿人意见(Response to Reviews)
Dear Editor,We have studied the valuable comments from you, the assistant editor and reviewers carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:Responds to the rev iewer’s comments:Reviewer 1Comment 1: in page 3, line 40, we fed rats..." changed to rats were fed with... Response: According to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected the sentence. Furthermore, we have had the manuscript polished with a professional assistance in writing.Comment 2:page 25. The style of reference 40 is not right (using initials for the first names). Since this paper has been published, the volume and page Nos should be provided.Response: Thank you for your careful work. We have added the volume and page numbers for reference 40.Reviewer 2Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the criticisms with additional experiments. The one criticism that they did not address was relating to energy expenditure as the reason that the animals on the low calcium diet gained more weight. While I understand that performing this experiment will not affect the conclusion of this manuscript, I do believe that this point could be discussed in the Discussion section.Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. Based on the previous revision, we further address the relationship between low calcium diet and energy expenditure in the section of discussion according to your thoughtful comments.Reviewer 3Comment 1: In the text you often write: “As previously described”. Unless that paper is from your lab or one of the method paper co-authors is on the present MS this is not quite proper since the statement infers method development from your lab. There are numerous instances like that in the methods section; these should all be changed “according to those described by…..”Response: We are sorry for this language mistake. We have carefully corrected this phrase throughout the manuscript according to your comment.Comment 2: There are still some wording, sentence structure and grammatical issues even in this basically well put together MS. For example, while authors may have been excited about the data you cannot start a sentence with “Excitedly” in line 418 or “Whatever” in line 395.Response: Thank you very much to point out the sentence structure and grammatical issues in our manuscript. According to the comments from you and the editors, we polished the manuscript with a professional assistance in writing, conscientiously.Comment 3:In my view a big omission in this work is ignoring the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues. For example all animals consumed the same amount of feed but we had extra fat storage in the low Ca diet groups. So where did the extra energy go? Zemel et al (citation 34) in similar work indicate that increased thermogenesis on the high Ca diet explains the dissipation of dietary energy. Further even though Zemel et al (#34) indicated lipogenesis was enhanced in the low Ca diets that was in 2000 and you should have monitored expression of FAS and UCP either as mRNA abundance or actual FAS/UCP changes via proteomics or blotting techniques. In any case these controls are missing here and not emphasized in the MS. Casual reading of this paper would lead to the conclusion that the dietary Ca effect on fat deposition is strictly a function of increased or decreased lipolysis. While lipolysis appears to be a major player, lipogenesis and thermogenesis cannot be ignored for completeness. In Fig 8 you also show a decline in cAMP for the low Ca diet. Well beta agonists or cAMP enhancers regulate transcription of adipose and liver FAS (in rats (J Biol Chem 271:2307, 1996) and recently with large animal models (Hausman et al J Animal Science 87:1218, 2009 and Halsey et al J Animal Science 89: 1011, 2011). In additioncAMP levels could have been monitored. I really do not like the last sentence in the Abstract line 47-50 where you state that “low calcium diet-induced increase in fat mass was due to enhanced lipogenesis mediated by an upregulated CaSR signaling pathway” Your results here show no such thing, this is a completely false statement based on data herein. Correct. You show that high Ca diets enhance lipolysis and low Ca diets are antilipolytic. You did not monitor lipid anabolism here at all. See also line 255-257 and lines 333-335 of your MS. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. As you suggested that the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues should be monitored. We really agree with your viewpoints. In the present study, we did find that low calcium diet increased the mRNA level of fatty acid synthase (FAS) in white adipose tissue. Furthermore, the FAS mRNA level were also increased in adipocytes after treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3in in-vitro experiments. However, the increased FAS mRNA levels were not affected by preventing either the nuclear vitamin D receptor (nVDR) or calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR), suggesting that FAS might not be involved in the CaSR pathway. In addition, we thought that FAS played its role in fatty acid synthesis mainly in liver previously. Besides, the manuscript was required to restrict number of total words and our previous focus was on the antilolytic role of CaSR in the process of fat accumulation. So we ignored to provide the data of FAS mRNA levels in the submitted manuscript. