如何回复审稿人意见(Response to Reviews)
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%。
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。
(完整版)如何回复审稿人意见(ResponsetoReviews)
Dear Editor,We have studied the valuable comments from you, the assistant editor and reviewers carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:Responds to the rev iewer’s comments:Reviewer 1Comment 1: in page 3, line 40, we fed rats..." changed to rats were fed with... Response: According to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected the sentence. Furthermore, we have had the manuscript polished with a professional assistance in writing.Comment 2:page 25. The style of reference 40 is not right (using initials for the first names). Since this paper has been published, the volume and page Nos should be provided.Response: Thank you for your careful work. We have added the volume and page numbers for reference 40.Reviewer 2Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the criticisms with additional experiments. The one criticism that they did not address was relating to energy expenditure as the reason that the animals on the low calcium diet gained more weight. While I understand that performing this experiment will not affect the conclusion of this manuscript, I do believe that this point could be discussed in the Discussion section.Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. Based on the previous revision, we further address the relationship between low calcium diet and energy expenditure in the section of discussion according to your thoughtful comments.Reviewer 3Comment 1: In the text you often write: “As previously described”. Unless that paper is from your lab or one of the method paper co-authors is on the present MS this is not quite proper since the statement infers method development from your lab. There are numerous instances like that in the methods section; these should all be changed “according to those described by…..”Response: We are sorry for this language mistake. We have carefully corrected this phrase throughout the manuscript according to your comment.Comment 2: There are still some wording, sentence structure and grammatical issues even in this basically well put together MS. For example, while authors may have been excited about the data you cannot start a sentence with “Excitedly” in line 418 or “Whatever” in line 395.Response: Thank you very much to point out the sentence structure and grammatical issues in our manuscript. According to the comments from you and the editors, we polished the manuscript with a professional assistance in writing, conscientiously.Comment 3:In my view a big omission in this work is ignoring the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues. For example all animals consumed the same amount of feed but we had extra fat storage in the low Ca diet groups. So where did the extra energy go? Zemel et al (citation 34) in similar work indicate that increased thermogenesis on the high Ca diet explains the dissipation of dietary energy. Further even though Zemel et al (#34) indicated lipogenesis was enhanced in the low Ca diets that was in 2000 and you should have monitored expression of FAS and UCP either as mRNA abundance or actual FAS/UCP changes via proteomics or blotting techniques. In any case these controls are missing here and not emphasized in the MS. Casual reading of this paper would lead to the conclusion that the dietary Ca effect on fat deposition is strictly a function of increased or decreased lipolysis. While lipolysis appears to be a major player, lipogenesis and thermogenesis cannot be ignored for completeness. In Fig 8 you also show a decline in cAMP for the low Ca diet. Well beta agonists or cAMP enhancers regulate transcription of adipose and liver FAS (in rats (J Biol Chem 271:2307, 1996) and recently with large animal models (Hausman et al J Animal Science 87:1218, 2009 and Halsey et al J Animal Science 89: 1011, 2011). In additioncAMP levels could have been monitored. I really do not like the last sentence in the Abstract line 47-50 where you state that “low calcium diet-induced increase in fat mass was due to enhanced lipogenesis mediated by an upregulated CaSR signaling pathway” Your results here show no such thing, this is a completely false statement based on data herein. Correct. You show that high Ca diets enhance lipolysis and low Ca diets are antilipolytic. You did not monitor lipid anabolism here at all. See also line 255-257 and lines 333-335 of your MS. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. As you suggested that the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues should be monitored. We really agree with your viewpoints. In the present study, we did find that low calcium diet increased the mRNA level of fatty acid synthase (FAS) in white adipose tissue. Furthermore, the FAS mRNA level were also increased in adipocytes after treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3in in-vitro experiments. However, the increased FAS mRNA levels were not affected by preventing either the nuclear vitamin D receptor (nVDR) or calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR), suggesting that FAS might not be involved in the CaSR pathway. In addition, we thought that FAS played its role in fatty acid synthesis mainly in liver previously. Besides, the manuscript was required to restrict number of total words and our previous focus was on the antilolytic role of CaSR in the process of fat accumulation. So we ignored to provide the data of FAS mRNA levels in the submitted manuscript. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the mRNA levels according to your helpful suggestion.We have reported the effects of dietary calcium on UCP2 mRNA levels in adipose tissue and UCP3 in skeletal muscle in our previous studies (1, 2). Thus, we believed that low calcium diet led to decreased thermogenesis in the present study. It was a pity that we did not measure the rat core temperature in those studies. The UCP2 mRNA levels in adipocytes were observed to be decreased after treatment of 1,25-(OH)2D3. This effect was prevented by using nVDR CaSR gene silencing but not by CaSR gene knockdown, suggesting that UCP2 was not involved in CaSR pathways. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the UCP2 results.Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are very sorry for our fault statement in the abstract. We have corrected it in the new manuscript.Comment 4: A point that does not emerge well from the discussion is how low Ca intakes result in higher intracellular [Ca] concentrations and really the effects on fatdeposition in the cells in many ways are due to an increased intracellular Ca level mediated via CaSR expression increases and the effect of VitD3 on nVDR show in Fig 8. The authors must remind readers that Ca levels in the blood are under hormonal regulation (Calcitonin, PTH and VitD3). Thus when diets low in Ca are consumed and blood Ca decline, PTH and VitD3 are called upon to mobilize bone Ca to replenish the blood Ca. Then coupled with an increase in CaSR more Ca actually is found in AT despite the fact that many would think the AT Ca level should decline. The reason is that tissue/circulating Ca levels are not diet depended but regulated. The vast bone stores of Ca will provide ample Ca here especially during a study of this length. While authors address these issues maybe could be presented in a less complicated discussion.Response:Thank you for your instructive suggestions. We are sorry for not describing the effect of low calcium diet on intracellular calcium concentrations mediated by CaSR, as well as the impact of hormone regulation on serum calcium levels clearly. According to your helpful advice, we have rewritten these two parts in the section of discussion. Thank you again.Comment 5: Not all citations are in JN styleResponse: We have careful recheck and corrected the style of the citations according to the requirement of JN.Comment 6: Abstract conclusion differs from lines 255-257 and 333-335; WHY? Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The conclusion from lines 255-257 is about the effect of low calcium diet on serum levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) and lipids. We considered FFA and glycerol as indicators of TG hydrolysis in adipose tissue. The low calcium diet caused decreased serum FFA and glycerol levels without influencing lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity, so we thought the lipolytic effect of adipose tissue to be suppressed by low calcium diet. The conclusion from lines 333-335 was about the effect of 1,25-(OH)2D3 whose levels were increased under low calcium conditions on lipolysis. We used the glycerol level as the indicator of TG hydrolysis in adipocytes. Both the in vivo and in vitro experiments showed low calcium status caused an antilipolytic effect.Comment 7: Line 150-153. The qRT-PCR methodology is not at all understandable as you cite a Texas A&M published paper. This is completely insufficient with the newly established standards on gene expression via qRT-PCR. There is no mention of efficiencies of amplifications in these data nor how the use of the reference gene was established etc. I think Pfaffl and Bustin have recently written an article on this; please totally revise 150-153 in line with what you did and applying the new standards.Response: Thank you very much. Because the JN restricts the number of total words of manuscript, we cited the Texas A&M published paper. In the newly submitted manuscript, we describe the detailed protocols in our lab.Comment 8:Line 179 on Not clear as in sentences talk about different AT cell sources etc..revise.Response: We are sorry for not addressing the adipose tissue cell sources clearly. We have rewritten the methods.Comment 9: Any previous documentable work with siRNA?Response: Yes, we have documentable work with siRNA in our research team. The results were published in the journal of Biochem Biophys Res Commun (3).Comment 10: Line 214.. Cultured primary rat adipocytes and SW872 adipocytes ……Response: Thank you very much. According to your comment, we have had the manuscript polished and corrected the mistakes.。
如何有效回应审稿人的意见
如何有效回应审稿人的意见在学术研究和出版领域，面对审稿人的意见并给出有效的回应是至关重要的一环。
这不仅关系到论文能否顺利发表，更体现了作者对待学术的严谨态度和专业素养。
那么，如何才能有效地回应审稿人的意见呢？首先，要以正确的心态对待审稿人的意见。
审稿人的目的不是刻意刁难作者，而是帮助提高论文的质量和学术价值。
因此，作者应怀着感激和尊重的心态来审视这些意见，将其视为改进论文的宝贵机会。
在收到审稿人的意见后，第一步是仔细阅读和理解每一条意见。
有些意见可能比较直接和明确，比如要求补充实验数据、修改论证逻辑或修正语法错误。
而有些意见可能较为含蓄或宏观，需要作者仔细琢磨其背后的意图。
对于不明确的意见，不要急于猜测，而是可以通过邮件等方式与编辑沟通，确保自己准确把握审稿人的关注点。
接下来，对审稿人的意见进行分类整理。
可以将其分为必须修改的关键问题、建议性的改进意见以及可选择性考虑的问题。
对于关键问题，要给予最高的重视，投入足够的时间和精力去解决。
对于建议性的意见，要认真思考其合理性，并根据自己的研究和论文整体框架，决定是否采纳。
对于可选择性的问题，可以根据实际情况权衡其对论文质量的影响。
在回应审稿人的意见时，要做到条理清晰、逻辑严密。
可以采用逐条回应的方式，确保每一条意见都得到了回应。
在每条回应的开头，明确指出是针对哪一条意见进行的回复，例如“针对审稿人提出的第一条意见……”。
在回复中，要清晰地说明自己采取的措施或解释自己的观点。
如果进行了修改，要具体说明修改的内容和位置；如果不同意审稿人的意见，要礼貌且有理有据地阐述自己的理由，但同时也要表现出愿意进一步探讨和接受合理建议的态度。
回应的内容要具体而有针对性。
避免使用模糊、笼统的语言，比如“已进行修改”，而要详细说明如何修改，例如“增加了新的案例分析，以进一步支持文中的观点，相关内容在第 X 页第 X 段”。
如果需要补充数据或引用新的文献，要准确说明来源和作用。
专家审稿意见回复范文如何回复中文审稿人意见结尾如何写
专家审稿意见回复范文如何回复中文审稿人意见结尾如何写专家审稿意见回复范文如何回复中文审稿人意见结尾如何写第一，不论审稿人提了什么意见，你在回复的时候一定要说：谢谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常的重要，它们对我的论文写作和科研工作都具有重要的指导意义！第二，如果审稿人提 ___你暂时无法做到（比如，要你增加实验或改进实验等）。
那么，为了论文尽快发表，你必须拒绝这样的要求。
但是，你不要摆出一大堆理由来证明这个意见是不好实现的。
你应该说：“谢谢您的建议，它非常的重要，由于您的建议，我发现了我目前工作中的不足之处，我会在以后的工作中按照您的建议提高科研水平，取得更多成绩！”这样说，等于委婉的拒绝了评审意见，又让评审人觉得你很看重他 ___。
第三，如果审稿人___明显有问题，也不说能说审稿人___是错误的，可以他 ___发表任何的评论，只需要列出你的理由和证据就可以了，结尾也不要强调自己的观点是正确的。
一句话，就是凭证据说话。
第四，如果审稿人的评价比较傲慢，而且有失公平。
那么，不用客气，直接写信给，痛批审稿人。
（我就遇到过这样的情况，痛批后反而被录用。
）第五，在回复信的结尾最好写上再次谢谢您的建议，希望能够从您哪里学到更多的知识。
这句话最好用黑体，要显眼。
保持正确的语调，做出回应。
说明（1）在回复审稿人意见的时候，除了写明修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。
这个其实也可以归纳为礼貌用语，大家一般也都会注意到。
但是，有些时候还是容易“放飞自我”。
实验室的一位师兄，花了很长的时间搞出来一个很有idea的文章。
（2）在回复审稿意见的时候，前面还是客客气气的回复，一读到关于自己核心idea的时候，立马心态就炸了，言辞什么的就有点过激了，最后当然直接被拒了。
其实能作为审稿人，一般都是这个领域的专家或者有一定贡献的人，既然能指出你的问题，就说明还是存在不合理的地方，那就认认真真去修改就好了，千万不要太持才傲物。
（3）里很多人都会轻易犯错，尤其是刚发论文的时候，总觉得自己一定要根据审稿人的每一条意见都做出修改。
怎么回复审稿人的意见
怎么回复审稿人的意见
1.审稿人的意见很重要
当你提交论文或研究报告时，审稿人的意见往往会对最终结果产生重要影响。
因此，我们需要认真看待审稿人提出的每一条意见，并予以恰当回复。
2.读懂审稿人的意见
在回复审稿人的意见之前，我们需要充分读懂他们所提出的问题或建议。
审稿人需要我们解释某些部分，或是针对某些错误或疏漏提出修改意见。
3.一一回复审稿人意见
根据审稿人的意见清单，我们需要一条一条进行回复。
我们需要说明具体哪些地方我们同意了审稿人的意见，哪些地方我们需要进行一些争议，还有哪些地方因为某些原因我们并不能完全按照审稿人的要求进行修改。
4.充分解释修改内容
在回复审稿人的意见中，我们需要提供充分的解释，说明我们在修改过程中的思考和具体方法。
通过说明我们的想法，我们可以让审稿人更好地理解我们的修改效果，并提出更有建设性的意见。
5.感激审稿人的意见
在回复审稿人的意见中，我们需要充分表达感激之情，说明我们会认真对待审稿人的建议，并做出改进。
这不仅表明我们对审稿人的意见的重视，也有助于建立更良好的合作关系。
6.重视管窥之见
在回复审稿人的意见时，我们需要记住审稿人往往具有丰富的学术经验和知识背景，所以他们的建议通常是有价值的。
我们应该重视和尊重审稿人的意见，认真思考并应用他们的建议。
综上所述，回复审稿人的意见是一项极其重要的工作。
如果我们能够正确地对待审稿人的意见，积极回应并充分解释，那么我们的研究可能会得到更高的认可，并提高我们的学术成就。
如何回复审稿人意见
如何回复审稿人意见很多人都遇到过回复审稿人意见的时候。
本人曾经因为回复审稿意见不合适而导致拒稿，相当的惨哪！！后来发现回复审稿意见时，除了写清修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。
对审稿人的意见提出不同的看法也应该讲究一定的技巧。
由于这些话的英文都不难写，所以我直接写成中文表述，觉得有用的虫友自己翻译吧。
首先不论审稿人提了什么意见，你在回复的时候，第一句话一定要说：谢谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常的重要，它们对我的论文写作和科研工作都具有重要的指导意义！！其次，在回复信的结尾最好写上再次谢谢您的建议，希望能够从您哪里学到更多的知识。
这句话最好用黑体，要显眼。
再次，如果审稿人提的意见你暂时无法做到（比如，要你增加实验或改进实验等）。
那么，为了论文尽快发表，你必须拒绝这样的要求。
但是，你不要摆出一大堆理由来证明这个意见是不好实现的。
你应该说：谢谢您的建议，它非常的重要，由于您的建议，我发现了我目前工作中的不足之处，我会在以后的工作中按照您的建议提高科研水平，取得更多成绩！这样就委婉的拒绝了评审意见，又让评审人觉得你很看重他的意见。
如果审稿人的意见明显有问题。
那么没办法了，你必须据理力争。
但是，你一定不能说：审稿人先生，我认为你的意见是错的！你不必对他的意见发表任何的评论，只需要列出你的理由和证据就可以了，结尾也不要强调你的观点是正确的。
简单说就是既不说你对，也不说我对，证据说话。
第五，如果审稿人的评价比较傲慢，而且有失公平。
那么，不用客气，直接写信给编辑，痛批审稿人。
（我就遇到过这样的情况，痛批后反而被录用。
）一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。
这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。
好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。
下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。
审稿意见回稿用语
论文返修（response letter)一些很有用的套话1、According to the associate editor and reviewers’ comments, we have made extensive modifications to our manuscript and supplemented extra data to make our results convincing.2、In this revised version, changes to our manuscript were all highlighted within the document by using red colored text.3、Thank you for your nice comments on our article. According to your suggestions, we have supplemented several data here and corrected several mistakes in our previous draft. Based on your comments, we also attached a point-by-point letter to you and the other two reviewers. We have made extensive revisions to our previous draft. The detailed point-by-point responses are listed below.4、Thanks for your help. We feel really sorry for our carelessness.5、Thank you for your reminding. You and the other two reviewers’ comments are all of great importance to our article. All of these comments have contributed a lot to improve the quality of our article. After this revision, we have written apoint-by-point response letter to you as you can see above. Meanwhile, we also wrote a point-by-point response letter to the other two nice reviewers to acknowledge their helps and denote where we made revisions.6、We feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article. As you are concerned, there are several problems that need to be addressed. According to your nice suggestions, we have made extensive corrections to our previous draft. We have added necessary data to supplement our results and edited our article extensively. The detailed corrections are listed below.7、We feel sorry that we did not provide enough information about XXXX.8、it is really a giant mistake to the whole quality of our article. We feel sorry for our carelessness. We have corrected it and we also feel great thanks for your point out.9、thanks for your suggestions. We feel sorry for our poor writings, however, we do invite a friend of us who is a native English speaker from USA help polish our article. Due to our friend’s help, the article was edited extensively. And we hope the revised manuscript could be acceptable for you.(10、thanks for your careful checks. We are sorry for our carelessness. Based on your comments, we have made the corrections to make the unit harmonized within the whole manuscript.11、your suggestion really means a lot to us. Yes, it would be more understandable if we XXX.12、According to your suggestion, we have corrected the “XXX” into “XXX”.13、thanks for your correction. It was indeed a serious grammatical error. And we have corrected it according to your suggestion.14、thanks for your suggestions. We feel sorry for the improper wording. We have used “XXXX” as you suggested.15、According to the reviewer’s comments, we have revised the manuscript extensively. If there are any other modifications we could make, we would like very much to modify them and we really appreciate your help. “xxxx” is a journal of great popularity and prestige. We hope that our manuscript could be considered for publication in your journal. Thank you very much for your help.：。
