Reviewer Comments
Reviewer Comments
3.Does the paper contain material that could be omitted?
5.Does the Conclusion refer to the impБайду номын сангаасrtant findings of the work?
6.Is the English of the paper satisfactory?
7.Is the title of the paper well formulated?
General conclusion
8.Is the Abstract of the paper informative and concise?
9.Are the Highlights of the paper reflecting the content?
10. Are all the references to relevant published work included? Are the references recent?
4.Does the Discussion present a complete, detailed and accurate description of the results? Does the Discussion present a convincing and sufficient justification of the results?
4.1.Does the Discussion present a complete, detailed and accurate description of the results?
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
Dear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Realtime Monitoring of Xylitol Fermentation by Micro-Raman Spectroscopy”(LANL-2014-0001). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The ma in corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:1. Response to comment (Reviewer 1): (The proposed method was established with the lack of the process of the optimization. The curve was adopted to illustrate the changes of absorption peak in the process of fermentation, but the absorption peak couldn’t be confirmed the identical to the reference peak of xylitol. It needs more data to prove the reliability of the method)Response: C onsidering the Reviewer’s suggestion, the experiment of high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is added to verify the reliability of the Raman data. Raman paek is a kind of inelastic scattering paek（not absorption peak）, Raman spectrum of the standard xylitol and xylose solutions was uesd to selecte the most appropriate characteristic bands of xylitol and xylose for our experiment based on their comparative strength without overlap with other bands.2. Response to comment(Reviewer 1): (The literature data(table 1) was used inthis paper, but different shifts and strength would be obtained using different Raman spectrometers, so data shall be carried out according to the experimental results in the support of literature.)Response: different experimental conditions has a great influence on the peak intensity. but little effect on the peak raman shift, This is the basis of the Raman qualitative.3. Response to comment(Reviewer 1): (The references shows different styles.)Response:The format of the reference has been corrected.4. Response to comment(Reviewer 2): (The medium is a complex mixture and includes yeast extract. Y east extract will contain many of the characteristic Raman peaks that the authors ascribe to the yeast cells.)Response:every sample of yeast cells pallet had been washed twice（suspension and centrifugation）to ensure impurity elimination, in addition , yeast extract is obtained after plasmolysis and complete hydrolase autolyzed, remove the cell wall and insoluble productsaccording to the production process of yeast extract. so the process for purifing the yeast cells pallet is reasonable.5. Response to comment(Reviewer 2): ( The spectral resolution is stated to be 1.2 cm-1; however, the spectra are smoothed....No details of the smoothing algorithm used are provided. This affects the spectral resolution.. )Response:we added the processing methods of Raman spectra in section of Data analysis.6. Response to comment(Reviewer 2): (In Figure 3, the peak at 866 cm-1 .....into xylulose via xylitol as intermediate." (page 7 lines 21 to 32))Response:We try to correct the deficiencies in this passage. We think this is necessary to theoretically verify the Raman consistent with the fact that we know. Also ralate to the discussion on the by-products.8. Response to comment(Reviewer 3): ( It is said that inorganic salt is an important factor for the fermentation process (Page 3, line 36), but there is no discuss or exploration about this)Response: inorganic salt is an important factor for the fermentation process，but the effect of inorganic salt is not the focus of the article，the concentration of inorganic salt is adjusted to the most suitable conditions for this strain according to the reference.9. Response to comment(Reviewer 3): (Figure 4 was used to illustrate the changes of biological macromolecules, but all the Raman peaks here were not clear) Response:Figure in the first draft of the paper has a problem in the export size by Origin8.5，and we have modified the size of resubmitted figure to ensure better view of peak.10. Response to comment(Reviewer 3): (The assignment of bands in table 1 all depended on lectures.)Response:The Raman characteristic bands of biological macromolecular are common-sense conclusion in this field, in fact, almost all articles involved biological Raman bands of Biological macromolecule have direct quoted these conclusions. three examples were list as below :Schuster K C, Urlaub E and Gapes J R. 2000. Single-cell analysis of bacteria by Raman microscopy: spectral information on the chemical composition of cells and on the heterogeneity in a culture. Journal of microbiological methods. 42(1): 29-38.Başar G, Kın S. 2008. Monitoring of spectroscopic changes of a single trapped fission yeast cell by using a Raman tweezers set-up. Optics Communications. 281(19): 4998-5003.Xie C, Li Y. 2003. Confocal micro-Raman spectroscopy of single biological cells using optical trapping and shifted excitation difference techniques. Journal of Applied Physics. 93(5): 2982-2986.We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Revie wers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.Y oursSincerelyZhen Huang。
英文综述审稿意见
英文综述审稿意见【篇一：英文论文审稿意见汇总】英文论文审稿意见汇总以下12点无轻重主次之分。
每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。
1、目标和结果不清晰。
it is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical english editing paying particular attention to english grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
◆ in general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.◆ furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：the conclusions are overstated. for example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：a hypothesis needs to be presented。
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.。
【意见】审稿人意见及回复模板