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the mRNA levels according to your helpful suggestion.We have reported the effects of dietary calcium on UCP2 mRNA levels in adipose tissue and UCP3 in skeletal muscle in our previous studies (1, 2). Thus, we believed that low calcium diet led to decreased thermogenesis in the present study. It was a pity that we did not measure the rat core temperature in those studies. The UCP2 mRNA levels in adipocytes were observed to be decreased after treatment of 1,25-(OH)2D3. This effect was prevented by using nVDR CaSR gene silencing but not by CaSR gene knockdown, suggesting that UCP2 was not involved in CaSR pathways. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the UCP2 results.Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are very sorry for our fault statement in the abstract. We have corrected it in the new manuscript.Comment 4: A point that does not emerge well from the discussion is how low Ca intakes result in higher intracellular [Ca] concentrations and really the effects on fatdeposition in the cells in many ways are due to an increased intracellular Ca level mediated via CaSR expression increases and the effect of VitD3 on nVDR show in Fig 8. The authors must remind readers that Ca levels in the blood are under hormonal regulation (Calcitonin, PTH and VitD3). Thus when diets low in Ca are consumed and blood Ca decline, PTH and VitD3 are called upon to mobilize bone Ca to replenish the blood Ca. Then coupled with an increase in CaSR more Ca actually is found in AT despite the fact that many would think the AT Ca level should decline. The reason is that tissue/circulating Ca levels are not diet depended but regulated. The vast bone stores of Ca will provide ample Ca here especially during a study of this length. While authors address these issues maybe could be presented in a less complicated discussion.Response:Thank you for your instructive suggestions. We are sorry for not describing the effect of low calcium diet on intracellular calcium concentrations mediated by CaSR, as well as the impact of hormone regulation on serum calcium levels clearly. According to your helpful advice, we have rewritten these two parts in the section of discussion. Thank you again.Comment 5: Not all citations are in JN styleResponse: We have careful recheck and corrected the style of the citations according to the requirement of JN.Comment 6: Abstract conclusion differs from lines 255-257 and 333-335; WHY? Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The conclusion from lines 255-257 is about the effect of low calcium diet on serum levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) and lipids. We considered FFA and glycerol as indicators of TG hydrolysis in adipose tissue. The low calcium diet caused decreased serum FFA and glycerol levels without influencing lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity, so we thought the lipolytic effect of adipose tissue to be suppressed by low calcium diet. The conclusion from lines 333-335 was about the effect of 1,25-(OH)2D3 whose levels were increased under low calcium conditions on lipolysis. We used the glycerol level as the indicator of TG hydrolysis in adipocytes. Both the in vivo and in vitro experiments showed low calcium status caused an antilipolytic effect.Comment 7: Line 150-153. The qRT-PCR methodology is not at all understandable as you cite a Texas A&M published paper. This is completely insufficient with the newly established standards on gene expression via qRT-PCR. There is no mention of efficiencies of amplifications in these data nor how the use of the reference gene was established etc. I think Pfaffl and Bustin have recently written an article on this; please totally revise 150-153 in line with what you did and applying the new standards.Response: Thank you very much. Because the JN restricts the number of total words of manuscript, we cited the Texas A&M published paper. In the newly submitted manuscript, we describe the detailed protocols in our lab.Comment 8:Line 179 on Not clear as in sentences talk about different AT cell sources etc..revise.Response: We are sorry for not addressing the adipose tissue cell sources clearly. We have rewritten the methods.Comment 9: Any previous documentable work with siRNA?Response: Yes, we have documentable work with siRNA in our research team. The results were published in the journal of Biochem Biophys Res Commun (3).Comment 10: Line 214.. Cultured primary rat adipocytes and SW872 adipocytes ……Response: Thank you very much. According to your comment, we have had the manuscript polished and corrected the mistakes.。
