英文文章回复审稿意见信
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板尊敬的审稿专家，
非常感谢您对我们的文章进行审阅，并提供宝贵的意见和建议。
我们针对您的意见进行了认真思考和修改。
以下是我们对您每个意见的回复：
意见一：关于标题的修改
回复：非常感谢您对标题的建议。
我们已经对标题进行了修改，以更好地反映文章的内容。
意见二：关于语言表达问题的修改
回复：感谢您指出文章中的语言表达问题。
我们已经重新审视并修改了这些问题，以提高文章的表达清晰度和准确性。
意见三：关于排版整洁美观的建议
回复：非常感谢您对排版提出的建议。
我们已经对文章的排版进行了调整，确保整体呈现更加美观和易读。
意见四：关于文章分节讨论的建议
回复：感谢您对文章分节讨论的建议。
我们已经对文章进行了适当的分节，并调整了段落结构，使得文章更具条理性和连贯性。
意见五：关于论述中的细节完善
回复：非常感谢您对论述中细节的指正。
我们已经仔细检查了每个
细节，并进行了必要的补充和完善，以增强文章的逻辑性和严谨性。
意见六：关于避免使用无关内容和网址链接的建议
回复：感谢您对内容的建议。
我们已经移除了所有无关和网址链接
的内容，以确保文章专注于题目所要求的内容，同时遵守编写规范。
最后，再次感谢您对我们文章的审阅和宝贵的意见。
在您的帮助下，我们对文章进行了全面的改进，并希望这份修订后的稿件能够满足您
的要求。
如果您还有任何其他建议或意见，请随时提出，我们将非常
乐意进一步改进。
最诚挚的问候，
[您的姓名]。
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。
幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。
呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。
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。
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
- it has to be outlined what is the benefit of this method (ABSTRACT, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS). （很多人不会写这个地方，大家多学习啊）
2. When discussing XRD data XXXauthors - state that XXXXX - state that XXXX -This usually happens with increasing sintering time, but are there any data to present, density, particle size? （很多人用 XRD，结果图放上去就什么都不管了，这是不应该的）
Title (Prof./Dr./Mr./Mrs.): Prof. Name: XXX Affiliation: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXx Manuscript entitled "Synthesis XXX。。。。。。。。。。。" it has been synthesized with a number of different methods and in a variety of forms. This manuscript does not bring any new knowledge or data on materials property and therefore only contribution may be in novel preparation method, still this point is not elaborated properly (see Remark 1). Presentation and writing is rather poor; there are several statements not supported with data (for some see Remarks 2) and even some flaws (see Remark 3). For these reasons I suggest to reject paper in the present form. 1. The paper describes a new method for preparation of XXXX, but: -the new method has to be compared with other methods for preparation of XXXXpowders (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),（通常的写作格式，审稿人实际上很在意的） -it has to be described why this method is better or different from other methods, (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion), -it has to be added in the manuscript what kind of XXXXXX by other methods compared to this novel one (INTRODUCTION - literature data, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION - discussion),
审稿意见回复信英文模板和语料总结
审稿意见回复信英⽂模板和语料总结审稿意见回复信英⽂模板和语料总结模板1.Dear prof. XX and dear reviewersRe: Manuscript ID: XXXXX and Title: XXXXXXThank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “XXXXXX ” (ID). Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shownusing red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer’s comments are marked in red and presented following.We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.Sincerely.XXXXX.Reviewer #1:Q1. Interpretation could be deepened regarding xx. 关于xx的讨论应该更深⼊⼀些.Response：We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clearly and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we have added a more detailed interpretation regarding xxx. More detailed statistical analysis was added on page…Q2.the English language needs to be revised for clarity …Response：We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript. The language presentation was improved with assistance from a native English speaker with appropriate research background.Q3.Page 10, the last sentence of the first chapter should read: …,Response：We agree with the comment and re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following: ….Q4.Please provide details of results, and please analyze and discuss it.Response：We are grateful for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we have added more details of…其他语料：1. Thank you for your suggestion. As suggested by reviewer, we have added the suggested content to the manuscript onpage…2. Thank you for your comments, the discussion regarding this question is presented following: …3. We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have added a moredetailed interpretation regarding…4. Thank you for your comment, and our reply is as follows: …5. Response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have providedmore details to describe the possible reasons.6. We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. We have…7. We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clear and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we have added abrief description as follows:8. We have modified this expression throughout the text according to the comment.9. Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 6-28, page 6)10. Thank you for underlining this deficiency. This section was revised and modified according to the information showedin the work suggested by the reviewer (Line 41, page 3).11. Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 6-28, page 6).12. Modified throughout the text according to the comment (Line 20, page 1).Thank you for the title suggested. Theprecedent version of the title has been replaced, becoming…13. We appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation of our work.14. Our deepest gratitude goes to you for your careful work and thoughtful suggestions that have helped improve thispaper substantially.15. We have carefully revised the language issue again based on the latest file uploaded on October 5th. This revision ishighlighted in green (for adding) and strikethrough font (for deleting) in the text. At the same time, we have uploaded the file of the revised manuscript and flowchart file.16. Thank you for your precious comments and advice. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising andimproving our paper. We have revised the manuscript accordingly，and our point-by-point responses are presented above.17. We appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation of our work and agree with the comments regarding the limitationsof our study.模板2.来⾃公众号《⼤葱的后花园》Dear Editors (或编辑的具体姓名Prof. xxx) and reviewers:Thank you for your precious comments and advice. 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:Response to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. ⼀般第⼀段是reviewer对你⽂章的总结。
如何回复审稿人意见审稿回复
如何回复审稿人意见审稿回复The Standardization Office was revised on the afternoon of December 13, 2020如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer这是我的英文修改稿回复信Dear Editor,RE: Manuscript IDWe would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments.Below is our response to their comments.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorresponding Author下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答：一些习惯用语如下：Revision —authors’ responseReviewer #1:Major comments1.The referee correctly noted that our language about XXX was ambiguous. Therefore,we changed the text and the figures to emphasize that …. To further support theconcept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted in Supplementary Fig. S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations of XXX inresults and discussion sections. We have added new findings (see above point) in Supplementary Fig S. to support…3.As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (Supplementary Fig.) thatsummarizes…Minor comments1.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title.2.We have added and improved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2.3.We have added statistics to Fig 5C.4.We have corrected the typescript errors in the XXX paragraph.Reviewer #2:1.Because of the reviewer’s request, we have performed new experiments to betterclarify… The new Fig. shows that… This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify the pointthat…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s request we have usedXXX to confirm that… The new data are depicted in Supplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed the efficie ncy of RNAi byquantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supplementary Fig.Reviewer #3:1.Because of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 into the newFigure 6 and we have added new exper iments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that….2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied…. The new data are depictedin Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper has shown that …. We haveadded this reference and modified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. The previous one was too week andthe green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDF format.