如何回复审稿人意见
如何回复审稿人意见：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。
5. 老师说的4点，确实很有道理。
不过审稿人提出要补充的实验，如果不是非做不可的，还是可以进行解释。
我也为国外的杂志审过稿，有时审稿人即使想接受你的文章，总还要提出一些不足之处，如果文章没有那些不足之处，也许文章就会投给更高IF的杂志了。
所以，如果你真的不想补充实验或者补充很困难，可以合理的解释，一般没问题的。
国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而过关，原因见少帖）。
还因为：很少杂志编辑把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。
编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定一般杂志（影响因子1-5）。
我常用的回复格式，呵呵。
Dear reviewer:I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions wereanswered below.引用审稿人推荐的文献的确是很重要的，要想办法和自己的文章有机地结合起来。
至于实验大部分都可以不用补做，关键是你要让审稿人明白你的文章的重点是什么，这个实验对你要强调的重点内容不是很必要，或者你现在所用的方法已经可以达到目的就行了。
最后要注意，审稿人也会犯错误，不仅仅是笔误也有专业知识上的错误，因为编辑找的审稿人未必是你这个领域的专家。
只要自己是正确的就要坚持。
在回复中委婉地表达一下你的意见，不过要注意商讨语气哦！我的回复，请老外帮忙修改了Dear Editor:Thank you for your kind letter of “......” on November **, 2005. We revised the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors.Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments.Part A (Reviewer 1)1. The reviewer’s comment: ......The authors’ Answer: .....2. The reviewer’s comment: ......The authors’ Answer: .....Part B (Reviewer 2)The authors’ Answer:Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised.All the lines and pages indicated above are in the revised manuscript.Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice. Sincerely yours,具体例子1：这是我的一篇修稿回复，杂志是JBMR-A,影响因子3.652,已发表，供参考！Reply to the comments on JBMR-A-05-0172Comment:Reference #10 is missing from the Introduction but used much later in the manuscript. Should these be in order used in manuscript?Reply:The missing reference has been added into the revisedmanuscript.Comment (continued):What is the sample size for all tests performed?Reply:The sample size for drug release and PCL degradation tests was 3.0×3.0 cm2, with a thickness of about 0.1mm and a weight of about 40mg. This dada have been added into the revised manuscript.Comment (continued):Figure 7. There is no scientific evidence presented in the TEM figure to convince this reviewer of sub-jets. This statement on Page 9 cannot be made without clear evidence during the jet formation/separation. Figure 7 is just a large fiber and small fiber fused together, no other conclusion than this can be made.Reply:Necessary change in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript as well as in the referredfigure accordingly.Comment (continued):Table 3: Need standard deviation for all values reported not just for a select few.. Equation after Table 3 not necessary. Just reference method used.Reply:Done accordingly.Comment (continued):Page 11: "faster weight loss" What was the sample size? Where is the statistical analysis of this data? This reviewer does not see a significant difference in any of the data presented, thus weight loss would be considered equivalent.Reply:Although not too much difference was seen, the conclusion that “the GS/PCL membrane exhibited a relatively faster weight loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane” was indeed applicable through “one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)” analysis. Following the reviewer’s comment, a new sub-section has been added to the manuscript to address the statistical analysis for the data.Comment (continued):Page 12: What is the sample size for release data? Looks like results based on a sample size of one? Need stand deviations on the data presented in Figure 11.Why wasn't release performed and compared for all electrospun conditions investigated otherwise?Reply:Three repeated tests were performed for each set of measurements and the resulting data were averaged. As stated in the revised manuscript, each sample had a square area of 3cm2 with a slightly different thickness. 3Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11.The present manuscript aimed to show that medicaldrugs can be encapsulated in ultrafine fibers through a co-axial electrospinning process. The drug release data intended to show that the encapsulation was successful. We did not consider any specific application in this preliminary paper, and in fact the two drugs were just chosen as model illustration. As such, there seemed not necessary to perform release experiments for all of the membranes electrospun with different conditions (i.e. the core concentrations)Comment (continued):Table 3: Yang's or Young's Modulus (page 10 says Young's).Reply:Corrected accordingly.Comment (continued):Figure 11: What is the % release, not just concentration. Why just this small sample of release data? Where is the release data for the other conditions?Reply:Unfortunately, we did not measure the amount of the shell material in obtaining the composite nanofibers. Namely, the flow rate of the shell solution during the electrospinning was not accurately controlled using an injecting pump. Hence the % release was not applicable.Please refer to the previous reply related to Page 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments.We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.具体例子2：Major comments:1. The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMPsecretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive controlprogenitor cell population i.e. enriched human CD34 cellsobtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a moreclinicallyrelevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown tosecrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 enriched cellsfrom steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs arealso of interest.2. In fig 1C please specify which cell line represents MMP-negative cells. This needs to be clarified, as well as abetter explanation of the method of the protocol.3. The ELISA results are represented as "fold increase" comparedto control. Instead, we suggest that standards should be used andresults should be presented as absolute concentrations and onlythen can these results be compared to those of the zymography.4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguishclearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration.Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained with cordblood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34enriched cells and discussed.5. The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed todetermine the optimum concentration for inhibition of MMPactivity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however theyshould clarify that this assay can only determine the toxicity ofthe inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations.Minor comments:1. There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in theresults and discussion, which need correction.a. Of special importance, is the percent inhibition of migration,which is described as percent of migration. i.e. pg 7:"Migrationof CB CD34 was reduced to 73.3%?" Instead should read "Migration of CB CD34 was reduced by 73.3%?"b. The degree symbol needs to be added to the numbers inMaterials and methods.2. It would be preferable to combine figure 1A and B, in order toconfirm the reliability of fig. 1B by a positive control(HT1080).Answer to referee 1 comment:1. Mobilized peripheral blood is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it is necessary to compare the MMP-9 secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn't obtain enough mobilized PB toseparate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’t complement the study on PB CD34+ cells in this paper. Results obtained by Janowska-Wieczorek et al found that mobilized CD34+ cells in peripheral blood express MMP-9. Furthermore, Domenech’s study showed that MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSF induced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusion from our data is that freshly isolated CD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9.2. MMP-9 negative cell used in fig 1C was Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis, MMP-9 was not detected in the medium conditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, we screened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. This result may be confusion. Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells(MNC)/ml (since the purities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9 activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion be detected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cells conditioned medium is due to the contamination by MNC.3.In this revised paper, we have detected the MMP-9 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System, sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Recombinant MMP-9 from R&D System was used as a standard. The results are expressed in the absolute concentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectable in both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higher in CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium than in BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium (0.406±0.133ng/ml versus0.195±0.023ng/ml). Although gelatinolytic activity was not detected in media conditioned by CD34+ cells from BM, sensitivity of ELISA favors the detection of MMP-9 antigen in the BM CD34+.4. In our study, to establish the direct link between MMP-9 and CB CD34+ cells migration, we only determined the role of MMP-9 in spontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoietic stem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison to CD34+ cells from BM and peripheral blood.5. CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. It is not enough to screen the inhibitors concentrations to select the optimalinhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations used by others and the manufacturer's recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicity of the inhibitors in that concentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay.Minor comments:1.The spelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected.2.Since the results in figure 1A and B were obtained from two separated and parallel experiments, it is not fitness to combine two figures.下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。
如何正确回复审稿人：标准的Responsetoreviewer
如何正确回复审稿人：标准的Responsetoreviewer在审稿意见回来之后，如何写一份标准的Response to reviewer！第1部分：对审稿人进行称呼第2部分：总述对文稿的修改情况（一般如果文稿进行润色了，最好在这里提及一下），以及夸夸审稿人（夸夸他的意见或者建议很好，对稿件的提升很大，千万不要和审稿人顶，不是干这个事情的时候），对稿件的期待。
第3部分：（标明）1#审稿人第4部分：1#审稿人的第一个问题（将审稿人的问题复制进来即可，排版好）第5部分：1#审稿人的第一个问题的回复意见（谨慎认真，不可敷衍了事）第6部分：2#或者其他审稿人第7部分：感谢语（可自由发挥）第8部分：通讯作者名称，日期，机构等信息01回复审稿意见时的小细节和礼仪1、正确的心态成就正确的回复在回复审稿人意见之前，先庆祝一下你的研究论文已经走到同行评审这一步了吧~还要对百忙之中抽出时间来审阅你论文的审稿人们怀一颗感恩的心！2、在回复审稿人之前，先修改稿件当你准备好以专业、客观的方式处理审稿人的意见时，先和你的共同作者们讨论一下评审意见的内容，共同商量决定要接受哪些修改，反对哪些修改。
修改完论文之后再开始给审稿人写回复。
3、回复细节首先，感谢审稿人花时间审阅你的稿件。
然后，表明你已经解决了他们提出的所有问题。
回应审稿人的意见并不意味着你全部按照审稿人建议的修改。
而是意味着：这些建议你认真考虑过后，有的做了修改，有的没有修改但是会解释原因。
列出所有审稿人的意见以及你对每条意见的回复。
使用不同的字体或文字颜色来突出你的回答，使文本易于查看。
4、不要直接回复yes 或no。
即使是被要求做一些小的修改，比如改正拼写错误的单词，你可以说“We 've corrected the typo.”。
如果是更严重的错误，你还可以加上“We apologize for our error.”5、尽可能让你的回复内容清晰明了。
回复审稿人意见模板
回复审稿人意见模板Response: Thank you for pointing out the error in our abstract。
We have corrected it to state that we used XXX.Response to the comments of Reviewer #2Comment No。
1: The n XXX.Response: We have revised the XXX of our research objectives.Comment No。
2: The n XXX analysis of the results.Response: XXX analysis of our results and their XXX.Comment No。
3: Some of the figures are difficult to read and need to be improved.Response: We have XXX.Response to the comments of Reviewer #3Comment No。
1: The language and grammar need to be improved.Response: XXX.Comment No。
2: Some of the XXX.Response: XXX n to make it more clear and understandable.Overall。
XXX to address the reviewers' comments and ns。
and we hope that our revised manuscript will meet the standards of the journal。
Thank you again for your time and XXX.XXX (TG-DSC) method was used to XXX and phase changeof the samples。
如何回复审稿人意见(Response to Reviews)3
Dear Reviewers,Thank you for your thoughtful, helpful, and most kind review of manuscript 2006/036. Your comments and suggestions have been incorporated as appropriate into the revised draft. Specific revisions are noted below.Reviewer Comment Authors’ ResponseReviewer #1More detail on the method of interviewing participants should be added. Table 1 has been added that specifically notes methods of data collection, instruments used if applicable and any special information related to timing of interviews.Addition of a legend for Table 3 (nowTable 4) would be helpful.This has been added.Elaboration of the implications of the study for health care providers and patients. More implications have been added; however, this is early research, and the full extent of the implications is not completely known at this time.Addition of more specific directionsfor future research.These have been added in the conclusions section, Reviewer #2Make an explicit statement that the approach is somewhat atheoretical and data driven. This has been added under data analysis, as well as in the abstract.Potential problem of implying that clusters may enhance identification of AMI for the lay public and professionals related to fact that only persons with diagnosed AMI were studied. We agree that all presentations for AMI may not be represented in this study. We have noted that as a limitation. Assessing the symptoms of persons who have not been diagnosed, however, would be very challenging if not impossible. Hopefully, once we identify some of the clusters, they will lead us to presentations of persons who do not get diagnosed for a variety of different reasons.The results of this study must be considered provisional hypothesis and in need of subsequent support in independent and ideally prospective samples. We agree and plan to do this. We have noted that more study leading to validation of these findings is needed.Some of the data analysis could be presented more clearly. We hope that this revision presents the steps in data analysis more clearly.Methodological limitations:1. More about source studies. Table 2 has been added with more detailed information on the source studies. This includes year of publication (if applicable), inclusion criteria, etc. In addition, a statement was added in the text stating that all data were collected after 1990. Most studies used ECG and serum markers for subject identification, and this is indicated. Subjects with NSTEMI were included. All source studies that have been published are included inthe reference list.2. Questions on all symptoms in all studies. Not all symptoms were assessed in all studies. This is a limitation of secondary data analysis. The specific number of persons assessed for each symptom is noted in Table 3, and this is noted in the text.3. Reorder symptoms in Table 2 inorder of occurrence.This has been done.4. Weak justification for choosing5 rather than6 clusters. This has been addressed in the text. Thank you for pointing out the Loken reference. We agree that the BIC is a conservative approach to assessing model fit and have noted this in the manuscript. However, Loken also states that the best method for assessing fit remains controversial. Therefore, we used all of the statistics available and related them to form our conclusion. We hope that we have stated this point clearly.5. Footnoting of abbreviations inTable 3 (now Table 4) and moreexplanatory caption.This has been added, thank you for the suggestion.Add a table summarizing symptoms for each cluster. Thank you for this excellent suggestion. Table 6 has been added.Strengths and Limitations1. Statement related togeneralizability of findings.This statement has been removed.2. Limitation related to sample only consisting of cases of confirmed AMI. A statement has been added related to this limitation. Also the inclusion criteria (troponin/CK-MB) for the source studies have been added in Table 6.Study by Ryan and Zerwic in background. This study assessed perceptions of AMI symptoms, not actual AMI symptoms that were experienced. The point of the study was to examine whether persons were able to identify symptom clusters. We did not add more details of the results of this study because we do not think that they really compare to the present analysis.Editorial suggestions. These have been corrected. Thank you for pickingthem up.Thank you again for your kind and thoughtful comments. We hope that the revision addresses your concerns.。
