(完整word版)回复审稿人意见模板
chatgpt回复审稿人意见模板
chatgpt回复审稿人意见模板
回复审稿人意见时，需要尊重审稿人的意见，同时清晰地表达自己的观点和回应。
以下是一个可能的模板，您可以根据自己的需求进行修改：
尊敬的审稿人：
非常感谢您的宝贵意见。
我们已经仔细阅读了您对我们稿件的审稿报告，并对您的意见进行了深入的思考。
以下是我们在您提出的问题和建议方面所做的修改和解释。
1. 关于您提出的XXX问题：
+ 回应解释：XXX
+ 修改说明：我们在稿件中进行了相应的修改和补充，详细内容请参见XXX 页。
2. 您对XXX部分提出了建议：
+ 回应解释：XXX
+ 修改说明：我们接受了您的建议，对XXX部分进行了调整，具体内容请参见XXX页。
3. 您对XXX的表述提出了疑问：
+ 回应解释：XXX
+ 修改说明：我们对表述进行了重新组织和调整，以更清晰地表达我们的观点。
具体修改请参见XXX页。
4. 您对XXX的理论基础提出了质疑：
+ 回应解释：XXX
+ 修改说明：我们重新审视了XXX的理论基础，并对其进行了更深入的解释和讨论。
具体内容请参见XXX页。
5. 您对数据分析和方法提出了建议：
+ 回应解释：XXX
+ 修改说明：我们根据您的建议对数据分析和方法进行了优化和改进，以提高研究的可靠性和准确性。
具体内容请参见XXX页。
再次感谢您对我们稿件的审阅和提出的宝贵意见。
我们非常重视您的反馈，并认为这些建议将有助于提高我们的研究质量。
如果您有任何其他问题或建议，欢迎随时与我们联系。
此致
敬礼！
作者姓名。
回复审稿人意见模板
Dear Editor and Reviewers:On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. we appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Thermal Process and Mechanism of Phase Transition and Detoxification of Glass-ceramics from Asbestos Tailings” (ID: NOC-D-18-01200).We have studied reviewers’ comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. The following are the responses and revisions I have made in response to the reviewers' questions and suggestions on an item-by-item basis. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewer!Response to the comments of Reviewer #1Comment No. 1: Page number should be included in the manuscript.Response:Thanks to Reviewer for reminder, we added the page number to the manuscript.Comment No. 2: Is it differential thermal analysis or differential scanning calorimetry? (Abstract)Response: The crystallization and phase change of the samples were investigated by thermogravimetry-differential scanning calorimetry (TG-DSC), and the results were shown in figure 2.Comment No. 3: Please clarify: "Asbestos tailings are tailings produced during the mining and beneficiation of chrysotile (fibrid asbestos)" Given the fact that chrysotile is carcinogenic please include in the Introduction part some aspects about health regulations/concerns to take care during synthesis of chrysotile containing materials. For instance, which is the safety/allowed threshold for chrysotile content in building materials? (Introduction)Response: It is really true as Reviewer mentioned that due to the hazards of chrysotile, the use of chrysotile containing materials have been banned completely in many countries, and for the recycling of chrysotile containing materials, there are some legal restrictions which I have added to the section of Introduction. There are some safety hazards in the synthesis and use of asbestos-containing materials inevitably, however this concern doesn't exist in our experiment, because the samples prepared in the experiment are completely free of asbestos, which is explained in the response to Reviewer#2 below.Comment No. 4: Magnification within 1000-500 range included in the experimental part, but x5000 magnification is met in Figs 6. (Experimental characterization) Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of mistakenly writing the magnification range as 500-1000 in the experimental characterization, actually the magnification range is 500-5000.Response to the comments of Reviewer #2Comment No. 1: Manuscript deals with transformation of unhealthy chrysotile (serpentine) into forsterite and /or enstatite-containing materials for decorative building purposes. However, chrysotile content of the obtained materials should be thoroughly controlled.Response: Thank you for your valuable comment, it is definitely a critical issue that chrysotile content of the obtained materials (glass-ceramics) should be thoroughly controlled. Actually, the chrysotile in serpentine starts at 600℃ and completely removes hydroxyl at 700℃ resulting the decomposition of original minerals and the disintegration of structure, and form harmless substances including amorphous silica and forsterite. So in the experiment, the fiber structure chrysotile can be completely destroyed after pre-firing at 700℃. Furthermore, in the thermal treatment of crystallization and sintering at higher temperatures, the residue that has not been completely decomposed can be further decomposed and totally converted into harmless phases including forsterite, enstatite, etc. by solid phase reaction and solid-liquid reaction. Ultimately, the product was entirely asbestos-free and which can be seen from the morphology of the samples in figure 6.Response to the comments of Reviewer #3Comment No. 1: Give some reference for the chemical content of Asbestos tailings for the benefit of the reader. (Introduction)Response: As Reviewer suggested that it is indeed better to give some reference for the chemical content of Asbestos tailings. Two reference (reference 2 and reference 3) were added to confirm the chemical content and phase composition of asbestos tailings. Comment No. 2: How do you distinguish between the main crystal phase and the subcrystalline phase?Response: we are sorry that we may have not expressed it clearly, the word “subcrystalline” used in my manuscript may be not accurate. I think it would be suitable