【关键字】意见审稿人意见及回复,模板篇一：SCI 审稿意见回复范文论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B （一种病毒）所投杂志：Life Sciences投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表编辑信内容（注：有删节）：Dear Mr. XXX,Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below.If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures.A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission.You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file in the Attach Files area.We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript.To submit a revision, go to and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.Yours sincerely,Joseph J. Bahl, PhDEditorLife SciencesFormat Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check the format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style.Reviewers' comments:Reviewer #1:XXXXX （略）Reviewer #2:XXXXX （略）Editors note and suggestions: （注：编辑的建议）Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English>>>Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the antiviral effects of A against virus B.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.A, an alkaloid isolated from C (注：一种中草药), was tested for antiviral activity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays along with serum pharmacological experiments showed A to have potent antiviral activity. The pharmacokinetic profile of A in Sprague/Dawley rat plasma after oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to study potential changes in antiviral pharmacodynamics as measured by infectivity of viruses. From the similarity of the serum concentration profiles and antiviral activity profiles it is concluded that A it self, rather than a metabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1st paragraph >>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the plant, its structural formula is shown in Fig 1. ... While it produced a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggest a potential use in the treatment of viral myocarditis against virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and animals.>>>The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors (example given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloid)>>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., XX)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., XX)>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex question of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future research aim in the discussion section.>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend thewording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.>>>>> reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Because I think that you can deal with all of the points raised I am hoping to see a revised manuscript that you have carefully checked for errors. If you have questions or do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please contact me at bahl@ Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences作者回复信原稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,I’m （注：正式信函不要简写）very appreciate （注：不适合作为给编辑回信的开始，同时有语法错误）for your comments and suggestions.I （注：实际上是学生做的）have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments again （注：要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作）. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic slices （注：用词错误）were calculated（注：用词不当）. Production of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-γand TNF-αwere （注：语法错误）measured by RT-PCR.I have revised this manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comments and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE. Title of manuscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth.Answers to Reviewers’ questions were as follows: （注：可附在给编辑的回复信后）Reviewer #1:XXXXXReviewer #2:XXXXXEditors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth（注：多处语法错误）.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.Answer: I have revise the abstract carefully to make it more smooth and informative（注：语法错误）.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Answer: I have paid attention to this question and it is clearer （注：不具体）. Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I have revise the whole paper to make sentences less passive and obtained help of my colleague proficient in English （注：语法错误，句子不通顺）.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: I’m very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spelling errors （注：不必道歉，按建议修改即可）. I have carefully corrected them.The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., XX) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., XX)Answer: I changed the style of references.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +-SD.Answer: （注：作者请编辑公司帮回答）reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardiac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those misspelling and confusing statements （注：一般不是延误或人为失误，不必轻易道歉，按建议修改即可）. Your comments and suggestions really helped me a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can be satisfactory.If there’s （注：正式信函不要简写）any information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to contact me.Thank you again for your time and patience. Look forward to hear （注：语法错误）from you.Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)建议修改稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,Thanks you very much for your comments and suggestions.As suggested, we have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. Mortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.We have revised the manuscript, according to the comments and suggestions of reviewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the comments as listed below. Since the paper has been revised significantly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlight the amendments in the revised manuscript （正常情况最好表明修改处）.The revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by a medical editing company in Hong Kong.I would like to re-submit this revised manuscript to Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal.Looking forward to hearing from you soon.With kindest regards,Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)Replies to Reviewers and EditorFirst of all, we thank both reviewers and editor for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions.Replies to Reviewer #1:Xxxxx （略）Replies to Reviewer #2:Xxxxx （略）Replies to the Editors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contmeporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine against Coxsackievirus B3 and its pharmacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.篇二：教你审稿意见回复信怎么写教你审稿意见回复信怎么写来源：医学论文——达晋医学编译达晋医学编译小编知道大多数的稿件在被期刊接受前需要经历至少一次修稿，作者在收到大修或小修的决定后，必须根据审稿意见修改论文，然后将修改稿重新递交给期刊，同时附上逐点回复，在返还修改稿的时候，还需要递交cover letter，这封信通常称为response letter(回复信)或rebuttal letter(反驳信)。
Response to the Reviewers ' Comments
Comment 2. The proposed CitrusDB should not be a stand-alone e ort, but should be integrated
into existing genome databases.