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]。
专家审稿意见回复范文如何回复中文审稿人意见结尾如何写
专家审稿意见回复范文如何回复中文审稿人意见结尾如何写第一，不论审稿人提了什么意见，你在回复的时候一定要说：谢谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常的重要，它们对我的论文写作和科研工作都具有重要的指导意义！第二，如果审稿人提 ___你暂时无法做到（比如，要你增加实验或改进实验等）。
那么，为了论文尽快发表，你必须拒绝这样的要求。
但是，你不要摆出一大堆理由来证明这个意见是不好实现的。
你应该说：“谢谢您的建议，它非常的重要，由于您的建议，我发现了我目前工作中的不足之处，我会在以后的工作中按照您的建议提高科研水平，取得更多成绩！”这样说，等于委婉的拒绝了评审意见，又让评审人觉得你很看重他 ___。
第三，如果审稿人 ___明显有问题，也不说能说审稿人 ___是错误的，可以他 ___发表任何的评论，只需要列出你的理由和证据就可以了，结尾也不要强调自己的观点是正确的。
一句话，就是凭证据说话。
第四，如果审稿人的评价比较傲慢，而且有失公平。
那么，不用客气，直接写信给，痛批审稿人。
（我就遇到过这样的情况，痛批后反而被录用。
）第五，在回复信的结尾最好写上再次谢谢您的建议，希望能够从您哪里学到更多的知识。
这句话最好用黑体，要显眼。
保持正确的语调，做出回应。
说明（1）在回复审稿人意见的时候，除了写明修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。
这个其实也可以归纳为礼貌用语，大家一般也都会注意到。
但是，有些时候还是容易“放飞自我”。
实验室的一位师兄，花了很长的时间搞出来一个很有idea的文章。
（2）在回复审稿意见的时候，前面还是客客气气的回复，一读到关于自己核心idea的时候，立马心态就炸了，言辞什么的就有点过激了，最后当然直接被拒了。
其实能作为审稿人，一般都是这个领域的专家或者有一定贡献的人，既然能指出你的问题，就说明还是存在不合理的地方，那就认认真真去修改就好了，千万不要太持才傲物。
（3）里很多人都会轻易犯错，尤其是刚发论文的时候，总觉得自己一定要根据审稿人的每一条意见都做出修改。
(完整版)如何回复审稿人意见
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer这是我的英文修改稿回复信Dear Editor,RE: Manuscript IDWe would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments.Below is our response to their comments.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorresponding Author下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答：一些习惯用语如下：Revision —authors’ responseReviewer #1:Major comments1.The referee correctly noted that our language about XXX was ambiguous.Therefore, we changed the text and the figures to emphasize that …. To furthersupport the concept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted in Supplementary Fig.S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations of XXX inresults and discussion sections. We have added new findings (see above point) in Supplementary Fig S. to support…3.As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (Supplementary Fig.) thatsummarizes…Minor comments1.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title.2.We have added and improved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2.3.We have added statistics to Fig 5C.4.We have corrected the typescript errors in the XXX paragraph.Reviewer #2:1.Because of the reviewer’s request, we have performed new experiments to betterclarify… The new Fig. shows that… This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify the pointthat…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s request we have usedXXX to confirm that… The new data are depicted in Supplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed the efficiency of RNAi byquantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supplementary Fig.Reviewer #3:1.Because of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 into the newFigure 6 and we have added new experiments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that….2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied…. The new data aredepicted in Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper has shown that …. Wehave added this reference and mo dified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. The previous one was too weekand the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDF format.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much as p ossible themagnification in order to maintain the same scale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statistically significant. In order tobetter clarify this issue we changed the graphics of our statistical analysis in Fig.另外一篇5分杂志的回复：1nd Revision –authors’ responseReferee #1:We want to begin by thanking Referee #1 for writing that “the finding in our manuscript is generally interesting and important in the field.” We also appreciated the constructive criticism and suggestion. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below.1.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiment demonstrating…; in the newexperiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performed in XXXby comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effect of ….is due to …. Toaddress the referee’s comment, we revised Fig. and demonstrated that…. To furthe r confirm…. Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks to the referee’s comment, the wrong figure numbers were corrected in therevised manuscript.Referee #2:We want to thank Referee #2 for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below.1.The referee recommends to show…. We performed the experiment and its result isincluded in the revised Fig.2.Acc ording to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. were repeated severaltimes and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1, above. Asstated above, we have included new results, which include:4.All minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordingly.2nd Revision –authors’ responseWe would like to thank the referees for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s comments.Referee #1:Referee #1 request two minor editorial changes. Both changes have been made accordingly in the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We sincerely apologize to Referee #2 for not completely addressing all of the points raised in the previous response. We have done so below and added additional data in hopes that this reviewer will be supportive of publication.1.Referee #2 requests evidence that …. According to the referee’s suggestion, a XXXassay was performed in XXX cells to demonstrate that …. The result is presented in Fig.2.Page 17, “the” E3 was changed to “an” E3.3.Referee #2 asks whether…. We would like to note that we investigated ….in ourprevious study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in this manuscript wefocused on ….。
如何回复审稿人意见(Response to Reviews)
Dear Editor,We have studied the valuable comments from you, the assistant editor and reviewers carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:Responds to the rev iewer’s comments:Reviewer 1Comment 1: in page 3, line 40, we fed rats..." changed to rats were fed with... Response: According to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected the sentence. Furthermore, we have had the manuscript polished with a professional assistance in writing.Comment 2:page 25. The style of reference 40 is not right (using initials for the first names). Since this paper has been published, the volume and page Nos should be provided.Response: Thank you for your careful work. We have added the volume and page numbers for reference 40.Reviewer 2Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the criticisms with additional experiments. The one criticism that they did not address was relating to energy expenditure as the reason that the animals on the low calcium diet gained more weight. While I understand that performing this experiment will not affect the conclusion of this manuscript, I do believe that this point could be discussed in the Discussion section.Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. Based on the previous revision, we further address the relationship between low calcium diet and energy expenditure in the section of discussion according to your thoughtful comments.Reviewer 3Comment 1: In the text you often write: “As previously described”. Unless that paper is from your lab or one of the method paper co-authors is on the present MS this is not quite proper since the statement infers method development from your lab. There are numerous instances like that in the methods section; these should all be changed “according to those described by…..”Response: We are sorry for this language mistake. We have carefully corrected this phrase throughout the manuscript according to your comment.Comment 2: There are still some wording, sentence structure and grammatical issues even in this basically well put together MS. For example, while authors may have been excited about the data you cannot start a sentence with “Excitedly” in line 418 or “Whatever” in line 395.Response: Thank you very much to point out the sentence structure and grammatical issues in our manuscript. According to the comments from you and the editors, we polished the manuscript with a professional assistance in writing, conscientiously.Comment 3:In my view a big omission in this work is ignoring the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues. For example all animals consumed the same amount of feed but we had extra fat storage in the low Ca diet groups. So where did the extra energy go? Zemel et al (citation 34) in similar work indicate that increased thermogenesis on the high Ca diet explains the dissipation of dietary energy. Further even though Zemel et al (#34) indicated lipogenesis was enhanced in the low Ca diets that was in 2000 and you should have monitored expression of FAS and UCP either as mRNA abundance or actual FAS/UCP changes via proteomics or blotting techniques. In any case these controls are missing here and not emphasized in the MS. Casual reading of this paper would lead to the conclusion that the dietary Ca effect on fat deposition is strictly a function of increased or decreased lipolysis. While lipolysis appears to be a major player, lipogenesis and thermogenesis cannot be ignored for completeness. In Fig 8 you also show a decline in cAMP for the low Ca diet. Well beta agonists or cAMP enhancers regulate transcription of adipose and liver FAS (in rats (J Biol Chem 271:2307, 1996) and recently with large animal models (Hausman et al J Animal Science 87:1218, 2009 and Halsey et al J Animal Science 89: 1011, 2011). In additioncAMP levels could have been monitored. I really do not like the last sentence in the Abstract line 47-50 where you state that “low calcium diet-induced increase in fat mass was due to enhanced lipogenesis mediated by an upregulated CaSR signaling pathway” Your results here show no such thing, this is a completely false statement based on data herein. Correct. You show that high Ca diets enhance lipolysis and low Ca diets are antilipolytic. You did not monitor lipid anabolism here at all. See also line 255-257 and lines 333-335 of your MS. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. As you suggested that the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues should be monitored. We really agree with your viewpoints. In the present study, we did find that low calcium diet increased the mRNA level of fatty acid synthase (FAS) in white adipose tissue. Furthermore, the FAS mRNA level were also increased in adipocytes after treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3in in-vitro experiments. However, the increased FAS mRNA levels were not affected by preventing either the nuclear vitamin D receptor (nVDR) or calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR), suggesting that FAS might not be involved in the CaSR pathway. In addition, we thought that FAS played its role in fatty acid synthesis mainly in liver previously. Besides, the manuscript was required to restrict number of total words and our previous focus was on the antilolytic role of CaSR in the process of fat accumulation. So we ignored to provide the data of FAS mRNA levels in the submitted manuscript. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the mRNA levels according to your helpful suggestion.We have reported the effects of dietary calcium on UCP2 mRNA levels in adipose tissue and UCP3 in skeletal muscle in our previous studies (1, 2). Thus, we believed that low calcium diet led to decreased thermogenesis in the present study. It was a pity that we did not measure the rat core temperature in those studies. The UCP2 mRNA levels in adipocytes were observed to be decreased after treatment of 1,25-(OH)2D3. This effect was prevented by using nVDR CaSR gene silencing but not by CaSR gene knockdown, suggesting that UCP2 was not involved in CaSR pathways. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the UCP2 results.Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are very sorry for our fault statement in the abstract. We have corrected it in the new manuscript.Comment 4: A point that does not emerge well from the discussion is how low Ca intakes result in higher intracellular [Ca] concentrations and really the effects on fatdeposition in the cells in many ways are due to an increased intracellular Ca level mediated via CaSR expression increases and the effect of VitD3 on nVDR show in Fig 8. The authors must remind readers that Ca levels in the blood are under hormonal regulation (Calcitonin, PTH and VitD3). Thus when diets low in Ca are consumed and blood Ca decline, PTH and VitD3 are called upon to mobilize bone Ca to replenish the blood Ca. Then coupled with an increase in CaSR more Ca actually is found in AT despite the fact that many would think the AT Ca level should decline. The reason is that tissue/circulating Ca levels are not diet depended but regulated. The vast bone stores of Ca will provide ample Ca here especially during a study of this length. While authors address these issues maybe could be presented in a less complicated discussion.Response:Thank you for your instructive suggestions. We are sorry for not describing the effect of low calcium diet on intracellular calcium concentrations mediated by CaSR, as well as the impact of hormone regulation on serum calcium levels clearly. According to your helpful advice, we have rewritten these two parts in the section of discussion. Thank you again.Comment 5: Not all citations are in JN styleResponse: We have careful recheck and corrected the style of the citations according to the requirement of JN.Comment 6: Abstract conclusion differs from lines 255-257 and 333-335; WHY? Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The conclusion from lines 255-257 is about the effect of low calcium diet on serum levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) and lipids. We considered FFA and glycerol as indicators of TG hydrolysis in adipose tissue. The low calcium diet caused decreased serum FFA and glycerol levels without influencing lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity, so we thought the lipolytic effect of adipose tissue to be suppressed by low calcium diet. The conclusion from lines 333-335 was about the effect of 1,25-(OH)2D3 whose levels were increased under low calcium conditions on lipolysis. We used the glycerol level as the indicator of TG hydrolysis in adipocytes. Both the in vivo and in vitro experiments showed low calcium status caused an antilipolytic effect.Comment 7: Line 150-153. The qRT-PCR methodology is not at all understandable as you cite a Texas A&M published paper. This is completely insufficient with the newly established standards on gene expression via qRT-PCR. There is no mention of efficiencies of amplifications in these data nor how the use of the reference gene was established etc. I think Pfaffl and Bustin have recently written an article on this; please totally revise 150-153 in line with what you did and applying the new standards.Response: Thank you very much. Because the JN restricts the number of total words of manuscript, we cited the Texas A&M published paper. In the newly submitted manuscript, we describe the detailed protocols in our lab.Comment 8:Line 179 on Not clear as in sentences talk about different AT cell sources etc..revise.Response: We are sorry for not addressing the adipose tissue cell sources clearly. We have rewritten the methods.Comment 9: Any previous documentable work with siRNA?Response: Yes, we have documentable work with siRNA in our research team. The results were published in the journal of Biochem Biophys Res Commun (3).Comment 10: Line 214.. Cultured primary rat adipocytes and SW872 adipocytes ……Response: Thank you very much. According to your comment, we have had the manuscript polished and corrected the mistakes.。