to change it to the word “minor”. The content of different crystal phases in the sample were determined by rietveld refinement using GSAS, and the results are shown below (with the weight fraction of forsterite being 39.44%, enstatite 24.92%, diopside 21.18% and magnesioferrite14.45% respectively). According to the result, it can be seen that the main crystal phases are forsterite and enstatite, and the minor phases are diopside and magnesioferrite.Fig 1. Rietveld refinement of the sample crystallized at 850℃ and sintered at 1200℃Comment No. 3: English has to be immproved.Response : Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we will take great effort to modify the sentence to make it more professional. The portion of language modification are marked in green in the revised manuscript, and I hope it can meet with requirement. 10203040506070802 ( )R e l a t i v e i n t e n s i t y (a .u .) × ① ② ③ ④ CalcObsDiff ① ② ③ ④Forsterite 39.44%Enstatite 24.92% Diopside 21.18%Magnesioferrite 14.45%。
回复审稿人意见模板sci
回复审稿人意见模板sci编辑同学，我已经仔细阅读了您提交的审稿意见，并根据您的建议进行了相应的修改。
以下是我对每一条审稿意见的回复和相应的修改情况。
意见一：在文章的引言部分，需要更清晰地阐述研究的目的和意义。
回复：非常感谢您的指导意见。
在经过修改后，我在引言部分进一步明确了本研究的目的和意义，以便读者更好地理解研究的背景和重要性。
意见二：方法部分应该更详细地描述实验设计和数据处理。
回复：非常感谢您的建议。
我已经对方法部分进行了进一步的修改，增加了关于实验设计和数据处理的详细描述，以确保读者能够更好地理解研究的过程和数据的处理方法。
意见三：结果部分应提供更多的统计分析和图表，以更好地支持研究结果的可靠性。
回复：感谢您对结果部分的关注。
根据您的建议，我已经增加了更多的统计分析和图表，以更全面地展示研究结果的可靠性。
意见四：在讨论部分，需要进一步解释和解读研究结果，并与现有的文献进行比较和讨论。
回复：非常感谢您的指导意见。
我已经对讨论部分进行了修改，进一步解释和解读了研究结果，并与现有的文献进行了比较和讨论，以提供更深入的分析和解释。
意见五：在结论部分，需要对研究的局限性进行说明。
回复：感谢您对结论部分的指导。
在经过修改后，我已经在结论部分对研究的局限性进行了明确的说明，以确保读者了解到我们研究的限制和潜在的改进方向。
针对您给出的审稿意见，我认真对待并进行了相应的修改，以确保文章更加完善和准确。
再次感谢您花费时间仔细审阅我的稿件，并给予宝贵的指导意见。
我非常感激您对这项研究的关注和支持。
祝好，[您的名字]。
审稿意见修改回复
审稿意见修改回复
一、表示感谢
哎呀，审稿老师呀，看到您的审稿意见啦，真的特别感谢您这么认真地看我的稿子呢。
您给的这些意见对我来说就像是宝藏一样，能让我的文章变得更好。
二、针对意见的回应
1. 关于内容部分的意见
您说有部分内容表述不够清晰，我也发现这个问题啦。
就像我在解释那个概念的时候，可能用了一些比较复杂的句子，我现在已经重新写了，用特别直白的话来说，就像和朋友聊天一样解释这个概念，让读者一看就懂。
您提到有些例子有点老套，我也觉得是呢。
所以我就到处找新的例子，找的时候可费劲啦，不过最后还是找到了一些特别有趣又新鲜的例子，把之前的老例子都替换掉啦。
2. 关于格式方面的意见
您说我的段落排版有点乱，我自己看了看，确实是这样。
我就重新调整了一下段落，让每个段落的主题都更明确，就像给每个段落都穿上了整齐的衣服一样。
对于引用部分的格式，我之前可能没太注意，现在按照要求都规范好啦，还仔细核对了引用的文献，确保没有错误。
三、整体的改进方向
我知道我的文章还有很多需要改进的地方呢。
我会继续努力的，在以后写文章的时候也会更加注意这些问题。
我会让文章的逻辑更加清晰，内容更加丰富有趣，就像把文章打造成一个充满惊喜的小世界一样。
而且我也会多参考一些优秀的文章，学习人家的写作方法，争取让自己的写作水平蹭蹭往上涨。
再次感谢审稿老师您的宝贵意见哦。
如何回复审稿人的意见？（附回信模版）
如何回复审稿人的意见？（附回信模版）对于学术人来说，论文写作和投稿可谓是非常重要的事了。
我们对待文章就像对待自己的孩子一样，从孕育到落地再到成长，每一个时期都注入了作者大量的心血和时间。
从最初的论文写作到最终的投稿发表，最令人欣喜的莫过于直接接收或者审稿人给出了小修的意见，而最令人伤神的莫过于直接拒稿或者大修重新投稿。
编辑意见我们先来看看一般来说，编辑意见分为哪几种情况呢？通常来说，有以下几点：1. 直接接收除非你是学术界的大牛，除非你的论文是无可挑剔，除非你是「锦鲤」，一般而言，这种情况很少存在，尤其是对于影响因子比较高的期刊，文章不退修个几稿，都不好意思说自己是个负责任的好期刊。
2. 直接拒稿由于论文的选题方向不符合、由于论文的数据选择有问题，由于论文的语言表述不恰当等等原因，期刊直接拒稿，这对于作者来说莫过于是最大的打击。
3. 给出修改意见给出修改意见分为小修和大修。
小修说明得到了审稿人和编辑的肯定，可能会让改一些格式、修正一些语法等，修改比较简单，只要认真对待你就等着交版面费吧。
大修说明文章需要伤筋动骨，可能需要补充实验或理论证明，大修比较困难，尤其是一些审稿人意见让你无从下手不知所措。
所以，被毙的风险很大。
4. 重新投稿比大修要严重一些，说明你的文章实在是存在很多很关键性的问题，需要打乱重新组稿，编辑老师比较仁慈想再给你一次重新投稿的机会，但这个机会很渺茫。
如何应对审稿人意见对于给出审稿人修改意见的文章而言，我们需要怎么回复呢？1. 态度端正、礼貌谦和一篇文章从写作到见刊，辛苦付出的除了作者之外，还有审稿人编辑老师等。
审稿人也是需要花费很长的时间去阅读你的文章，甚至是查阅资料之后对你的文章做出评论并给出审稿意见。
如果文章存在的问题比较多，那么审稿人的修改意见有可能就有几千字之多，由此可见审稿人对你的文章也付出了很多。
所以，在回复审稿人意见时要写几句感谢的话，感谢审稿专家的专业意见，感谢编辑部的辛勤付出。
有效回复审稿人的意见模板
有效回复审稿人的意见模板一、修改稿Cover letterDear Dr/ Prof..（写上负责你文章编辑的姓名，显得尊重，因为第一次的投稿不知道具体负责的编辑，只能用通用的Editors）: On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号).We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.We would like to express our great appreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××二、修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Th ank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Respond s 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: ××××××。
(完整word版)回复审稿人意见模板
(完整word版)回复审稿人意见模板如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理）如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见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。
1.最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事；2. 绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想改投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story” 了。
以上指国际杂志修稿。
国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。
我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。
但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。
以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《科学进展》拒绝。
究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。
自我感觉总结（不一定对）：1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势；3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发；2）....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。
A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easycheck/editing purpose.Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.然后再附上Q/A，基本上嘱条回答，写的越多越好（老师语）。
中文审稿意见回复格式
中文审稿意见回复格式
以下是一个示例的中文审稿意见回复格式，供参考：
尊敬的编辑：
感谢您给予我关于XXX论文的审稿机会，我非常珍视这次机会，并对您的审稿意见表示由衷的感谢。
以下是针对您的审稿意见的具体回应：
1.针对审稿意见一：
问题描述：（简要概述审稿意见一中的问题）
回应与解释：（详细解释您对这一问题的看法和处理方式，可以包括
您对问题的理解、研究方法的改进、数据分析和解释等方面的回应）修改后的内容：（如果需要修改，可以在此处描述修改的内容和修改
原因）
2.针对审稿意见二：
问题描述：（简要概述审稿意见二中的问题）
回应与解释：（详细解释您对这一问题的看法和处理方式，可以包括
您对问题的理解、研究设计的改进、文献综述和讨论等方面的回应）修改后的内容：（如果需要修改，可以在此处描述修改的内容和修改
原因）
3.针对审稿意见三：