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much as possible the magnificationin order to maintain the same scale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statistically significant. In order tobetter clarify this issue we changed the graphics of our statistical analysis in Fig.另外一篇5分杂志的回复：1nd Revision –authors’ responseReferee #1:We want to begin by thanking Referee #1 for writing that “the finding in our manuscript is generally interesting and important in the field.” We also appreci ated the constructive criticism and suggestion. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below.1.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiment demonstrating…; in the newexperiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performed in XXXby comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effect of ….is due to …. Toaddress the referee’s comment, we revised Fig. and demonstrated that…. To further confirm…. Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks to the referee’s comment, the wrong figure numbers were corrected in therevised manuscript.Referee #2:We want to thank Referee #2 for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below.1.The referee recommends to show…. We performed the experiment and its result isincluded in the revised Fig.2.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. were repeated severaltimes and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1, above. Asstated above, we have included new results, which include:4.All minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordingly.2nd Revision –authors’ responseWe would like to thank the referees for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s comments.Referee #1:Referee #1 request two minor editorial changes. Both changes have been made accordingly in the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We sincerely apologize to Referee #2 for not completely addressing all of the points raised in the previous response. We have done so below and added additional data in hopes that this reviewer will be supportive of publication.1.Referee #2 requests evidence that …. According to the referee’s suggestion, a XXXassay was performed in XXX cells to demonstrate that …. The result is presented in Fig.2.Page 17, “the” E3 was changed to “an” E3.3.Referee #2 asks whether…. We would like to note that we investigated ….in ourprevious study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in this manuscript we focused on ….。
（完整word版）一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
（完整word版）一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板一些英文审稿意见的模板最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。
幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。
呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。
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。
回复审稿意见,模板
回复审稿意见,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 theserum 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 manuscriptfor 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 theguideline 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 helpedme 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 thecomments 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)。
SCI审稿意见回复模板
精品文档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 t o 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 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 v ery 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 according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s su ggestionAs 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..。
英文回复审稿人意见模板
英文回复审稿人意见模板Template for Responding to Reviewer Comments in English:Dear [Reviewer's Name],Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript titled [Title of Manuscript]. We appreciate your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. Below, we have addressed each of your comments and provided explanations or revisions accordingly:1. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].2. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].3. Comment: [Insert Reviewer's Comment].Response: [Explanation or Revision].We believe that the changes we have made address the concerns raised and improve the quality of the manuscript. Please review the revised version and let us know if any further modifications are required. We are grateful for your thorough review and look forward to your feedback.Thank you once again for your time and expertise.Sincerely,[Your Name].[Your Affiliation].英文审稿人意见回复模板:尊敬的[审稿人姓名]，感谢您抽出时间审阅我们的稿件《[稿件标题]》。
英语论文审稿意见回复信
We deeply appreciate the time and effort you’ve spent in reviewing our manuscript (ID: XXX). Reviewer comments are listed here:
Your comments are really thoughtful and helpful. It is important to XXX. Thus, we revised the manuscript, following your comments exactly. We attached a copy of the revised manuscript at the end of this document. This copy is the same as the revised manuscript, except that some parts are colored to make the revisions notable.
The maБайду номын сангаасn revisions in the new manuscript are: 1: All figures are labeled with brief description. 2: The English mistakes listed by Reviewer 1 are corrected, and we checked the whole article carefully to improve the English writing.
3: 关于科学问题一. [Page.2, Paragraphs 3, Line 2-6]. 4: 关于科学问题二. [Page.12, Paragraphs 43, Line 7-9].
英文文章回复审稿意见信2
REVIEW RESPONSE LETTER [33]Dear Reviewers,Thank you for reading our manuscript and reviewing it, which will help us improve it to a better scientific level. We revised our manuscript, and quite a lot of changes have taken place. So we have sent the revised manuscript, and a version containing all the changes to be visible.At the following, the points mentioned by the reviewers will be discussed:Reviewer 1:“The explanation that any other designs were ignored because of their complexity is unclear and insufficient, and should be extended (i.e.: why they were not considered?)”The introduction was edited to give an explanation on the reason of not investigating other designs. We mentioned that this is the design we consider, however other designs may be possible and even better! But they are not the subject of this investigation. Our objective was to give an explanation on the sources of the energy loss in this case, and we have done it.“The experimental part is very extensive, but not described enough.”We agree, so some explanations were added.“The weakest aspect of the paper is its lack of discussion on some of the results obtained. Explain what concl usions do you draw from the results (figures 6, 7, 8, 11).”The conclusion was written all over again, and some other parts were also added to give more discussion about the results.“Also, the effect of a number of parameters (type of balloon, its shape etc.) was neglected.”They were not neglected; this investigation was made in one specific condition. Investigation of the effect of all the parameters has not been an objective of this manuscript.“Equations should be centered in line.”Corrected.“First picture is unclear.”Changed.“The language is sometimes unclear or unspecific. In particular: “released energy its self”, “spent to fill”. You should write shorter sentences, and try to use non-hermetic phrases (“emptying diagrams”).”It was tried to be improved.“The authors use phrases that can be put in every solution to every task from the IYPT (“the physical experiments were also in charge to approve the theoretical assumptions). Be more specific.”We do not quite agree on this point. We still believe these classes of sentences are required, and indeed more specific detail has been provided after in the manuscript.