对评论的英语作文
对评论的英语作文Title: The Art of Responding to Comments。
In today's interconnected world, comments play apivotal role in shaping our online discourse. Whether on social media, blogs, or news articles, comments offer a platform for individuals to express their opinions, engage in discussions, and provide feedback. As such, mastering the art of responding to comments is essential forfostering constructive dialogue and building meaningful connections within online communities.First and foremost, it's crucial to approach comments with an open mind and a willingness to engage respectfully, even in the face of disagreement. Responding defensively or dismissively can escalate tensions and hinder productive conversation. Instead, strive to acknowledge the commenter's perspective, validate their feelings, and express gratitude for their input, regardless of whether you agree with it.Furthermore, effective comment responses demonstrate active listening and a genuine effort to understand the commenter's point of view. Take the time to read their comment thoroughly, consider the underlying message, and respond thoughtfully. Asking clarifying questions orseeking clarification can help ensure that you grasp the commenter's intent accurately.Moreover, maintaining a positive and courteous tone in your responses is paramount. Avoid resorting to personal attacks, sarcasm, or hostile language, as this can alienate the commenter and detract from the discussion. Instead, strive to cultivate a welcoming atmosphere where diverse perspectives are respected, and constructive dialogue flourishes.In addition to fostering dialogue, responding to comments presents an opportunity to provide further information, address concerns, or clarify misunderstandings. If the commenter raises valid points or offers valuable insights, acknowledge them and incorporate them into yourresponse. Likewise, if the comment contains inaccuracies or misconceptions, gently correct them with factual information and sources where appropriate.Furthermore, leveraging comments as a springboard for deeper discussions can enrich the overall conversation and foster community engagement. Encourage follow-up comments, invite others to share their perspectives, and explore different facets of the topic together. By nurturing an environment where everyone feels heard and valued, you can cultivate a vibrant online community built on mutual respect and intellectual exchange.However, it's essential to exercise discernment and discretion when responding to comments, particularly those that are inflammatory, abusive, or spammy. While engaging with dissenting opinions is constructive, engaging with trolls or malicious actors only amplifies their negative impact. In such cases, it may be more prudent to ignore or report the comment rather than dignify it with a response.Ultimately, the art of responding to comments lies infostering meaningful connections, promoting understanding, and advancing constructive dialogue within online communities. By approaching comments with empathy, humility, and a commitment to respectful engagement, we can harness the power of online discourse to bridge divides, challenge assumptions, and cultivate a more inclusive digital environment.。
如何正确回复审稿人：标准的Response to reviewer
如何正确回复审稿人：标准的Response to reviewer在审稿意见回来之后，如何写一份标准的Response to reviewer！这篇Response to reviewer是投稿到International Journal of Pharmaceutics杂志，给审稿人写的回复意见，内容仅供参考！第1部分：对审稿人进行称呼；第2部分：总述对文稿的修改情况（一般如果文稿进行润色了，最好在这里提及一下），以及夸夸审稿人（夸夸他的意见或者建议很好，对稿件的提升很大，千万不要和审稿人顶，不是干这个事情的时候），对稿件的期待；第3部分：（标明）1#审稿人；第4部分：1#审稿人的第一个问题（将审稿人的问题复制进来即可，排版好）；第5部分：1#审稿人的第一个问题的回复意见（谨慎认真，不可敷衍了事）；第6部分：2#或者其他审稿人第7部分：感谢语（可自由发挥）第8部分：通讯作者名称，日期，机构等信息。
011）正确的心态成就正确的回复在回复审稿人意见之前，先庆祝一下你的研究论文已经走到同行评审这一步了吧~还要对百忙之中抽出时间来审阅你论文的审稿人们怀一颗感恩的心！2）在回复审稿人之前，先修改稿件当你准备好以专业、客观的方式处理审稿人的意见时，先和你的共同作者们讨论一下评审意见的内容，共同商量决定要接受哪些修改，反对哪些修改。
修改完论文之后再开始给审稿人写回复。
3）回复细节首先，感谢审稿人花时间审阅你的稿件。
然后，表明你已经解决了他们提出的所有问题。
回应审稿人的意见并不意味着你全部按照审稿人建议的修改。
而是意味着：这些建议你认真考虑过后，有的做了修改，有的没有修改但是会解释原因。
列出所有审稿人的意见以及你对每条意见的回复。
使用不同的字体或文字颜色来突出你的回答，使文本易于查看。
4）不要直接回复yes 或no。
即使是被要求做一些小的修改，比如改正拼写错误的单词，你可以说“We 've corrected the typo.”。
- 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)。