问题描述：（简要概述审稿意见三中的问题）
回应与解释：（详细解释您对这一问题的看法和处理方式，可以包括
您对问题的理解、实验方法的改进、结果和讨论等方面的回应）
修改后的内容：（如果需要修改，可以在此处描述修改的内容和修改原因）
4.其他需要说明的问题或补充信息：
（如果有其他需要补充或说明的问题，可以在此进行回应和解释）最后，我再次感谢您对我的论文的审稿意见和建议。
我将认真修改和完善论文，并希望能够在您的帮助下顺利发表。
如果您还有其他问题或建议，欢迎随时与我联系。
此致
敬礼！
XXX（作者姓名）。
回复审稿人意见
尊敬的编辑，您好！感谢您对我们文章《可生物降解多肽基因载体的构建与体外评价》（编号20160233）的关注。
根据审稿人提出的问题我们对文章进行了认真的修改，现将修改情况说明如下：一．对第一审稿人提出问题的回复问题：中文摘要用半胱氨酸合成不同交联度的硫辛酸修饰的载体，通过CCK-8法测定回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。
我们已对摘要进行修改精炼，见文中摘要红色字部分。
问题：英文摘要需要认真修改，大小写，语法等回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。
我们已对英文摘要进行认真修改，并注意语法和大小写的错误。
见英文摘要红色字部分。
问题：全文亦较多文字不通之处，如“当N/P=40时，LHR组与LHRss3具有统计学意义”。
回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。
文字不通处已修改，见红色字部分：前言第一段第二行；1.8部分第三行；问题：图4 A 文字与图内容不符回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。
我们已将图4A稳转部分改为flow cytometry figures，见2.4部分图4A红色字部分，此流式指数与图4B均在N/P40条件下进行。
第二审稿人一审意见：问题：前言建议适当精简；回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。
我们已按照要求对摘要进行修改，见摘要红色字部分。
问题：具体方法中涉及到的仪器，建议统一放在1.1部分；回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。
我们已按照建议将方法中涉及到的仪器统一放在1.1部分，见1.1部分第1-3行的红色字部分。
问题：LHRss多肽合成中，除了半胱氨酸采用不同摩尔分数外，（L-R6）（RRRRRR）和H3（HHH）肽及LA的量分别是多少？回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。
（L-R6）（RRRRRR）和H3（HHH）1：1通过固相合成法连接后继续以固相合成法在组氨酸的末端氨基连接上LA，整体采用按分子量1554.88与半胱氨酸按照摩尔比进行投料。
问题：采用两种质粒（pEGFP或pGL3）进行转染研究，但在凝胶阻滞电泳研究中只考察了一种质粒，那么另外一种质粒是否也是相同的N/P？回复：感谢并同意审稿人的意见。
sci回复审稿人意见模板 -回复
sci回复审稿人意见模板-回复尊敬的审稿人，非常感谢您对我们的稿件进行审阅，并提供了宝贵的意见和建议。
根据您的反馈，我们对您提出的问题逐一进行了回答，以便进一步改善和完善我们的研究成果。
[问题1：请解释清楚为什么选择该研究主题。
]我们选择这个研究主题是因为它与当前科学社会的重要问题密切相关。
该主题基于对地球气候变化以及环境持续变化的探索。
目前，环境问题受到了人们越来越多的关注，其中气候变化是其中最紧迫且引人注目的问题之一。
我们希望通过研究来深入了解气候变化的根本原因以及与之相关的因素，以帮助我们更好地应对这个全球性的挑战。
[问题2：请更加详细地解释您所使用的研究方法并说明其可靠性。
]在我们的研究中，我们采用了XX方法来分析和解读数据。
这种方法已经被广泛用于类似的研究，并已被科学界公认为有效和可靠的分析工具。
我们通过仔细收集和整理相关数据，并运用适当的统计方法来得出结论。
此外，我们还进行了多次重复实验，以增加结果的可靠性和重复性。
在数据分析方面，我们采用了严格的统计学方法来检验结果的显著性和可信度。
总体来说，我们相信我们所使用的研究方法是可靠的，并能够有效地支持我们的研究结论。
[问题3：请进一步讨论您的研究结果对该领域的意义和影响。
]我们的研究结果对于该领域具有重要的意义和影响。
首先，我们的结果可以帮助科学家和政策制定者更好地了解气候变化的机理和动力学过程。
这种理解是制定有效的气候变化应对策略所必需的。
其次，我们的结果还可以为相关领域的进一步研究提供有价值的参考和基础。
我们的发现可能有助于揭示与气候变化相关的其他未知因素，并为深入研究提供新的思路和方向。
最后，我们的研究结果还对公众有重要意义，因为它可以提高人们对气候变化问题的认识，并推动人们采取积极的环保行动来减轻其影响。
[问题4：请回答如何应对审稿人提出的其他一些具体问题和建议。
]根据您提供的其他建议，我们将按照以下方式来应对：a. 针对您提出的统计方法方面的疑问，我们将进一步详细描述我们所采用的方法，并解释其适用性和优势。
针对审稿人意见的逐条回复
针对审稿人意见的逐条回复：审稿意见一：1、作者在第二页第七行中提到“Serre等人利用这种方法成功地将布洛芬包裹到MIL-100里”是为了说明MOFs有较高的药物运载效率，所以此处应该明确介绍该文章中MIL-100的药物运载效率等信息。
回复：MIL（Materials of Institut Lavoisier）-100/ 101的每个大孔和小孔的负载量分别为92和56个药物分子，从而实现高效的药物运载。
该信息已补充到文章中相应位置。
2、作者在第二页第十三行中提到“Wei等人通过形成席夫碱的方式将具有氨基官能团的DOX 药物分子与金属有机骨架上的醛基官能团共价交联”，应该进一步解释该体系的药物释放机制，这样才能完全符合前文提到的三个特点。
回复：该体系药物释放机制是在酸性pH条件下实现药物释放药物。
该信息已补充到文章中相应位置。
3、作者在第二页第十六行中提到“这些生物大分子本身很难进入细胞，因此需要特定的载体将其运输进入细胞发挥功能”，应该引用相关参考文献。
回复：感谢审稿人的意见，已引用相关文献。
4、作者在第二页第二十行中提到“MOF-蛋白质复合物的形成方式可以分为：表面固定、共价交联、孔渗透、原位生长法等方式”，但是后文没有详细介绍表面固定和共价交联两种方式，因此在此处应该引用相关参考文献。
回复：感谢审稿人的意见，已引用相关文献。
5、文章中多处符号格式不正确，例如“。
”应为“.”、“-”应为“-”，请仔细检查并改正。
回复：感谢审稿人指出，已检查并改正。
6、1.4章节中提到的MOF的表面修饰方法的总结不够全面。
例如，还有利用无机材料进行修饰的方法等未被提及。
请补充。
回复：MOF的表面修饰还包括碳酸钙等无机材料，已补充到文章中相应位置：“此外，在MOF表面包裹无机材料（如CaCO3）,也可以提高材料的稳定性并实现药物的可控释放”。
7、MIL首次出现在第二页第七行中，而不是2.1章节中。
因此，其全称应该在首次出现时给出。
（完整word版）如何回复审稿人意见
（完整word版）如何回复审稿⼈意见如何回复英⽂论⽂编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer这是我的英⽂修改稿回复信Dear Editor,RE: Manuscript IDWe would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments.Below is our response to their comments.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorresponding Author下⾯是如何对Reviewer的意见进⾏point by point回答：⼀些习惯⽤语如下：Revision —authors’ responseReviewer #1:Major comments1.The referee correctly noted that our language about XXX was ambiguous.Therefore, we changed the text and the figures to emphasize that …. To furthersupport the concept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted in Supplementary Fig.S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations of XXX inresults and discussion sections. We have added new findings (see above point) in Supplementary Fig S. to support…3.As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (Supplementary Fig.) thatsummarizes…Minor comments1.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title.2.We have added and improved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2.3.We have added statistics to Fig 5C.4.We have corrected the typescript errors in the XXX paragraph.Reviewer #2:1.Because of the reviewer’s request, we have performed new experiments to betterclarify… The new Fig. shows that… This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify the pointthat…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s request we have usedXXX to confirm that… The new data are depicted in Supplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed the efficiency of RNAi byquantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supplementary Fig.Reviewer #3:1.Because of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 into the newFigure 6 and we have added new experiments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that….2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied…. The new data aredepicted in Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper has shown that …. Wehave added this reference and mo dified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. The previous one was too weekand the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDF format.