“Figure 6: you are fitting a logarithmic function to your data. A linear fit to the same data would deliver a comparably high pre cision. Why did you choose the logarithmic fit?”The explanation was added to the manuscript. We want to use un-experimented points in the specific range that was experimented (and not out of this range). Thus the only thing that matters is howaccurately the interpolated function can predict these points. Since the logarithmic function had the highest regression, we used it.“What are the sources for the secondary peaks in figure 3 (top curve)?”Errors. The explanation is now added to the text:While measuring the Pressure, there were some errors caused by the dynamic motion of the water in the tube, particularly during the inflation process, in which the discharge could not be smaller than a specific amount. So at the beginning of the inflation process, where there is a maximum point for the pressure, the dynamic behaviour of the water would cause some oscillations in the water level; as visible in figure 3. However this error does not seem to be crucial since it is the integration of the P-V diagram which will be used later, and this oscillation does not have a significant effect.“What is the relative velocity of the jet? What do you understand by “jet”?”Corrected in the text to clarify.“Add references, especially to the topics mentioned above in ”references” part of review.”References were added, and addressed in the text.“chapter (five sentences approx.) with a discussion of li mitations of your solution (the description of limitations is scattered through the article)”Some explanation was added to the conclusion, describing the limitations.“sentence 1, paragraph 4 of introduction (“after when car is stopped…”) : The sentence is unclear. The reviewer understands the intention of using the energy conservation principle, but the description is not clear and should be changed or clarified.”Yes it was unclear; more explanation was added to clarify.“Describe your system and design. You use phrases “z-axis” without any description.”Figures were corrected to help.“Write a definition of efficiency that you use and clarify how the definition isunderstood.”a definition was added as the following:We define efficiency as the ratio of the work done on the car by the motivational force to the energy needed to fill the balloon.“The manuscript is recommended for publication only after essential revisions.”Thank you, we hope this revision has been enough.Reviewer 2:“Good structure. Very well presented. Please add references to the paper. I recommend this paper.”Thank you, references were added.Best Regards,Parham Zendehdel NobariReza Montazeri NaminHossein Azizinaghsh。
(2021年整理)一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板编辑整理：尊敬的读者朋友们：这里是精品文档编辑中心，本文档内容是由我和我的同事精心编辑整理后发布的，发布之前我们对文中内容进行仔细校对，但是难免会有疏漏的地方，但是任然希望（一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板）的内容能够给您的工作和学习带来便利。
同时也真诚的希望收到您的建议和反馈，这将是我们进步的源泉，前进的动力。
本文可编辑可修改，如果觉得对您有帮助请收藏以便随时查阅，最后祝您生活愉快业绩进步，以下为一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板的全部内容。
一些英文审稿意见的模板最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作,还有点不知如何表达。
幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的,给他一个major revision后接收吧.呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。
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。
如何回复英文期刊审稿意见模板
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: paper@;
Tel: 021-61390110
Dopamine D4 receptors in motor hyperactivity induced by neonatal 6-hydroxydopamine lesions in rats
候选杂志 杂志领域 ----------------------------------------------------------------PNAS Journal of Neuroscience Neuropsychopharmacology Behavioral Neuroscience 包罗万象 神经科学（基础） 神经精神药理（临床、基础） 行为／神经科学（基础）
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-mail: paper@;
Tel: 021-61390110
Dopamine D4 receptors in motor hyperactivity induced by neonatal 6-hydroxydopamine lesions in rats
候选杂志 杂志领域 ----------------------------------------------------------------PNAS 包罗万象
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
英文文章回复审稿意见信4
Response to Reviewer #3:We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Our response follows (the reviewer’s comments are in italics).General Comments. The paper ‘An overview of the MILAGRO 2006 campaign: Mexico City emissions and their transport and transformation’ by L.T. Molina, et al. is an overview of findings from the MILAGRO field campaign. However, it is not just a ‘paper about papers’ but also provides some further analysis and attempts to extract the most important results.It is very well written and is well balanced between the different topics, such as experimental design, emissions, photochemistry, radiation, and transport. It definitely deserves to be published and is a valuable contribution to the ACP journal.The only weakness of the paper is its length. It is true that some of the chapters can be regarded as stand-alone documents, and it is thus not necessary to read the whole paper. However, it is my belief that the main purpose of the paper (overview of the MILAGRO project, road map to its numerous publications, bringing across the main messages) could have been achieved on less pages, e.g. by omitting some details and rather refer the reader to one or more of the MILAGRO publications. It is difficult to point specifically to omittable sentences as they are rather spread throughout the paper, but I recommend making one more effort to shorten the paper at least somewhat, in order to make it more readily accessible.Reply:We appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer.With regards to the length of the article: as we noted in our response to Reviewers #1 and #2, it is not easy to shorten the article. We are trying to target both readers that are interested in the comprehensive study and readers that are only interested in subsections. The current form serve both of these needs and we are concerned that if we cut out the small overlaps in the introduction to each section as well as the technical material, then the subsections will not be readable to the reader who is only interested in one or a few sections. Therefore we would like to keep the manuscript largely in its current form. However, as suggested by the reviewer, we have reviewed carefully the entire manuscript and have removed redundancies, as shown in the revised manuscript.One more general remark: What about calling Section 12 ‘Summary and Conclusions’ and Section 13 ‘Future work’ in order to better reflect their content.Reply:As suggested by the reviewer, we have changed the title of Section 12 to “Summary and Conclusions” and Section 13 to “Future Research.”Minor comments:1) p.7823, lines 23-25: add already here how many partners, from which countries, duration and funding agenciesReply:As suggested by the reviewer, we have moved the information from last paragraph of page 7829 to page 7823.2) p.7824, line 23: facilitates -> facilitateReply:The correction has been made.3) p.7826, line 14: remove colon after ‘showing that’Reply: The correction has been made.4) p.7827, lines 17-25: don’t need to name here all conferences and media, can be shortened (while keeping the link to the website).Reply: We have shortened the paragraph, as suggested.5) p.7827, line 26 and onwards: this should be in the introduction.Reply: We have moved the paragraph to the Introduction.6) p.7829, line 24 and onwards: this is what I suggest to include in the introduction (see first minor comment above)Reply: We have moved the paragraph to the Introduction.7) p.7833, line 12: ‘and more’ -> ‘and a more’Reply: The correction has been made.8) p.7848, line 25: remove ‘is’Reply: The correction has been made.9) p.7850, line 13: ‘constrains’ -> ‘constraints’, line 19: comma around ‘respectively’Reply: The correction has been made.10) p.7853, lines 2 and 3: write ‘the UC Irvine group’ and ‘T0 and T1 sites’.Reply: The correction has been made.11) p.7854, line 11: ‘were’ -> ‘was’Reply: The correction has been made.12) p.7864, line 1: remove ‘reflects the partitioning between OH and HO2, and’Reply:The text has been revised as suggested:“The HO2/OH ratio can be used as a measure of the efficiency of radical propagation.”13) p.7865, line 12: you mean ‘early afternoon’? (as opposed to late afternoon which is VOC limited)Reply:The text has been revised as suggested:“An analysis of ratio of radical loss from the formation of nitric acid and organic nitrates to the total radical production for MCMA 2003 also suggests that ozone