Answer. This CitrusDB will not be a stand-alone system. To access data at other gene databases,
Answer. As mentioned above, a metasearch method will be used for simultaneous accessing sev-
eral gene databases, and an integrated result (after comparison) will be presented.
for citrus. Can't the PIs use the available databases such as MaizeDB as a template for CitrusDB?
Answer. We will use other gene databases, e.g., MaizeDB, as a template for CitrusDB to save
如何回复审稿人意见
如何回复审稿人意见：意见1：1.所有问题必须逐条回答。
2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。
3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。
4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。
5. 老师说的4点，确实很有道理。
不过审稿人提出要补充的实验，如果不是非做不可的，还是可以进行解释。
我也为国外的杂志审过稿，有时审稿人即使想接受你的文章，总还要提出一些不足之处，如果文章没有那些不足之处，也许文章就会投给更高IF的杂志了。
所以，如果你真的不想补充实验或者补充很困难，可以合理的解释，一般没问题的。
国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而过关，原因见少帖）。
还因为：很少杂志编辑把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。
编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定一般杂志（影响因子1-5）。
我常用的回复格式，呵呵。
Dear reviewer:I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.引用审稿人推荐的文献的确是很重要的，要想办法和自己的文章有机地结合起来。
至于实验大部分都可以不用补做，关键是你要让审稿人明白你的文章的重点是什么，这个实验对你要强调的重点内容不是很必要，或者你现在所用的方法已经可以达到目的就行了。
最后要注意，审稿人也会犯错误，不仅仅是笔误也有专业知识上的错误，因为编辑找的审稿人未必是你这个领域的专家。
只要自己是正确的就要坚持。
在回复中委婉地表达一下你的意见，不过要注意商讨语气哦！我的回复，请老外帮忙修改了Dear Editor:Thank you for you r kind letter of “......” on November **, 2005. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments.Part A (Reviewer 1)1. The reviewer’s comment: ......The authors’ Answer: .....2. The reviewer’s comment: ......The authors’ Answer: .....Part B (Reviewer 2)The authors’ Answer:Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised.All the lines and pages indicated above are in the revised manuscript.Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.Sincerely yours,具体例子1：这是我的一篇修稿回复，杂志是JBMR-A,影响因子3.652,已发表，供参考！Reply to the comments on JBMR-A-05-0172Comment:Reference #10 is missing from the Introduction but used much later in the manuscript. Should these be in order used in manuscript?Reply:The missing reference has been added into the revised manuscript.Comment (continued):What is the sample size for all tests performed?Reply:The sample size for drug release and PCL degradation tests was 3.0×3.0 cm2, with a thickness of about 0.1mm and a weight of about 40mg. This dada have been added into the revised manuscript.Comment (continued):Figure 7. There is no scientific evidence presented in the TEM figure to convince this reviewer of sub-jets. This statement on Page 9 cannot be made without clear evidence during the jet formation/separation. Figure 7 is just a large fiber and small fiber fused together, no other conclusion than this can be made.Reply:Necessary change in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript as well as in the referred figure accordingly.Comment (continued):Table 3: Need standard deviation for all values reported not just for a select few.. Equation after Table 3 not necessary. Just reference method used.Reply:Done accordingly.Comment (continued):Page 11: "faster weight loss" What was the sample size? Where is the statistical analysis of this data? This reviewer does not see a significant difference in any of the data presented, thus weight loss would be considered equivalent.Reply:Although not too much difference was seen, the conclusion that “the GS/PCL membrane exhibited a relatively fa ster weight loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane” was indeed applicable through “one-way analysis of variance (ANOV A)” analysis.Following the reviewer’s comment, a new sub-section has been added to the manuscript to address the statistical analysis for the data.Comment (continued):Page 12: What is the sample size for release data? Looks like results based on a sample size of one? Need stand deviations on the data presented in Figure 11.Why wasn't release performed and compared for all electrospun conditions investigated otherwise?Reply:Three repeated tests were performed for each set of measurements and the resulting data were averaged. As stated in the revised manuscript, each sample had a square area of 3cm2 with a slightly different thickness. 3Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11.The present manuscript aimed to show that medical drugs can be encapsulated in ultrafine fibers through a co-axial electrospinning process. The drug release data intended to show that the encapsulation was successful. We did not consider any specific application in this preliminary paper, and in fact the two drugs were just chosen as model illustration. As such, there seemed not necessary to perform release experiments for all of the membranes electrospun with different conditions (i.e. the core concentrations)Comment (continued):Table 3: Yang's or Young's Modulus (page 10 says Young's).Reply:Corrected accordingly.Comment (continued):Figure 11: What is the % release, not just concentration. Why just this small sample of release data? Where is the release data for the other conditions?Reply:Unfortunately, we did not measure the amount of the shell material in obtaining the composite nanofibers. Namely, the flow rate of the shell solution during the electrospinning was not accurately controlled using an injecting pump. Hence the % release was not applicable.Please refer to the previous reply related to Page 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments. We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.