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The following is a point-to-point response to the three reviewers’ comments, and responses are in blue.------------------------------Responses to Reviewer 2Review Comments: This paper claims the improvement on BMIA/CAG method. However, all speed and memory improvements of BMIA depend on the assumption of the surface roughness can be ignored compared to the surface thickness, which make the work in this paper like only the simplified version of BMIA, and no new idea or algorithm is proposed and implemented.Response:The BMIA/CAG method is specified for single rough layer. In fact, we didn’t find any article about applying BMIA/CAG method for stratified rough surfaces because of the complexity of calculations of coupling interactions and programming. In stratified rough surfaces case, the coupling interactions between surface points can be divided into two kinds: 1) when the two points are on the same surface, which is the case in the BMIA/CAG, the treatment to them is the same as in the BMIA/CAG; 2) when the two points are on different surfaces, the difference in equations of interactions makes the calculation very complicated, which also brings difficulties into programming. The second kind of interactions only exists in the stratified rough surfaces case and has not been discussed in the BMIA/CAG. In our paper, the new idea in GBMIA is proposed to deal with the second kind of interactions.By the improvement in the GBMIA, the proposed method is efficient and suitable to study scattering behavior of large-scale stratified rough surfaces with following two advantages:a) The memory requirement of GBMIA is less than BMIA/CAG, which also reduces the matrix filling time. This part has been discussed in original paper, and is arranged in an individual section (Section III) in revised paper.b) The coefficient matrix in GBMIA has the form of block diagonal matrix, as shown in Eq. (18), and the corresponding matrix equation has a parallelizable structure. With the utility of the parallel implementation technique, the computation time is reduced significantly. This is an important contribution of GBMIA. In Section III, we have also added comparisons and discussions on this topic.Secondly, it is not very clear whether GBMIA is specified for single surface or stratified surface. In the introduction, it says BMIA/CAG is efficient for single surface but much more complicated and inefficient for stratified rough surfaces, and use GBMIA to overcome this problem. But in part D (Generalized BMIA) in Section II, at beginning introduces the Taylor series expansion for only one surface (z_0=0). If GBMIA is to improve BMIA for stratified surface case, why introduce the simplified Taylor expansion for one surface? Also this one-surface-simplification is not the contribution of this paper, why in the conclusion say this implementation is one way of improvement of the new method (GBMIA)?Response:Maybe the arrangement in original paper causes confusion in understanding. The GBMIA is specified for stratified surfaces.To make it clear in the revised version, the discussion on Taylor series expansion has been arranged in an individual section (Section II-D), and a specific example has been also given to describe the complexity of BMIA/CAG in stratified surface case, which makes the simplification in our work valuable.In revised paper, Section II-D has explained the expanding of coefficient matrix in detail, which also answers the question of “one-surface-simplification”mentioned in comments. In BMIA/CAG for single surface, all surface points are on the same surface. Elements in the matrix which represents the coupling interactions between them can be expanded at z_0=0. In stratified surfaces, Elements describing the coupling interactions between surface points on different surfaces should be expanded at some z_0 other than 0. The change of z_0 from 0 to some different value increases the complexity of both programming and calculations. This problem is also illustrated with an example in Section II-D. Then the GBMIA proposed in Section II-E devotes to reduce the complexity in expanding matrix elements at some z_0 other than 0, which only exists in stratified surface case.Therefore, the authors should consider about and clarify the improvement and contribution of generalized BMIA, and should explain clearly and carefully about what objective to be solved and the strategy of the new method.Response:We have studied your comments and made correction carefully in revised paper. In conclusion, the GBMIA is proposed to deal with coupling interactions between two points in stratified rough surfaces which are different from and more complicated than those in single surface case. The BMIA/CAG is only efficient in treating with the interactions between two points on the same surface. For two points on different surfaces that never mentioned in the BMIA/CAG, a new implementation is proposed in our paper, with which the memory requirement is reduced and the parallel technique can be introduced to reduce the computation time. These improvements make the proposed method suitable for studying scattering behavior from large-scale stratified rough surfaces. We hope your questions have been clearly explained and our efforts meet with your approval.Special thanks to you for your good comments. They are valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches.。