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much as p ossible themagnification in order to maintain the same scale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statistically significant. In order tobetter clarify this issue we changed the graphics of our statistical analysis in Fig.另外⼀篇5分杂志的回复：1nd Revision –authors’ responseReferee #1:We want to begin by thanking Referee #1 for writing that “the finding in our manuscript is generally interesting and important in the field.” We also appreciated the constructive criticism and suggestion. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below.1.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiment demonstrating…; in the newexperiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performed in XXXby comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effect of ….is due to …. Toaddress the referee’s comment, we revised Fig. and demonstrated that…. To furthe r confirm…. Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks to the referee’s comment, the wrong figure numbers were corrected in therevised manuscript.Referee #2:We want to thank Referee #2 for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by thereviewer as summarized below.1.The referee recommends to show…. We performed the experiment and its result isincluded in the revised Fig.2.Acc ording to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. were repeated severaltimes and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1, above. Asstated above, we have included new results, which include:4.All minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordingly.2nd Revision –authors’ responseWe would like to thank the referees for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s comments.Referee #1:Referee #1 request two minor editorial changes. Both changes have been made accordingly in the revised manuscript. Referee #2:We sincerely apologize to Referee #2 for not completely addressing all of the points raised in the previous response. We have done so below and added additional data in hopes that this reviewer will be supportive of publication.1.Referee #2 requests evidence that …. According to the referee’s suggestion, a XXXassay was performed in XXX cells to demonstrate that …. The result is presented in Fig.2.Page 17, “the” E3 was changed to “an” E3.3.Referee #2 asks whether…. We would like to note that we investigated ….in ourprevious study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in this manuscript wefocused on ….。
(完整版)回复审稿人意见模板
如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理）如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见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。
以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。
续两点经验：1. 最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事；2. 绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想改投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story” 了。
以上指国际杂志修稿。
国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。
我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。
但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。
以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。
究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。
自我感觉总结（不一定对）：1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势；2）国内杂志编辑人员认真负责的人不多，稿子寄去后，少则几个月，多则一年多没有任何消息；3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发；4）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）。
欢迎大家批评指正。
我常用的回复格式: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.1）....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。
回复审稿人意见模板
Dear Editor and Reviewers:On behalf of my co-authors, we are very grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript. we appreciate you very much for your positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Thermal Process and Mechanism of Phase Transition and Detoxification of Glass-ceramics from Asbestos Tailings” (ID: NOC-D-18-01200).We have studied reviewers’ comments carefully and tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. The following are the responses and revisions I have made in response to the reviewers' questions and suggestions on an item-by-item basis. Thanks again to the hard work of the editor and reviewer!Response to the comments of Reviewer #1Comment No. 1: Page number should be included in the manuscript.Response:Thanks to Reviewer for reminder, we added the page number to the manuscript.Comment No. 2: Is it differential thermal analysis or differential scanning calorimetry? (Abstract)Response: The crystallization and phase change of the samples were investigated by thermogravimetry-differential scanning calorimetry (TG-DSC), and the results were shown in figure 2.Comment No. 3: Please clarify: "Asbestos tailings