production is VOC-limited in the early morning and late afternoon, but becomes NOx-limited during the early afternoon [Mao et al., 2009].”14) p.7870, line 18: ‘composition’ -> ‘compositions’, and: PMcoarse is shown, not PM2.5 Reply:The text is indeed incorrect. The subject figure shows PM2.5 and PM Coarse and not PM2.5 andPM10 as indicated in the text. The sentence has been corrected to read:“The fractional compositions of PM2.5 and PM Coarse are illustrated in Fig. 12.15) p.7887, line 1: ‘leads’ -> ‘lead’Reply: The correction has been made.16) p.7888, line 2: move ‘were’ to after ‘aerosols’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.17) p.7890: The sentences in lines 12 and 18, referring to Hodzic et al., 2009, Mugica et al., 2009, and Christian et al., 2010, are very similar. Combine.Reply:As suggested by the reviewer, the second occurrence of these citations has been eliminated 18) p.7892, line 5: ‘Previous work’ refers to the past, and ‘will’ to the future. Rather write‘missed’, or, e.g., ‘the method used in previous work . . . did not detect’Reply: The suggested correction has been made. The sentence now reads:“Previous work using single wavelengths, particularly at wavelengths longer than 500 nm, did not detect these changes in absorption in the 300 to 500 nm range that are primarily due to oxidized organics (both aged primary and SOA coatings).”19) p.7903, line 23: move comma after ‘NO’ to after the parenthesis.Line 24: factor of 1.4 to 1.9?Reply:The suggested correction has been made. The sentence now reads:“These include slight overpredictions of CO and NO (<30% and <20%, respectively), and a probable underprediction of VOCs by a factor of 1.4 to 1.9 in the inventory.”20) Fig.3: ‘except MCM-2006’? So why is it included in the figure? Mention that the measurements were performed in the Mexico City basin, or refer to section 3.1 or Fig.4. Reply:The suggested correction has been made. The figure caption now reads:“MILAGRO Campaign: Geographic Coverage. Measurements were performed in the MCMA (see Fig. 4). The size of the circle (MAX-Mex, MIRAGE-Mex and INTEX-B) indicates the geographic coverage of the aircraft deployed.”21) Fig.5: ‘9 March’ -> ‘9 March 2006’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.22) Fig.6, NOx, don’t private cars include any Diesel vehicles?Reply:The private cars in Mexico are mostly gasoline-powered; there are very few diesel-powered private cars.23) Fig.7: ‘insert’ -> ‘inset’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.24) Fig.9: ‘at T0’ -> ‘at the supersites T0’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.25) Fig.10: ’19 March’ -> ’19 March 2006’ In the text replace ‘Fig.’ with ‘Figure’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.26) Fig. 11: I don’t see the ‘Modeling Domain’. Guess it’s the whole figure, so the red box in the legend can be omitted. Furthermore, the figure has rather poor print quality.Reply:As suggested by the reviewer, we have revised Figure 11. We have also added a panel showing the percentage change in Ox formation rate as a function of the indicator, ratio of H2O2 production rate to HNO3 production rate.27) Fig.13: ‘March 15’ -> ‘March 15, 2006’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.。
一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板
一些英文审稿意见的模板最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。
幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。
呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。
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。
英文文章回复审稿意见信
英文文章回复审稿意见信AMR‐09‐0402.R2 Comments to editors and reviewersI have now received and considered the reviews of your revised manuscript submitted to Academy of Management Review “HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEMS AND HELPING IN ORGANIZATIONS: A RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE” (Manuscript AMR‐09‐0402.R1). All three of your reviewers agree that your manuscript has made good progress and you’ve made a good effort to respond to their earlier concerns. We all appreciate the clearer focus on the linkages between HR systems and helping and recognize the time and energies you put into this revision.Your reviewers also agree that at this stage, several issues remain. I share the opinion that your revised manuscript is much improved and that you undertook great effort to be responsive to the earlier feedback. And, while I agree there are still some issues to address, I believe these issues can be addressed with relatively moderate additional effort and thus, I am pleased to conditionally accept your manuscript for publication in AMR subject to the changes below. Congratulations! I will not be returning your revised manuscript to the reviewers, but instead will be ensuring the remaining changes are made on their behalf.In terms of the remaining changes I’d like you to make, it is important that you consider all the comments made by the reviewers but I would like to highlight the primary factors that I believe are necessary to move forward. I would like you to focus your energies on the points I note below.Dear Professor Lepak:Thank you for the positive feedback and conditionally accepting our paper. In this round of revision, we focused ourefforts strongly on the points made in your letter. Below, we grouped actions taken in response to your comments, organized under the major headings supplied. As before, we attempted to be succinct while fully explaining our actions.Although we replied directly to you and focused our explanations on points raised in your letter, we took seriously and addressed in some way each of the reviewer comments.Given your request for an August 1 deadline and your patience waiting for our firstrevision, we wanted to make every effort to return this revision as promptly as possible.Since your email inquiring about our returning the revision early, my colleagues’ and my schedules aligned such that we were able to make this revision our top priority. We have devoted most of our working (and nonworking) days to the revision. As a result, we are able to return the paper earlier than we estimated.Your and the reviewers’ comments have again stimulated changes we feel furtherimproved the paper. Should you find the paper requires further clarification or revision,we most certainly stand ready to do so.Best regards,Kevin MossholderPropositions. One of the more significant concerns that remain for the reviewers and myself relates to the propositions in your manuscript. For example, reviewer 1 (Comment 2) writes, “The way inwhich all the propositions are currently stated is clumsy, convoluted, and would benefit from simplification. In each case you might remove the intermediary climate information, as thisis contained in the preceding paragraphs. Please see the following examples: … P1a: In a compl iance HR system, helping behavior is motivated by self‐interest and instrumentality. (remove the “will lead to a market pricing climate in which”) … P2a: In a collaboration HR system, helping behavior is motivated by in‐kind reciprocity and maintained by b alanced exchanges (remove “will lead to an equality matching climate”) … P1e is incomplete. Constrained by what or to what?”Reviewer 3 (Comments 4‐6) raises similar concerns and writes, “The very first proposition regarding helping indicates that helping will be “constrained.” This is not testable as stated. Constrained relative to what? … All of the propositions regarding risk were worded in a way that I believe renders them impossible to test (1c, 2c, and 3c). I understand risk to be one of the dimensions of relational climate, so you cannot simply delete these propositions. Perhaps they could be reworded to indicate that perceived risk will be greater for X than for Y?... The causal model of hr systems ‐> relational climates ‐> helping is never presented, and the abstract even hints that you are not proposing mediation. I would think that at least partial mediation is expected here, and that logic should permeate the manuscript (abstract, introduction to big picture model, propositions, and perhaps even a figure). Is there a reason that you are shying away from proposing mediation?”I’m not exactly certain as to what the best course of action is and I do not want to impose specific wording on how