具体例子2：Major comments:1. The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMPsecretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive controlprogenitor cell population i.e. enriched human CD34 cellsobtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a more clinicallyrelevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown tosecrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 enriched cellsfrom steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs arealso of interest.2. In fig 1C please specify which cell line representsMMP-negative cells. This needs to be clarified, as well as abetter explanation of the method of the protocol.3. The ELISA results are represented as "fold increase" comparedto control. Instead, we suggest that standards should be used andresults should be presented as absolute concentrations and onlythen can these results be compared to those of the zymography.4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguishclearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration.Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained with cordblood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34enriched cells and discussed.5. The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed todetermine the optimum concentration for inhibition of MMPactivity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however theyshould clarify that this assay can only determine the toxicity ofthe inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations.Minor comments:1. There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in theresults and discussion, which need correction.a. Of special importance, is the percent inhibition of migration,which is described as percent of migration. i.e. pg 7:"Migrationof CB CD34 was reduced to 73.3%?" Instead should read"Migration of CB CD34 was reduced by 73.3%?"b. The degree symbol needs to be added to the numbers inMaterials and methods.2. It would be preferable to combine figure 1A and B, in order toconfirm the reliability of fig. 1B by a positive control(HT1080).Answer to referee 1 comment:1. Mobilized peripheral blood is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it is necessary to compare the MMP-9 secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn't obtain enough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’t complement the study on PB CD34+ cells in this paper. Results obtained by Janowska-Wieczorek et al found that mobilized CD34+ cells in peripheral blood express MMP-9. Furthermore, Domenech’s study showed that MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSF induced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusion from our data is that freshly isolated CD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9.2. MMP-9 negative cell used in fig 1C was Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis, MMP-9 was notdetected in the medium conditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, we screened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. This result may be confusion. Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml (since the purities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9 activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion be detected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cells conditioned medium is due to the contamination by MNC.3.In this revised paper, we have detected the MMP-9 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System, sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Recombinant MMP-9 from R&D System was used as a standard. The results are expressed in the absolute concentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectable in both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higher in CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium than in BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium (0.406±0.133ng/ml versus 0.195±0.023ng/ml). Although gelatinolytic activity was not detected in media conditioned by CD34+ cells from BM, sensitivity of ELISA favors the detection of MMP-9 antigen in the BM CD34+.4. In our study, to establish the direct link between MMP-9 and CB CD34+ cells migration, we only determined the role of MMP-9 in spontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoietic stem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison to CD34+ cells from BM and peripheral blood.5. CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. It is not enough to screen the inhibitors concentrations to select the optimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations used by others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicity of the inhibitors in that concentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay.Minor comments:1.The spelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected.2.Since the results in figure 1A and B were obtained from two separated and parallel experiments, it is not fitness to combine two figures.下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。
英文期刊回复审稿人意见-参考模板2
Response to Reviewer 2 CommentsPoint 1: In the beginning of the paper it is mentioned that VSFs have high failure probability (e.g. lines 6, 49), but it is not specifically mentioned why is that until line 88, and I am not sure if this is the only explanation. I know that it is obvious to the authors and to some readers, but it would be good for the general clarity of the paper to shortly mention why.Response 1: Thank you for your careful review. NFV deploys VNFs on commodity (e.g., x86) servers, which improves the flexibility of resource allocation and enhances the scalability of networks. However, the vulnerability of VNF introduces significant challenges to the reliability of SFCs. The factors that lead to VNF failures are complex and diverse. For example, hardware failures associated with processor, memory, storage, and network interface, or software failures associated with host operating systems, hypervisor, virtual machines, and VNF software configuration will cause SFC failures. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 45-49, page 2).Point 2: For the same reasons please shortly define "end-to-end delay" (lines 10, 53, 63, etc)Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. As suggested by reviewer, we have added the suggested content to the manuscript(Lines 59-61, page 2). The end-to-end delay of an SSC defined in this paper includes the VSF processing delay on the substrate node and the transmission delay on the substrate link.Point 3: The use of english in the whole paper should be improved. Specifically. please clarify-modify: a) "we measure the importance of the physical nodes carrying the VSF instance and back up VSF according to it."b) "came into being"c) line 43 delete "and"?d) line 54 "loss" of what?e) "Its efficiency Depends on neighbor production and temperature management, etc."f) "Dedicated backup is to allocate dedicated physical resources for the VNF to be backed up,"g) "Then, link the backup node into the SSCs."Response 3: We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript. The language presentation was improved with assistance from MDPI for English editing.a)“we measure the importance of the physical nodes carrying the VSF instance and back up VSF according to it.”-->“we measure the importance of the physical nodes carrying the VSF instance and backup VSF according to node importance of VSF.”b)"came into being"--> ”were created”1c) ”and there is very little work to embed security services ...”--> “and very little work is required to embed security services ... ”d) “It speeds up the security service response by reducing the end -to-end delay of SSC.”--> “This speeds up the security service response by reducing the end -to-end delay of the SSC.” e) “Its efficiency Depends on neighbor production and temperature management, etc.”--> “This efficiency of this method depends on neighbor production, temperature management, etc.” f) “Dedicated backup is to allocate dedicated physical resources for the VNF to be backed up,”--> “Dedicated backup is used to allocate dedicated physical resources for the VNF to be backed up,” g) “Then, link the backup node into the SSCs.”--> “Then, the backup node is linked to the SSCs.”Point 4: Throughout the paper the authors do not always insert a space after punctuation marks.Response 4: We apologize for the format problems in the original manuscript. We have examined it carefully and insert a space after each punctuation mark.Point 5: The notation is overall acceptable, but should be improved. E.g. section 2.2.1 what is "s" in G_s?, what is X in n_x?. In Table 1 and Eq. 1 please change "Delay" to a symbol. Also in Eq. 1 please change Maxobj to formal mathematical notation. The same in Eq. 3 (Minbackup - cost). Also consider changing ωSSC and MoN_fk.Response 5: We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. In section 2.2.1, “s ” in G_s denotes substrate and “X ” in n_X denotes the total number of substrate nodes. In Table 1 and Eq. 1, we have changed “Delay ” to “D_sum ”. We also have changed Maxobj and Minback-cost to formal mathematical notation. As forSSC ω and c k f MoN , the notation c ω denotes the reliability requirement of c S so we use SSC ωdenotes the set of SSCs that do not meet reliability requirement. c kf MoN denotes the node importance of VSF c k f .Point 6: It would be good to provide some details about the procedure of VSF backup (section 3.3.2) and not just give the algorithm 3.Response 6: We deeply appreciate the reviewer ’s suggestion. According to the reviewer ’s comment, we have added more details about the procedure of VSF backup.Step1: calculate the reliability of all SSCs in the result set},...,,{21c O O O O =. If SSC c O does not meet reliability requirementc ω, we will put c O in set SSC ωand put all the VSF c kf that makes up SSC c O into set VSF ω.Step2: calculate the node importance of all VSFs in set VSF ω and backup VSF with the largest c kf MoN value.Step3: After backup VSF c k f , we recalculate the reliability of all SSCs in setVSF ω.If SSC c O meets reliability requirement c ω, we will delete the SSC c O and all the VSF that makes up SSC cO from set SSC ω and VSF ω rsespectively.Step4: judge whether set SSC ω an empty set. If ∅=SSC ω, return to step2, otherwise it means that the reliability of all SSCs is met and the algorithm ends.Point 7: I believe that the results and the graphs are adequately explained. However it would be good to include some details on the Reinforcement Learning algorithm: how much training time is required to achieve the performance that is presented at the results?Response 7: Thank you for your comment, and our reply is as follows:According to the method described in section 3.2.2, we initialize the model, and the parameter settings are shown in Table 2. After each 60 learning rounds of the agent, the greedy coefficient e decreases by 0.1. After 300 learning rounds, the agent will completely adopt the greedy strategy. The overall training process takes 38.49s, and the convergence process is shown in the figure4. In the figure, the horizontal axis represents the number of learning rounds of the agent, and the vertical axis represents the average time steps when each learning round reaches the minimum end-to-end delay of SSCs.。
SCI回复审稿人的回信技巧
SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。
这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。
好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。
下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。
首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。
在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。
但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。
这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。
因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。
第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。
跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。
审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。
如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。
大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。
尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。