are tailings produced during the mining and beneficiation of chrysotile (fibrid asbestos)" Given the fact that chrysotile is carcinogenic please include in the Introduction part some aspects about health regulations/concerns to take care during synthesis of chrysotile containing materials. For instance, which is the safety/allowed threshold for chrysotile content in building materials? (Introduction)Response: It is really true as Reviewer mentioned that due to the hazards of chrysotile, the use of chrysotile containing materials have been banned completely in many countries, and for the recycling of chrysotile containing materials, there are some legal restrictions which I have added to the section of Introduction. There are some safety hazards in the synthesis and use of asbestos-containing materials inevitably, however this concern doesn't exist in our experiment, because the samples prepared in the experiment are completely free of asbestos, which is explained in the response to Reviewer#2 below.Comment No. 4: Magnification within 1000-500 range included in the experimental part, but x5000 magnification is met in Figs 6. (Experimental characterization) Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of mistakenly writing the magnification range as 500-1000 in the experimental characterization, actually the magnification range is 500-5000.Response to the comments of Reviewer #2Comment No. 1: Manuscript deals with transformation of unhealthy chrysotile (serpentine) into forsterite and /or enstatite-containing materials for decorative building purposes. However, chrysotile content of the obtained materials should be thoroughly controlled.Response: Thank you for your valuable comment, it is definitely a critical issue that chrysotile content of the obtained materials (glass-ceramics) should be thoroughly controlled. Actually, the chrysotile in serpentine starts at 600℃ and completely removes hydroxyl at 700℃ resulting the decomposition of original minerals and the disintegration of structure, and form harmless substances including amorphous silica and forsterite. So in the experiment, the fiber structure chrysotile can be completely destroyed after pre-firing at 700℃. Furthermore, in the thermal treatment of crystallization and sintering at higher temperatures, the residue that has not been completely decomposed can be further decomposed and totally converted into harmless phases including forsterite, enstatite, etc. by solid phase reaction and solid-liquid reaction. Ultimately, the product was entirely asbestos-free and which can be seen from the morphology of the samples in figure 6.Response to the comments of Reviewer #3Comment No. 1: Give some reference for the chemical content of Asbestos tailings for the benefit of the reader. (Introduction)Response: As Reviewer suggested that it is indeed better to give some reference for the chemical content of Asbestos tailings. Two reference (reference 2 and reference 3) were added to confirm the chemical content and phase composition of asbestos tailings. Comment No. 2: How do you distinguish between the main crystal phase and the subcrystalline phase?Response: we are sorry that we may have not expressed it clearly, the word “subcrystalline” used in my manuscript may be not accurate. I think it would be suitable to change it to the word “minor”. The content of different crystal phases in the sample were determined by rietveld refinement using GSAS, and the results are shown below (with the weight fraction of forsterite being 39.44%, enstatite 24.92%, diopside 21.18% and magnesioferrite14.45% respectively). According to the result, it can be seen that the main crystal phases are forsterite and enstatite, and the minor phases are diopside and magnesioferrite.Fig 1. Rietveld refinement of the sample crystallized at 850℃ and sintered at 1200℃Comment No. 3: English has to be immproved.Response : Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we will take great effort to modify the sentence to make it more professional. The portion of language modification are marked in green in the revised manuscript, and I hope it can meet with requirement. 10203040506070802 ( )R e l a t i v e i n t e n s i t y (a .u .) × ① ② ③ ④ CalcObsDiff ① ② ③ ④Forsterite 39.44%Enstatite 24.92% Diopside 21.18%Magnesioferrite 14.45%。
审稿人意见回复模板
审稿人意见回复模板
尊敬的审稿人，
首先，我们衷心感谢您对我们的稿件提出宝贵的意见和建议。
您的指导对我们的研究和论文的完善非常重要。
以下是我们对您提出的意见的回复：
1. 意见一：[在此处回复审稿人的意见]
我们接受您的意见，并在论文中进行了相应的修改。
我们已经对论文中存在的错误和不清晰之处进行了修正和澄清。
我们相信这些修改将有助于提高论文的质量和准确性。
2. 意见二：[在此处回复审稿人的意见]
我们衷心感谢您对我们的研究方法和实验设计提出的宝贵建议。
我们已经根据您的建议进行了修改，并在论文中详细说明了我们的方法和实验设计。
这些修改将有助于增加我们研究的可信度和可重复性。
3. 意见三：[在此处回复审稿人的意见]
我们真诚感谢您对我们研究的限制和不足之处的指出。
我们已经根据你的建议在讨论部分进一步讨论了这些限制，并提出了未来可能的研究方向。
我们相信这些修改将对进一步完善我们的研究起到积极的作用。
最后，再次感谢您对我们的稿件提出的意见和建议。
您的专业知识和经验对我们论文的提升起到了重要的作用。
我们非常重视您的意见，并认真对待每一条建议。
如果您对我们的修改和回复有任何疑问或需要进一步的解释，请随时告知，我们将尽力满足您的要求。
再次感谢您的审稿费和宝贵时间！
祝好！
此致，
[您的名字]。
审稿意见回复模板
审稿意见回复模板
您好，
非常感谢您在百忙之中对本文章做出审稿意见，我们非常重视您的反馈意见。
在接受审稿意见的基础上，我们为本篇文章做了如下改动：
（一）
相比原版，该文章将总体结构进行了调整，使其从各个角度、全面地论述了分析主题，突出了文章的主题思路。
为了体现文章的权威性，在审稿意见的基础上，我们还特别增加