you structure your propositions. Having said that, I think it is imperative that you do address these concerns regarding the structure of your propositions. I believe this is doable with some effort to get to the essence of each proposition and to presentclear and testable propositions.Following R1’s suggestion, we reworded the “a” through “d” propositions to eliminatethe phrase containing intermediary climate information. We think this refinementimproves their clarity. We also improved the wording of the “e” and “f” propositions as well.We also altered all “c” propositions (i.e., those dealing with risk) in response to R3’scomment 5. Whereas the previous wording of these propositions simply described risksassociated with helping in each climate, the revised wording indicates employees willperceive helping as risky to the extent certain conditions exist.As requested by R1 (comment 2) and R3 (comment 4), we reworded proposition 1e, tomake it consistent with propositions 2e and 3e. It now reads: “In a compliance HR system and market pricing climate, helping behavior will occur less frequently than incollaborative or commitment HR systems.” We believe this revision works because thecollaborative and commitment systems are now introduced in greater detail at an earlier point in the paper (see our response in the Structure section below).Finally, we agree with R3 (comment 6) that there is an undercurrent of mediation in thepaper. However, given that relational climate is a new construct and researchunderpinning relations between HR systems and helpingbehavior has been undertaken in earnest only recently (e.g., Chuang & Liao, 2010), we felt it premature to make causal relations among the constructs a focus of the paper. We emphasized developing atheoretical foundation that might stimulate researchers to investigate both the relationalclimate construct as well as relations among major components of the paper (i.e., HRsystems, relational climate, and helping behavior). Addressing mediational issues would require incorporating an additional layer into a crowded substantive landscape. Another reviewer (R2) stated the opinion (see Clarification and additional considerationsbelow) that we were “really trying to cover a lot of literatures and concepts (as I noted in the prior version of the manuscript).” Finally, R3 asked why we were shying away from mediational issues. In short, at this point in the research life cycle of the constructspresented, this was the more conservative and appropriate stance to take.Clarification and additional considerations. The reviewers pointed out several instances where some additional clarification would be very helpful for the reader. For example, reviewer 2 (Co mment 1) writes, “I believe the distinction between a “collaborative” system needs to be more clearly distinguished from collective system in the intro. In particular, if employees/org have “collective commitment” (p. 4) doesn’t this also suggest “collaboration” between them? The distinction becomes clearer later when discussing the climates and the specific systems, but I believe this distinctions needs to be made veryclear when first defining each HR system (p. 4).” This reviewer goes on to note (Comment 2), [“I found the discussion of the “dimensions” (now bottom of p.8/top of p. 9) a bit difficult to follow as you are really trying to cover a lot of literatures and concepts (as I noted in the prior version of the manuscript). Perhaps most importantly, this discussion seems more focused on emphasizing that it’s important to incorporate these constructs (and why), what “substantive areas “ were reviewed (is it really necessary to state the specific literature, e.g., “social capital… interpersonal helping”), and the “grounding principle” for inclusion. I would suggest it would be more valuable to focus on how these constructs link to your framework (i.e., the link between HR systems, climate, and helping).”] Reviewer 2 also raises several useful points about your discussion section. [In comment 6 s/he highlights a need for clarifying the relationship with flexibility. I agree with this reviewer that this focus in the discussion section does seem to be disconnected from the rest of the model. Moving forward, you need to be sure to somehow better incorporate this discussion with the major thrust of your contribution or more clearly articulate your arguments to address these concerns by reviewer 2.]Regarding R2’s comment 1 about distinguishing the collaborative and commitmentsystems in the introduction, we now explicitly highlight key differences between thesesystems when first presenting them on pp. 4-5. In particular, the characteristic mutuality and psychological links forged between the organization and employees in commitment systems create situations in which employees become focused on groups, teams, and the organization, thus blurring individualidentities in favor of collective identity. Incollaborative systems, employees maintain their own identities while working towardcommon goals, which when attained reward the parties involved. Although both systems entail degrees of interdependence, the ties in a commitment system are analogous to afamily or clan, whereas those in a collaborative system are analogous to a partnership or alliance.We believe the general changes made in the introductory part of the paper also aid infurther clarifying differences between commitment and collaborative systems.Specifically, we moved forward to pp. 4-5 the broad descriptions of the three archetypal HR systems, which in the first revision had been located at the beginning of therespectively headed sections—Compliance HR Systems: Effecting Helping ThroughA Market Pricing Climate, Collaborative HR Systems: Effecting Helping ThroughAn Equality Matching Climate,and Commitment HR Systems: Effecting HelpingThrough A Communal Sharing Climate.(See also responses about moving thesedescriptions in the Structure section below.)We were a little puzzled by R2’s comment 2 ab out focusing on how the relational climate dimensions link to the proposed framework. Describing why and from where thedimensions were derived demonstrates linkages between them and the core substance of relational climate. R3 (comment2) had noted that our initial introduction of thedimensions got lost in excess verbiage added during the first revision. We worked tostreamline this section in the current revision (bottom p. 8-top p. 9). Specifically, wedeleted three unnecessary sentences (including the one containing “grounding principle”), and now cite no more than two references for each substantive area reviewed. With due respect to R2, we feel it is important to let readers (especially ones not familiar withrelational constructs) know the underpinnings of relational climate.We also rearranged the flow of material as requested by R3 (comment 2) to make therelational dimensions more visible. They now are listed and numbered in the first fullparagraph, top p. 9. By sharpening the focus of the entire section labeled “RelationalClimates: Schema and Dimensions” (beginning at bottom p.6) and the key paragraphwhere the relational climate dimensions are introduced (top p. 9), we hope to havesufficiently addressed R2’s (and R3’s) concerns.In regard to the organizational flexibility material (R2, comment 6), we view one of thepaper’s contributions as highlighting helping behavior’s connection with organizationalflexibility. Perhaps more importantly, we suggest that certain HR systems (and associated climates) promote helping appropriate for meeting more circumscribed or moreexpansive flexibility needs. We had added extra material on flexibility in the first revision in responding to reviewer comments. In hindsight, this gave organizational flexibilitymore emphasis in the paper than we really intended. Therefore, in response to your andreviewer requests, we have pared back the amount of material devoted to flexibility (from two paragraphs to one, pp. 23-24) and linked it more clearly with helping behavior. We believe this reduction is consistent with its respective importance in the paper.In a small point, R2 (comment 2) also asked if “factors” or “elements” could be used todescribe relational climate components rather than “dimensions.” We had used the term “dimensions” as