有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。
正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。
所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。
这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。
对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。
审稿意见英文回复范文
审稿意见英文回复范文Reviewer Comments and Author Response.Reviewer 1。
Comment 1:The introduction lacks a clear statement of the research question and hypothesis. The authors should revise the introduction to provide a more focused and specific overview of the study.Author Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the introduction to include a more explicit statement of our research question and hypothesis:Revised Introduction:In this study, we investigate the relationship between sleep quality and academic performance in university students. Previous research has shown that sleep deprivation can have a negative impact on cognitive function, including attention, memory, and problem-solving skills (e.g., Pilcher & Walters, 2010). However, the majority of this research has focused on children and adolescents. There is a lack of research on therelationship between sleep quality and academic performance in university students.The purpose of this study is to examine therelationship between sleep quality and academic performance in university students. We hypothesize that there will be a negative correlation between sleep quality and academic performance, such that students who report better sleep quality will have higher GPAs.Comment 2:The methods section is not sufficiently detailed. The authors should provide more information about theparticipants, the measures used, and the procedures followed.Author Response:Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the methods section to provide more detail:Revised Methods:Participants.Participants were 100 university students (50 male, 50 female) who were recruited from a large public universityin the southeastern United States. Participants wereeligible for the study if they were at least 18 years old and currently enrolled in at least one college-level course.Measures.Sleep quality was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), a self-report questionnaire thatmeasures sleep quality over the past month. The PSQI has been shown to be a reliable and valid measure of sleep quality in university students (e.g., Buysse et al., 1989).Academic performance was assessed using students' self-reported GPAs. Students were asked to report their current GPA on a scale from 0.0 to 4.0.Procedures.Participants were recruited for the study through online advertisements and flyers posted around campus. Interested participants were screened for eligibility and then completed the PSQI and the GPA questionnaire online.Comment 3:The results section is difficult to follow. The authors should reorganize the results and present them in a more logical manner.Author Response:Thank you for your suggestion. We have reorganized the results section to make it more logical and easier to follow:Revised Results:The mean PSQI score for the sample was 6.5 (SD = 3.2), which indicates that the participants had relatively good sleep quality. The mean GPA for the sample was 3.2 (SD =0.5).There was a significant negative correlation between sleep quality and academic performance, such that students who reported better sleep quality had higher GPAs (r = -.25, p < .05). This relationship was consistent across genderand year in school.Comment 4:The discussion section does not adequately discuss the implications of the findings. The authors should expand thediscussion to include a more in-depth discussion of the implications of the findings for students, educators, and policymakers.Author Response:Thank you for your feedback. We have expanded the discussion section to include a more in-depth discussion of the implications of the findings:Revised Discussion:The findings of this study have several implicationsfor students, educators, and policymakers. First, the findings suggest that sleep quality is an important factor in academic performance. Students who get better sleep are more likely to have higher GPAs. This suggests that students should make an effort to get enough sleep, even when they are busy with schoolwork.Second, the findings suggest that educators can play a role in promoting sleep quality among their students. Forexample, educators can encourage students to establish regular sleep schedules, create a relaxing bedtime routine, and avoid caffeine and alcohol before bed.Third, the findings suggest that policymakers should consider the importance of sleep quality when making decisions about educational policies. For example, policymakers could consider implementing policies that allow students to get more sleep, such as later schoolstart times or more flexible class schedules.Reviewer 2。
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.。
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.。
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.。
如何回复审稿人意见-审稿回复