了一些相关文献参考，以进一步增强本文的权威性和可信性。
在行文表达方面，文章比原版进行了更深入地改进，明确指出前言、主体内容，以及
结论的轮廓，更加一致、清楚地表述了文章的主要观点。
根据审稿的意见，本文中的专业
术语更加普遍和清晰，能更加有效地传达文章的观点，使文章的理论框架更规范化。
在改进的基础上，本文中的文献参考也做了相应的改进，以回应审稿意见，补充本文
的完整性。
最后，我们再次对您作出审稿意见表示诚挚的感谢，衷心希望通过审稿意见的持续贡献，能够使本文更加完美。
此致
敬礼
xxx。
（完整版）SCI审稿意见回复模板
（完整版）SCI审稿意见回复模板List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comme nt: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××......逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：We are very sorry for our negligence of ……...We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……We have made correction accordin g 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 in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.。
(完整版)审稿意见回复
Reviewer: 1Question: The paper is too long, distracted the focus.Response: Thank you for your question. We have deleted some needless words and highlighted in our manuscript.Reviewer: 2Question 1:What was the original starch material used for the experiments? It is not clear at all. Page 6, lines 3-4 and lines 39-40 must clearly state the starting sample (pulp from whole raw cassava roots? pulp from decorticated cassava roots? isolated cassava starch?). Specify also the processing of the starchy sample until it underwent the viscosity measurement (page 1 lines 1-2).Response: Thank you for your question. In our research, the original starch we used was commercial cassava starch, it is isolated cassava starch undoubtedly. In our paper, we mainly research the modified starch and its application in textile sizes. As to its initial processing, we did not pay to much attention, and the original cassava starch we bought was isolated in advance, so we did not process the commercial cassava starch until it underwent the viscosity measurement.Question 2: in Methods, there is a description gap between the production of powdered CLOC and its phosphatation. Please describe the intermediate handling of the CLOC powder before its mixing with sodium tripolyphosphate.Response:I am glad for you brought up the question. We had described it detailed as follow: 200 g of the CLOC (dry weight, the LCL is 370 AGU/CL) was dispersed in an aqueous sodium tripolyphosphate solution (the concentrations of the solution were 2.0, 4.0, 8.0, and 12.0% respectively, for the starches with the degrees of substitution of 0.08, 0.014, 0.024, and 0.038). Adjust the pH to 8 then stirred mechanically the dispersion for 30min at 40℃, then filtered, dried, pulverized and sieved for passing a 100 mesh-sieve. After the starch was further dried to moisture content < 8%, heated to 130℃, and reacted at this temperature for 90 min.Finally, the product was washed with an ethanol-distilled water mixture (1:1 by volume) until the filtrate shown none colour. The starch was filtered, dried at 50℃, ground and sieved for passing a 100-mesh sieve again.Question 3: the manuscript should provide an idea of the general validity for cassava starch of the properties described here for CLOC and phosphate-CLOC, as intrinsic starch characteristics vary importantly among different cassava varieties. For instance, there is ample variation in amylose-to-amylopectin ratio among cassava cultivars, even when cultivated at the same location (Mejia-Aguero et al, J Sci Food Agric 92 (3): 673–678, 2012). Please include in your discussion how that natural variability in A/AP in the substrate may affect the outcome properties of modified cassava starch preparations.Response: Thank you for your question. The amylose/amylopectin ratio (A/AP) strongly influences the physical properties of starch[1-3]. So the effects of A/AP on gelatinization, retrogradation rheological, and pasting Properties were researched vastly[4-5]. But in textile sizes agent application aera, the amylose and amylopectin in starch sizes have play important role respectively. The amylose have good film-forming ability and the film possess better toughness, and the amylopectin can provide good adhesion to fibers. We have tested the amylase content (AC) in starch before and after phosphorylated. The AC in CLOS is 10.2% (the OS is 16.3%), and the phosphate-CLOC is 8.9%, 9.5%, 11.1% and 10.8% for the DS is 0.008, 0.014, 0.024, 0.038. So we can see the CLOS phosphorylated modification showed little change on AC. Because the process of starch phosphorylated occurs predominantly in the amorphous regions of the structure, the introduction of phosphate group is happen in C6. So the A/AP in the substrate may have little effect on the outcome properties of modified cassava starch preparations. The mainly effect was the introduction of phosphate group.Question 4: the text discusses in two occasions a perceived role for amylose in the final properties of the modified cassava starch (page 15, lines 19-26 and page17, lines 24-29. This is noteworthy given the fact that, as a general rule, cassava starch exhibits the lowest amylose contents among natural conventional starches (far below 20%, see the aforementioned article by Mejía-Aguero et al). This apparent paradox must be considered in the Discussion.Response: This