the descriptor for the climate components because we felt it was the more frequently used term in the climate literature. To double-check this, we examinedtwo recent organizational climate reviews by leading scholars (James et al., 2008;Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2011) and other climate articles we referenced in thepaper. From this examination, we determined that “dimensions” is the most commonlabel, and therefore prefer to retain “dimensions” in describing components of relational climate.Reviewer 3 suggests that you consider several additional points for your discussion section. Specifically, in comment 8 s/he writes, “There are two interesting issues raised by reviewers (one mine, one from another reviewer) that I think could be mentioned as future research. The first is negativeeffects of competitive HR practices on helping; that is, HR practices that stimulatecounter‐productive work behaviors. The second is reverse causality, where certain relational climates alter the HR systems adopted, or at least how they are enacted/interpreted by certain managers.”We addressed R3’s comment 8 by including material concerning both topics s/he raised.Keeping length considerations in mind, we first deleted material pertaining to HRresearch design issues that we had inserted during the first revision. (This deletionaddresses R3’s comment 7 question about an HR design/measurement issue, as theunclear material is no longer in the paper.) The deleted material was located immediately afte r the “Implications and Future Research” heading (p. 24). Because HR research design and measurement issues have been more fully addressed in the broader HRliterature (e.g., Gerhart, Wright, McMahan, & Snell, 2000), we felt it better to considerfuture research issues more directly connected with the focus of our paper.Next, we inserted material concerning the idea of reverse causality where we discussbottom up influences on helping (p. 28). Relying on structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), we suggest how emergent social interactions conceivably could influence managers to adjust HR practices. Although there is little empirical evidence suggesting relationalclimates and helping could influence an entire HR system, there is evidence that (a)patterns of helping affect certain HR practices and (b) informal social processes caninfluence which HR practices an organization adopts. To balance the added length to the paragraph in which bottom up influences are discussed, we added two more sentences (and accompanying references) to the top down paragraph preceding the bottom upparagraph (p. 27).Regarding the counterproductive work behavior issue, we agree with R3 that outcome-and efficiency-oriented HR practices might decrease the likelihood of helping behavior.We noted this issue is particularly salient in compliance HR systems, which are morelikely to use practices such as individual incentives and lead to more constrained helping exchanges than are found in the other two HR systems. To address R3’s concern, we discuss that when practices constrain employee helping behavior, employees maywithhold help or in extreme cases engage in counterproductive behavior. We have added this material to the paragraph in which we mention helping obstacles and toxic managers (pp. 26-27).From my own reading of your manuscript, I would like to make a minor suggestion and encourage you to simply refer to “hr systems’ rather than ‘strategic HR systems’. I think they convey the same thing and the reality is that any HR system could be used in a strategic manner. The key point that you areemphasizing is that you are focusing on the system.Throughout the paper, we now refer to the three systems as “HR systems” only.Structure. Reviewer 3 raised several points regarding the structure of your paper. For example, in comment 1, this reviewer writes, “I’d prefer to see the definition of helping (along with some illustrations to make the definition more concrete and compelling) in the introduction.] Then, in the HR systems section, I’d like to learn more detail about the three archetypes. This wouldmean shifting Table 2 to become Table 1, and walking the reader through at least some of Table 1 at this juncture. I think the reason to do this is simple – not every reader will understand the archetypes as described. You will want to offer an explanation of each grounded in the details of how employment relationship and employment mode play out with specific HR practices. This will help an AMR reader who is not a specialist in SHRM. [Please note that I am not asking for a complete revision of structure here, I am suggesting shifting some material around to be more consistent with the structure you are now using.” I am not suggesting that you must conform with this recommendation but I do agree with this reviewer that there are some parts of your paper in which some earlier definitions could help the reader. I agree that it would be helpful to make sure that constructs are defined before you make reference to them.Following the recommendation of R3 (comment 1), we moved the definition of helpingto the introduction of the paper (p. 2). We appreciate this suggestion and believe thedefinition fits better in its new location. We did not addspecific examples, feeling theycould fixate readers on the illustrations as opposed to the entire gamut of helpingbehaviors possible in organizations. Additionally, this change addresses R3’s (comment1) concern regarding the heading “Human Resource Systems and Relational Climates” onp. 3. Because the definition of helping is no longer in this section, the heading nowaccurately represents the content of the text that follows it.We also appreciate R3’s recommendation to provide more description of the threearchetypal HR systems in the “Human Resource Systems and Relational Climates”section. To implement this suggestion, we moved forward (to pp. 4-5) the broaddescriptions of the HR systems that had been located at the beginning of the respectively headed sections—Compliance HR Systems: Effecting Helping Through A MarketPricing Climate, Collaborative HR Systems: Effecting Helping Through AnEquality Matching Climate,and Commitment HR Systems: Effecting HelpingThrough A Communal Sharing Climate.For readers less familiar with the SHRMliterature, these descriptions should provide an initial understanding of the conceptualobjectives underlying each system, and foreshadow how the employment relationship,employment mode, and specific practices might beconfigured in operationalizing thesystems.Please note that we left explicit discussion of each HR system’s employment relationship and mode in their original locations in the paper, however. Our thinking is that discussion of employment relationship and mode should immediately precede the motivation andsustenance propositions for each HR system/relational climate section, because these HR system components are most directly relevant to relational climates. Further, were we to move detailed descriptions of employee relationship and mode to earlier in the paper, itmight overwhelm the general links between HR systems, climates, and helpingoverviewed at that point in the paper.Finally, we also note that at R2’s urging in the first round of revision, we had switchedthe order of the tables so that relational climate dimensions were contained in Table 1 and the HR systems and practices contained in Table 2. We had also revised the textaccordingly. Switching the tables again would require major adjustments in the body ofthe paper. For these reasons, we would prefer retaining the content of Tables 1 and 2 ascurrently set.Editing. I would like to also request a good amount of effort in this final revision to focus on editing. Your paper is relatively long (probably because we asked you to do so much!), and now we need to pare it back. I’m not suggesting a hard page number to cut but I do believe with some careful editing you couldprobably reduce 4‐5 pages of text by sharpening and tightening your message. Some specific suggestions to consider are:a) Tighten the discussion. I realize that I have asked you to add to the discussion section. And, I realize that the discussion section is much improved over the first submission. However, what is