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见令狐采学Response to Editor and Reviewer这是我的英文修改稿回复信Dear Editor,RE: Manuscript IDWe would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments.Below is our response to their comments.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorresponding Author下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答：一些习惯用语如下：Revision —authors’ responseReviewer #1:Major comments1.The referee correctly noted that our language about XXX was ambiguous. Therefore, we changed the text and the figures to emphasize that …. To further support the concept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted in Supplementary Fig. S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations of XXX in results and discussion sections. We have added new findings (see above point) in Supplementary Fig S. to support…3.As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (Supplementary Fig.) that summarizes…Minor comments1.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title.2.We have added and improved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2.3.We have added statistics to Fig 5C.4.We have corrected the typescript errors in the XXX paragraph.Reviewer #2:1.Because of the reviewer’s request, we have performed new experiments to better clarify… The new Fig. shows that… This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify the point that…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s re quest we have used XXX to confirm that… The new data are depicted in Supplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed the efficiency of RNAi by quantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supplementary Fig.Reviewer #3:1.Because of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 into the new Figure 6 and we have added new experiments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that….2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied…. The new data are depicted in Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper has shown that …. We have added this reference and modified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. The previous one was too week and the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDF format.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much as possible the magnification in order tomaintain the same scale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statistically significant. In order to better clarify this issue we changed the graphics of our statistical analysis in Fig.另外一篇5分杂志的回复：1nd Revision –authors’ responseReferee #1:We want to begin by thanking Referee #1 for writing that “the finding in our manuscript is generally interesting and important in the field.” We also appreciated the constructive criticism and suggestion. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below.1.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiment demonstrating…; in the new experiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performed in XXX by comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effect of ….is due to …. To address the referee’s comment, we revised Fig. and demonstrated that…. To further confirm…. Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks to the referee’s comm ent, the wrong figure numbers were corrected in the revised manuscript. Referee #2:We want to thank Referee #2 for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below.1.The referee reco mmends to show…. We performed the experiment and its result is included in the revised Fig.2.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. were repeated several times and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1, above. As stated above, we have included new results, which include:4.All minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordingly.2nd Revision –authors’ responseWe would like to thank the referees for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s co mments.Referee #1:Referee #1 request two minor editorial changes. Both changes have been made accordingly in the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We sincerely apologize to Referee #2 for not completely addressing all of the points raised in the previous response. We have done so below and added additional data in hopes that this reviewer will be supportive of publication.1.Referee #2 requests evidence that …. According to the referee’s suggestion, a XXX assay was performed inXXX cells to demonstrate that …. The result is presented in Fig.2.Page 17, “the” E3 was changed to “an” E3.3.Referee #2 asks whether…. We would like to note that we investigated ….in our previous study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in this manuscript we focused on ….。
SCI英文论文审稿意见汇总
SCI英文论文审稿意见汇总英文论文审稿意见汇总以下12 点无轻重主次之分。
每一点内容由总结性标题和代表性审稿人意见构成。
1、目标和结果不清晰。
It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。
◆ In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical me thods used in the study.◆ Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis 的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented 。
- 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)。
Criterion
Reviewer comments
1.Is the subject matter suitable for publication in Energy Conversion and Management?
2.Is the paper novel, original, clearly presented, and well organized? Does the paper adequately convey the uniqueness of its approach and related results, and their prospective.Does the Conclusion refer to the important findings of the work?
6.Is the English of the paper satisfactory?
7.Is the title of the paper well formulated?
4.Does the Discussion present a complete, detailed and accurate description of the results? Does the Discussion present a convincing and sufficient justification of the results?
2.6.Does the paper adequately convey the prospective impact of the research on the research community?
3.Does the paper contain material that could be omitted?
8.Is the Abstract of the paper informative and concise?
9.Are the Highlights of the paper reflecting the content?
10. Are all the references to relevant published work included? Are the references recent?
10.1.Are all the references to relevant published work included?
10.2.Are the references recent?
11.Are all the Illustrations and Tables informative, well presented, and needed?
General conclusion
4.1.Does the Discussion present a complete, detailed and accurate description of the results?
4.2.Does the Discussion present a convincing and sufficient justification of the results?
2.1.Is the paper novel?
2.2.Is the paper original?
2.3.Is the paper clearly presented?
2.4.Is the paper well organized?
2.5.Does the paper adequately convey the uniqueness of its approach and the related results?