is a good question. In page 15, we use the amylose's retrogradation trendency to explain the starch sized is difficulty to remove by water. Though the amylose content is low in starch, but their effect on desizability is very big. Because the sizes added on warp must be remove completely before the fabric dyeing, finishing. A little residual will make great effect on post-processing of the fabric. So there is no paradox in our explanation. In page17, they have similar situation.Reviewer: 3Question 1: The language and grammar is confusing in many places in the paper. Response:Question 2: This is an interesting paper and quite well-prepared and clear. Response: Thank you for your high evaluation to our manuscripts.Question 3: My problem is with the generality of the scientific data.Response: The scientific data is general, but it shown that our experiment date can be explained if you view it from another point. That is our analysis for the experimental phenomenon is clear and the experiment date is credible.Question 4: Nowadays, the starch scientist and the researchers who using starch in theirs research are ready known the functionality of modified starch. Functional properties of starch after it was oxidized, crosslinked, and substituted on to starch granule or starch molecules can easy expected. What's so the novelty of this manuscripts?Response:Thank you for asking the good question. In the manuscripts, the starch we producted with triple (oxidation + cosslinking + phosphatation) chemical modification was novel. Second, the crosslinking agent we chose was environmentally friendly and it was not used as a crosslinking agent to product the crosslinked starch to improve viscosity thermal stability in textile sizing agent area, it is another novelty. Finally, we adopted mono-phosphorylation to solve the starch crosslink-age by succinic acid shown inferior adhesion to fibers, we found the problem and solved it. This is a novelty too. The functional properties is only a tool to evaluate the effect of the modified starch's usability. So in the article, the novelty is method and thinking of the experiment research.Question 5: Anyway, this manuscripts was used the succinic acid as a crosslinking agent, that quite interesting for starch researchers.Response: Thank you for your good evaluation to our manuscripts.Question 6: I think if the authors did the discussion on theirs work new crosslinking agent, and added some functionality data, the resulting paper would be easily publishable. At present, it is divided into too insufficient of effort for a significant journal such as Starch/Starke.Response: I am very glad to accept your suggestion. In the article, we mainly research the modified starch, such as the starch cross-linked by new crosslinking agent (SA). Through researched the properties of SA cross-linked starch to access the crosslinked effects of the new crosslinking agent and provide suitable LCL for production of the crosslinked starch to stabilize the viscosity of paste in sizing process. The starch we producted was to use as sizing agent in textile warp sizes, so the mainly date to access the properties of sizing agent such as viscosity, viscosity thermal stability, adhesion to fibers, film properties, de-sizability and biodegradability to evaluate the properties of the starch had offered in our research. According to access above properties comprehensively, we provided the suitable LCL range to product the crosslinked starch using SA as crosslinked agent.[1] Yuryev V. P., Kalistratova E. N., Van Soest J. G. J., etal. Thermodynamic properties of barley starch with different amylose content. Starch/Stärke, 1998, 50, 463-466.[2] Fredriksson H., Silverio J., Anderson R., etal. The influence of amylose and amylopectin charac-teristics of gelatinization and retrogradation properties of different starches. Carbohydr. Polym, 1998, 35, 119-134.[3] Czuchajowska Z., Otto T., Paszezynska B., Byung-Kee B. Composition, thermal behavior and gel texture of prime and tailing starches from garbanzo beans and peas. Cereal Chem.1998, 75, 466-472.[4] Varavinita S., Shobsngobb S., Varanyanond W. Effect of Amylose Content on Gelatinization, Retrogradation and Pasting Properties of Flours from Different Cultivars of Thai Rice. Starch/Stärke, 2003, 55, 410-415[5] Sasaki T., Yasui T., Matsuki J. Rheological Properties of Mixed Gels using Waxy and Non-waxy Wheat Starch. Starch/Stärke 2002, 54, 410-414.。
审稿人意见的回复
审稿人意见的回复审稿人1:王婷婷等在本研究中利用实验性自身免疫性脑脊髓炎（Experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, EAE）的动物模型，观察到性别差异显著影响多发性硬化症的发病率和疾病严重程度，并在细胞水平上阐明这一现象是与浸润的CD4+T细胞及其亚群TH-1 和TH-17 细胞均有明显的增加密切相关。
这在理论上为诱发自身免疫性疾病的发生、发展和相关因素的探讨提供了新的思路。
可以为临床诊断和治疗提供一定的参考依据。
其创新之处在于从性别差异角度宏观了解多发性硬化症的病例机制。
研究过程即包括了相关疾病动物模型的分析，又进行了组织学和细胞学的详细分析，实验方法可靠。
研究结论与先前的临床观察结果一致。
Fig 4 中作者观察到CD4+T细胞及其亚群TH-1 和TH-17 细胞均有明显的增加，不知作者是否观察过这些细胞的活力（viability) 是否在不同性别的小鼠间是否有相关差异。
针对审稿人的这个意见,我们从雌、雄小鼠中提取了CD4+T细胞，并使其向T H-1、T H-17方向分化后，使用CCK-8试剂盒对其细胞的viability做了检测，从其测定的结果来看，这些细胞的viability在不同性别的小鼠间并没有明显的差异，结果如下：审稿人2:该文章的设计合理，具有一定的创新性，实验方法可靠，但结论稍牵强，建议从自身实验出发，合理讨论。