currently there could be edited and more precise. Some of the points are speculative and might be reduced in length or eliminated.b) General Editing. Within the body there are some areas in which transitions between sections are excessive. At other points, you note what you are about to discuss, then you state it, and then you state what you did state. This can be reduced. As noted by reviewer 1 (Comment 1), “The paper contains a fair bit of repetition. In some instances this is called for; in others, it is overkill. Please go through the paper to reduce the repetition.” Revi ewer 2 (Comment 7) adds, “…throughout the paper, I believe the writing could be made more direct and less complicated.”In thoroughly addressing concerns raised in the first review, our wording in the priorrevision became pedestrian and repetitious in some places. We took several steps torectify this situation.First as you requested, we tightened the discussion. In particular, we reduced the material on flexibility and the section entitled “Implications and Future Research.” Please note that in reducing the latter, we also addressed R2’s (comment 7) specific concern that this section was repetitive. Additional information about the changes made to the discussion can be found above in our responses to you regardingR3’s comment 8 and R2’scomment 6.Second, we attempted to carefully edit the paper to eliminate repetition and increaseclarity. In addition to general editing, we explicitly addressed each of the specific editing, wording, and repetition points raised by the reviewers. For example, a concern noted by you and all three reviewers was that our transitional paragraphs (i.e., those that introducea section and provide an overview of what we do in it) were repetitive. We agree withthis assessment, but believe such paragraphs serve a useful purpose in guiding the reader through the paper. Examining other AMR papers, we noticed that most used suchtransitional paragraphs for the same purpose. Thus, our approach was to substantiallyreduce the material in each of these transition paragraphs (in most instances by 50% ormore), but not eliminate them. This was accomplished primarily by deleting sentenceswhere we reiterated previously stated ideas using different wording (e.g., as noted by R2, comment 7).Additionally, moving part of the archetype descriptions forward to pp. 4-5 (R3, comment1) allowed us to reduce the introductions of each archetype section (R3, comment 3). Inthe process, we further streamlined the initial and subsequent archetype descriptions. Finally, we also specifically reworded or deleted each of the sentences or sections noted by R2 in his/her comments 5 and 7, and carefully proofed thereferences as requested by R1 in his/her comment 3. Overall, we reduced the paper by approximately 5 pages.Finally, only two reviewer comments were not explicitly noted in your above comments. These were R2’s comment 3 objecting to referring to Lepak and Snell (1999) as recent, and comment 4 requesting we use “collaborative HR system” rather than “collaboration HR system.” T o satisfy R2’s comment 3, we deleted the word “recent.” To satisfy R2’s comment 4, we use “collaborative” to describe that HR system throughout the paper.References not included in the paperGerhart, B., Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & Snell, S. A. 2000. Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates? Personnel Psychology, 53: 803-834.James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C-H. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., & Kim, K. 2008. Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17: 5-32. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. 2011. Perspectives on organizational climate and culture. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 1: 373-414. Washington: American Psychological Association.。
如何回复审稿人意见-审稿回复
创作编号：BG7531400019813488897SX创作者：别如克*如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer这是我的英文修改稿回复信Dear Editor,RE: Manuscript IDWe would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments.Below is our response to their comments.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorresponding Author下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答：一些习惯用语如下：Revision —authors’ responseReviewer #1:Major comments1.The referee correctly noted that our language about XXX was ambiguous.Therefore, we changed the text and the figures to emphasize that …. To further support the concept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted in Supplementar y Fig. S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations of XXXin 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 tobetter 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 thepoint that…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s request we haveused 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 byquantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the newpanel in Supplementary Fig.Reviewer #3:1.Because of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 into thenew Figure 6 a nd 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 ….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 tooweek 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 themagnification in order to maintain the same scale bar but also to preservedetails.创作编号：BG7531400019813488897SX创作者：别如克*6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statistically significant. In orderto 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 manuscr ipt 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 thenew experiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performed inXXX 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. Insummary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks to the referee’s comment, the wrong figure numbers were corrected inthe revised manuscript.Referee #2:We want to thank Referee #2 for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below.1.The referee recommends t o show…. We performed the experiment and itsresult is included in the revised Fig.2.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. were repeatedseveral times and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on t he 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 r eferee’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, aXXX assay was performed in XXX cells to demonstrate that …. The result is presented in Fig.2.Page 17, “the” E3 was changed to “an” E3.3.Referee #2 asks whether…. We would like to note that we investigated ….inour previous study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in this ma nuscript we focused on ….创作编号：BG7531400019813488897SX创作者：别如克*。
怎么写对审稿意见的回复范文英语
怎么写对审稿意见的回复范文英语Here's a sample response to reviewer comments in English, adhering to the guidelines you've provided:First off, thanks a ton for taking the time to review my paper! Your feedback is invaluable.On the point about clarifying the methodology, Itotally agree. I'll add a section that breaks down the steps we took in more detail, to make it easier for readers to follow.And regarding the suggestion to expand on the limitations, that's a great idea. I'll discuss thepotential biases in our data collection and how they might have affected our findings.Oh, and the note about referencing more recent studies? Spot on! I'll update the literature review to include the latest research, to give my paper a more contemporaryperspective.The comment on improving the figures is super helpful too. I'll make the graphs more readable and add captions to explain each one, so they're clearer for readers.Lastly, the tip to strengthen the conclusion is much appreciated. I'll summarize the key findings more concisely and discuss how they contribute to the field.Again, thanks for the feedback. I'll make these changes and resend the paper soon. Appreciate your help in makingit better!。
一些英文审稿意见与回复的模板.doc
一些英文审稿意见的模板最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。
幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个 major revision 后接收吧。
呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。
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 variousexperiments 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 thepolymer formulation.5、对 hypothesis 的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。