文章讨论部分尚存在欠缺，引出太多不能确定的解释，如”关于MS/ EAE 性别差异的机制仍不清楚，较为一致的看法是: EAE/ MS 是一种CD4+ T细胞介导的炎性脱髓鞘疾病. 这与我们观察到的C57BL/6雌雄小鼠由于浸润中枢神经系统的CD4+ T细胞亚群TH-1、TH-17细胞的不同所引起性别差异的结果相符合.” ,目前EAE/MS性别差异的原因尚不明确，并不是由于CD4+ T的不同导致的性别差异。
另外，本人认为通过本研究尚不能得出C57BL/6雌雄小鼠的性别差异是由于浸润中枢神经系统的CD4+ T细胞亚群TH-1、TH-17细胞的不同所引起。
- 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)。
如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理）如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见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。
以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。
续两点经验：1. 最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事；2. 绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想改投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story” 了。
以上指国际杂志修稿。
国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。
我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。
但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。
以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。
究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。
自我感觉总结（不一定对）：1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势；2）国内杂志编辑人员认真负责的人不多，稿子寄去后，少则几个月，多则一年多没有任何消息；3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发；4）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）。
欢迎大家批评指正。
我常用的回复格式: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.1）....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！我得回复格式是这样的：Dear Professor xx:Thank you very much for your letter dated xxx xx xxxx, and the referees’ reports. Based on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, we attached revised manuscript in the formats of both PDF and MS word, for your approval. A document answering every question from the referees was also summarized and enclosed.A revised manuscript with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose.Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.然后再附上Q/A，基本上嘱条回答，写的越多越好（老师语）。
结果修改一次就接收了：）我的回复，请老外帮忙修改了Dear Editor:Thank you for your kind letter of “......” on November **, 2005. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and carefullyproof-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’ Answe r: ........Part B (Reviewer 2)1. The reviewer’s comment: ......The authors’ Answer: .....2. The reviewer’s comment: ......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,***一个回复的例子(已接收)一、最初投稿Cover letterDear editor:We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be co nsidered forpublication in “Journal Name”. No conflict of interest exits in the submissionof this manuscript, and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication.I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described wasoriginal research that has not been published previously, and not underconsideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authorslisted have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.In this work, we evaluated ……(简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journal Name”.The following is a list of possiblereviewers for your consideration:1) Name A E-mail: ××××@××××2) Name B E-mail: ××××@××××We deeply appreciate your consideration ofour manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers.If you have any queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the addressbelow.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××二、催稿信Dear editor:Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure ifit is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submittedmanuscript titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor”has been lasting for more than two months, since submitted tojournal three months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been sentto reviewers or not?I would be greatly appreciated if you couldspend some of your time check the status for us. I am very pleased to hear fromyou on the reviewer’s comments. Thank you very much for your consideration.Best regards!Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××三、修改稿Cover letterDear Dr/ Prof..（写上负责你文章编辑的姓名，显得尊重，因为第一次的投稿不知道具体负责的编辑，只能用通用的editor）:On behalf of my co-authors, we thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to revise our manuscript, we appreciate editor and reviewers very much for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions on our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号).We have studied reviewer’s comments carefully and have made revision which marked in red in the paper. We have tried our best to revise our manuscript according to the comments. Attached please find the revised version, which we would like to submit for your kind consideration.We would like to express our greata ppreciation to you and reviewers for comments on our paper. Looking forward to hearing from you.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E-mail: ××××@××××四、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 ourpaper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main correctionsin the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flo wing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××。