审稿意见英文回复范文
审稿意见英文回复范文English: Thank you for your valuable feedback on my manuscript. I appreciate the time and effort you have put into carefully reviewing my work. I will take into consideration all of your comments and suggestions to make necessary revisions and improvements to the manuscript. Your insights have provided me with a new perspective on my research, and I believe that incorporating your feedback will significantly enhance the quality of the paper. I will address each of your concerns in detail and ensure that the revised version meets the standards of the journal. Once again, I want to express my gratitude for your thorough review and constructive criticism.中文翻译: 感谢您对我的稿件提供宝贵的反馈意见。
我非常感激您花费时间和精力仔细审阅我的作品。
我将考虑您所有的评论和建议，对稿件进行必要的修改和改进。
您的洞察力为我研究提供了新的视角，我相信融入您的反馈将显著提升论文的质量。
我将详细解决您所关注的每个问题，并确保修订版本符合期刊的标准。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
Thank you very much for your email on 9 Mar 2009 with which you sent us the reviewer’s report on our paper with the reference number L09-01810. We also wish to take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for his constructive comments and valuable recommendations. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to reviewer’s suggestion.Our responses to several comments are listed below:Comment 1: Authors discussed their results in the frame of the surface phase separation (PS) scenario. Unfortunately, I am not sure that authors presented enough data to prove this scenario. Authors explain the presence of exchange bias (EB) effect as result of the coexistence of AFM and FM phases. Indeed, the most of observation of the EB effect were studied on AFM/FM interface.. But recent studies have shown that in addition to FM/AFM systems, the EB effect was also observed in samples involving a ferrimagnet (FI) or a spin-glass phase (FI/AFM, FM/FI, FI/SG, AFM/SG), see recent review of Nogues et al. Physics Reports 422 (2005) 65 (2005) (page 77). The surface phase may behave as SG phase, see again review of Nogues.Reply: Indeed, the phase separation (PS) scenario in original manuscript is ill-considered. We have noted that a clear bifurcation of ZFC and FC magnetization curves in Fig. 3, which is an indication of a glassy behavior at low temperature (Ref. 1). In addition, the observed hysteresis curve at 3 K did not show the saturation in fields up to 5 KOe like other conventional SG systems, and they reveal weak ferromagnetism may be due to spin freezing, where the SG-like surface layers may act as the weak “FM” on AFM nanoribbons. The SG-like order probably arises as a result of the higher surface-to-volume ratio afforded by the nanoribbon geometry, i.e., surface effects, which can result in uncompensated spin and a suppression of the long-range AFM order observed in the bulk. These results suggest that the surface phase in the SrMn3O6-δnanoribbons could behave as SG phase induced by surface effect of nanoribbons. Therefore, we reinterpret the presence of exchange bias effect as result of the coexistence of AFM and SG-like phase in the revised manuscript.In the revised manuscript, Page 4, Line 15, we replace “Furthermore, it is very relevant to note that .…a suppression of the long-range AFM order observed in the bulk.” with “Recently, studies have shown that the antiferromagnetism in bulk manganites is suppressed in both nanowires and nanoparticles, accompanied with an appearance of weak ferromagnetism.6,19 A core-shell phenomenological model was proposed, where the relaxation of superexchange interaction on the surface of nanowires or nanoparticles allows the formation of a FM or SG shell, resulting in natural AFM/FM or FM/SG interface.17,20 Considering the SG-like characteristic of magnetization curves in Fig. 3, which is further indicated by the unsaturated M-H curve at 3 K in fields up to 5 KOe like other conventional SG systems in Fig. 4, a similar description for the magnetic structure of the SrMn3O6-δnanoribbons could be suggested, that is, an AFM core and a SG-like shell, where the SG-like surface layers may act as the weak “FM” on AFM nanoribbons.15 The SG-like order probably arises as a result of the higher surface-to-volume ratio afforded by the nanoribbon geometry, i.e., surface effects, which can result in uncompensated spin and a suppression of the long-range AFM order observed in the bulk.”Page 5, Line 10, we insert “It is also observed in the hysteresis curve, which did not show the saturation in fields up to 5 KOe like other conventional SG systems.16 The observed M-H curve at 3 K reveals weak ferromagnetism may be due to spin freezing.”Reference No. 16 is added in the revised manuscript.Comment 2: Page 4, lines 5-7 from the top: “It can be seen that the M(T) curves display a weak AFM transition at T N (~ 46 K), which is typical of the AFM ordering in bulk SrMn3O6-δ reported previously (Ref. 10).” In contrast with results of Ref. 10 where the Neel temperature for the bulk was determined form ac susceptibility, from results presented in Fig. 3 it is impossible to determine the Neel temperature. The deviation of 1/M from CW law may not correspond T N, and it may differ significantly from T N of the bulk.Reply: Yes, from the M(T) curves and the deviation of 1/M from CW law in Fig. 3 it is impossible to determine the Neel temperature.In the revised manuscript, Page 4, Line 5, we delete the sentence “It can be seen that the M(T) curves display a weak AFM transition at T N (~ 46 K), which is typical of the AFM ordering in bulk SrMn3O6-δ reported previously (Ref. 10).” and insert the sentence “The ZFC magnetization curve exhibit a sharp peak at T m (~26 K) accompanied by a clear bifurcation of ZFC and FC magnetization curves, which is an indication of a glassy behavior at low temperature.9,16 ”Comment 3: Page 4, lines 13-14 from the top. “The formation of ferromagnetism at low temperature is further confirmed by the open hysteresis curves at 3 K shown in Fig. 4.” Unfortunately, I don't see any indication of spontaneous magnetization characteristic of FM phase.Reply: Considering the SG-like characteristic, the observed M-H curve at 3 K reveals weak ferromagnetism in the present nonoribbons may be due to spin freezing. Therefore, in our revised manuscript, the sentence “The formation of ferromagnetism at low temperature is further confirmed by the open hysteresis curves at 3 K shown in Fig. 4.” is deleted.Comment 4: Page 6, lines 2-3 from the top: “Results indicate that the exchange bias in the SrMn3O6-δnanoribbons increase with the increasing cooling field.” I believe that the results presented are not enough for such statement. Authors present the results of measurements for 0.5 kOe and 2 kOe only and they don't know the behavior of the exchange bias parameters in magnetic fields between 0.5 and 2 kOe and in H > 2 kOe.Reply: We measured the hysteresis loop at 3 K after the FC in magnetic field of 5 KOe, and show the additional result of measurement for H cool = 5 KOe in FIG. 4 in the revised manuscript. It can be seen that the exchange bias field H E increase with the increasing cooling field.Other modifications include:1.[Abstract, Page 1, Line 8] Replace “In contrast with the antiferromagnetic … may induce aninterfacial exchange anisotropy.” with “In contrast with the antiferromagnetic bulk material, magnetization measurements reveal weak ferromagnetism at low temperature in thesenanoribbons. Most interestingly, a notable exchange-bias effect is observed in the SrMn3O6-δnanoribbons, and the exchange bias is strongly dependent on the cooling field. These results suggest that the phase inhomogeneity in one-dimensional nanostructural manganite may induce exchange anisotropy.”2.[Page 2, Line 3 from bottom] Replace “Recently, exchange bias phenomenon has … and AFMmatrix was proposed.” with “But recent studies have shown that in addition to FM/AFM systems, exchange bias phenomenon was also observed in samples involving a ferrimagnet (FI) or a spin-glass phase ( FI/AFM, FM/SG, SG/AFM ).15 ”We hope that our revised version will be satisfactory for publication in APL. Great thanks to you and the referee for the time and effort you expend on this paper.Ref. 1 S. Karmakar, S. Taran, E. Bose, and B. K. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B 77, 144409 (2008).。