回复审稿意见礼貌用语
回复审稿意见礼貌用语1. 尊敬的审稿专家，您的意见就像一阵及时雨，浇灭了我不少疑惑的小火苗，我定当全力以赴修改。
2. 审稿老师呀，您的眼光如同X光般犀利，指出的问题一针见血，我这就像勤劳的小蜜蜂一样去修正。
3. 亲爱的审稿人，您的建议简直是黑暗中的灯塔，照亮了我前行的路，我肯定马不停蹄地按照您说的改。
4. 尊敬的专家，您的评审意见好似孙悟空的金箍棒，一下子就把我的不足之处给打出来了，我会好好改进，绝不做那顽固的妖怪。
5. 审稿老师，您的眼光比老鹰还敏锐，发现的问题如同天上繁星一样清晰，我会一颗一颗把它们解决掉。
6. 亲爱的审稿专家，您的意见如同一记重锤，把我那些迷糊的想法都敲醒了，我这就重新打造一篇更好的文章。
7. 尊敬的审稿人，您的话就像魔法咒语，点出了文章的问题，我现在就像中了魔法的小木偶，乖乖听话去修改。
8. 审稿老师呀，您的评审如同照妖镜，让文章中的小瑕疵无处遁形，我得赶紧把这些小妖怪都收服了。
9. 亲爱的审稿专家，您的建议像超级英雄的信号弹，给我指明了修改的方向，我要像超级英雄去拯救世界一样去完善文章。
10. 尊敬的专家，您的意见像一把锋利的手术刀，精准地切割出文章的病灶，我这个小医生要赶紧进行治疗了。
11. 审稿老师，您指出的问题如同一串鞭炮，噼里啪啦地在我耳边炸响，我现在就清醒地去处理了。
12. 亲爱的审稿人，您的眼光似能看穿一切的透视眼，发现的问题让我惊叹，我会像建筑工人修补大厦漏洞一样去修订。
13. 尊敬的审稿专家，您的建议仿佛是打开宝藏的钥匙，让我知道如何让文章变得更有价值，我要赶紧挖掘这宝藏了。
14. 审稿老师呀，您的评审意见像一阵狂风，把我那些不扎实的论述都吹得摇摇欲坠，我得像加固房屋一样把它筑牢。
15. 亲爱的审稿专家，您的话就像紧箍咒一样，让我对文章的问题不敢忽视，我这就踏上修正的取经路。
16. 尊敬的审稿人，您的意见如同一把大火，把我文章中的一些杂草都烧光了，我要重新种上美丽的花朵。
英文回复审稿人话术
英文回复审稿人话术全文共四篇示例，供读者参考第一篇示例：审稿是学术研究中至关重要的一环，而审稿人对于稿件的意见和建议也是非常重要的参考。
在接收审稿人的意见后，作者需要对审稿人的意见进行合理的回复。
在回复审稿人时，作者需要一定的技巧和耐心。
以下是关于英文回复审稿人的一些话术，希望能帮助作者更好地回复审稿人的意见和建议。
1. 对审稿人的意见表示感谢：Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have spent in reviewing our work.2. 接着，对审稿人提出的问题进行回复：a. 如果同意审稿人的建议：4. 总结回复并再次感谢审稿人：在回复审稿人时，作者应当保持客观、诚恳的态度，愿意听取审稿人的意见并作出合理的改进。
作者也应当对自己的研究有充分的信心，如果对审稿人的建议持有不同意见，也应当理性地进行反驳和解释。
最终，通过双方的沟通和合作，尽可能使稿件更加完善和具有说服力。
第二篇示例：英文回复审稿人话术是科研人员在接收审稿意见后，根据审稿人的建议进行修订并回复的一种重要技能。
通过妥善回复审稿人的意见，不仅可以提高文章的质量和影响力，也可以展现科研人员的专业素养和学术态度。
以下是一些常用的英文回复审稿人话术，供大家参考：1. 感谢审稿人的宝贵建议。
Thank you for your valuable suggestions.2. 我们对审稿人指出的问题进行了仔细的思考和修订。
We have carefully considered and revised the issues pointed out by the reviewer.以上是一些常用的英文回复审稿人话术，希望对科研人员在回复审稿人意见时有所帮助。
如何回复审稿人意见(Response-to-Reviews)
Dear Editor,We have studied the valuable comments from you, the assistant editor and reviewers carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to the reviewer’s comments are listed as following:Responds to the rev iewer’s comments:Reviewer 1Comment 1: in page 3, line 40, we fed rats..." changed to rats were fed with... Response: According to the reviewer’s comment, we have corrected the sentence. Furthermore, we have had the manuscript polished with a professional assistance in writing.Comment 2:page 25. The style of reference 40 is not right (using initials for the first names). Since this paper has been published, the volume and page Nos should be provided.Response: Thank you for your careful work. We have added the volume and page numbers for reference 40.Reviewer 2Comment: I would like to thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the criticisms with additional experiments. The one criticism that they did not address was relating to energy expenditure as the reason that the animals on the low calcium diet gained more weight. While I understand that performing this experiment will not affect the conclusion of this manuscript, I do believe that this point could be discussed in the Discussion section.Response: Thank you for your valuable advice. Based on the previous revision, we further address the relationship between low calcium diet and energy expenditure in the section of discussion according to your thoughtful comments.Reviewer 3Comment 1: In the text you often write: “As previously described”. Unless that paper is from your lab or one of the method paper co-authors is on the present MS this is not quite proper since the statement infers method development from your lab. There are numerous instances like that in the methods section; these should all be changed “according to those described by…..”Response: We are sorry for this language mistake. We have carefully corrected this phrase throughout the manuscript according to your comment.Comment 2: There are still some wording, sentence structure and grammatical issues even in this basically well put together MS. For example, while authors may have been excited about the data you cannot start a sentence with “Excitedly” in line 418 or “Whatever” in line 395.Response: Thank you very much to point out the sentence structure and grammatical issues in our manuscript. According to the comments from you and the editors, we polished the manuscript with a professional assistance in writing, conscientiously.Comment 3:In my view a big omission in this work is ignoring the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues. For example all animals consumed the same amount of feed but we had extra fat storage in the low Ca diet groups. So where did the extra energy go? Zemel et al (citation 34) in similar work indicate that increased thermogenesis on the high Ca diet explains the dissipation of dietary energy. Further even though Zemel et al (#34) indicated lipogenesis was enhanced in the low Ca diets that was in 2000 and you should have monitored expression of FAS and UCP either as mRNA abundance or actual FAS/UCP changes via proteomics or blotting techniques. In any case these controls are missing here and not emphasized in the MS. Casual reading of this paper would lead to the conclusion that the dietary Ca effect on fat deposition is strictly a function of increased or decreased lipolysis. While lipolysis appears to be a major player, lipogenesis and thermogenesis cannot be ignored for completeness. In Fig 8 you also show a decline in cAMP for the low Ca diet. Well beta agonists or cAMP enhancers regulate transcription of adipose and liver FAS (in rats (J Biol Chem 271:2307, 1996) and recently with large animal models (Hausman et al J Animal Science 87:1218, 2009 and Halsey et al J Animal Science 89: 1011, 2011). In additioncAMP levels could have been monitored. I really do not like the last sentence in the Abstract line 47-50 where you state that “low calcium diet-induced increase in fat mass was due to enhanced lipogenesis mediated by an upregulated CaSR signaling pathway” Your results here show no such thing, this is a completely false statement based on data herein. Correct. You show that high Ca diets enhance lipolysis and low Ca diets are antilipolytic. You did not monitor lipid anabolism here at all. See also line 255-257 and lines 333-335 of your MS. Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. As you suggested that the anabolic side of lipid metabolism as well as thermogenesis issues should be monitored. We really agree with your viewpoints. In the present study, we did find that low calcium diet increased the mRNA level of fatty acid synthase (FAS) in white adipose tissue. Furthermore, the FAS mRNA level were also increased in adipocytes after treatment with 1,25-(OH)2D3in in-vitro experiments. However, the increased FAS mRNA levels were not affected by preventing either the nuclear vitamin D receptor (nVDR) or calcium-sensing receptor (CaSR), suggesting that FAS might not be involved in the CaSR pathway. In addition, we thought that FAS played its role in fatty acid synthesis mainly in liver previously. Besides, the manuscript was required to restrict number of total words and our previous focus was on the antilolytic role of CaSR in the process of fat accumulation. So we ignored to provide the data of FAS mRNA levels in the submitted manuscript. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the mRNA levels according to your helpful suggestion.We have reported the effects of dietary calcium on UCP2 mRNA levels in adipose tissue and UCP3 in skeletal muscle in our previous studies (1, 2). Thus, we believed that low calcium diet led to decreased thermogenesis in the present study. It was a pity that we did not measure the rat core temperature in those studies. The UCP2 mRNA levels in adipocytes were observed to be decreased after treatment of 1,25-(OH)2D3. This effect was prevented by using nVDR CaSR gene silencing but not by CaSR gene knockdown, suggesting that UCP2 was not involved in CaSR pathways. In the newly submitted manuscript, we have provided the UCP2 results.Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. We are very sorry for our fault statement in the abstract. We have corrected it in the new manuscript.Comment 4: A point that does not emerge well from the discussion is how low Ca intakes result in higher intracellular [Ca] concentrations and really the effects on fatdeposition in the cells in many ways are due to an increased intracellular Ca level mediated via CaSR expression increases and the effect of VitD3 on nVDR show in Fig 8. The authors must remind readers that Ca levels in the blood are under hormonal regulation (Calcitonin, PTH and VitD3). Thus when diets low in Ca are consumed and blood Ca decline, PTH and VitD3 are called upon to mobilize bone Ca to replenish the blood Ca. Then coupled with an increase in CaSR more Ca actually is found in AT despite the fact that many would think the AT Ca level should decline. The reason is that tissue/circulating Ca levels are not diet depended but regulated. The vast bone stores of Ca will provide ample Ca here especially during a study of this length. While authors address these issues maybe could be presented in a less complicated discussion.Response:Thank you for your instructive suggestions. We are sorry for not describing the effect of low calcium diet on intracellular calcium concentrations mediated by CaSR, as well as the impact of hormone regulation on serum calcium levels clearly. According to your helpful advice, we have rewritten these two parts in the section of discussion. Thank you again.Comment 5: Not all citations are in JN styleResponse: We have careful recheck and corrected the style of the citations according to the requirement of JN.Comment 6: Abstract conclusion differs from lines 255-257 and 333-335; WHY? Response: Thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript. The conclusion from lines 255-257 is about the effect of low calcium diet on serum levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) and lipids. We considered FFA and glycerol as indicators of TG hydrolysis in adipose tissue. The low calcium diet caused decreased serum FFA and glycerol levels without influencing lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity, so we thought the lipolytic effect of adipose tissue to be suppressed by low calcium diet. The conclusion from lines 333-335 was about the effect of 1,25-(OH)2D3 whose levels were increased under low calcium conditions on lipolysis. We used the glycerol level as the indicator of TG hydrolysis in adipocytes. Both the in vivo and in vitro experiments showed low calcium status caused an antilipolytic effect.Comment 7: Line 150-153. The qRT-PCR methodology is not at all understandable as you cite a Texas A&M published paper. This is completely insufficient with the newly established standards on gene expression via qRT-PCR. There is no mention of efficiencies of amplifications in these data nor how the use of the reference gene was established etc. I think Pfaffl and Bustin have recently written an article on this; please totally revise 150-153 in line with what you did and applying the new standards.Response: Thank you very much. Because the JN restricts the number of total words of manuscript, we cited the Texas A&M published paper. In the newly submitted manuscript, we describe the detailed protocols in our lab.Comment 8:Line 179 on Not clear as in sentences talk about different AT cell sources etc..revise.Response: We are sorry for not addressing the adipose tissue cell sources clearly. We have rewritten the methods.Comment 9: Any previous documentable work with siRNA?Response: Yes, we have documentable work with siRNA in our research team. The results were published in the journal of Biochem Biophys Res Commun (3).Comment 10: Line 214.. Cultured primary rat adipocytes and SW872 adipocytes ……Response: Thank you very much. According to your comment, we have had the manuscript polished and corrected the mistakes.。
- 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)。
SAMPLE RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTSBelow are actual comments to a review I wrote sometime ago. I include it here so you can see the level of detail/discussion I expect for your letter. Also, though you don’t have to do it for my class; if you’re doi ng it for an actual journal, make sure to use department letterhead.******************************************************************* Date<Editor’s name & title><Journal name><postal address>Dear Prof. <Editor’s Name>:First, I want to thank you and your reviewers for the extremely helpful comments provided for our paper. In the paper we’ve addressed all comments – both specific and general – from all three reviewers.There are too many comments and changes for us to list them all here. However, we would like to highlight some of the more general ones.Many of reviewer #1147’s comments came from notes directly on the document. Therefore, though the “typed” comments were two paragraphs, references to that reviewer appear quite frequently below.Finally, the numbers in parentheses refer to the reviewer.1. All three reviewers made reference to awkward sentences and lack of clarity in theflow of the text. We’ve addressed this issue across and within each section,paragraph, and sentence. As a result, we feel this version reads more cohesively and fluidly.Additionally, extra care was taken to remove polemical statements (#1072; #1147;#647)2. “What, exactly, does “after high school” mean? Does it mean high schoolgraduation?” (#1072; im plied by #1147).To address this, the following text was added to the description of the sample: All students who were selected in the 8th grade were reinterviewed in each of thesubsequent years, regardless of their individual progress. Their subsequent grade level(e.g. 10th grade, 12th grade, etc.) is not the criteria for inclusion. The fact that thestudent was in the original cohort is the criteria for subsequent inclusion. As a result,though the cohort may be in the 12th grade, some of the students may not be, becausethey were held back, dropped out, or may have skipped a grade and thus graduatedearlier than their 8th grade cohort. However, even with these variances within the post-8th grade years, throughout this document, we will use the same language used by theNational Education Longitudinal Study – 8th grade (1988), 12th grade (1992), and twoyears after high school (1994).3. Literature Review/Backgrounda. Due to the lack of clarity, the reference to sociocultural variables was removed(#1072).b. The text was changed to make it clear when we were referring to differenceswithin African American families as compared to differences between them andtheir non-African American counterparts (#1072).c. In the section on theoretical models, race and gender were addressed separatelyfrom social class (#1072; #1147).d. A theoretical/conceptual framework was identified – intersectionality – andfollowed throughout the document (Editor; #1027; #1147).e. The family organization section was rewritten to make it less confusing to thereader (#647).f. Sources/Citations were included where requested (#1147).4. Data and Methodsa. We made it clear that parents were also interviewed for this study. Further, wemade it clear when d ata came from the parent’s survey versus the student’s (#1072).b. Text was added to more clearly describe the tests given to the students (#1147):The tests developed and administered with the NELS were similar to the tests given forthe National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Cognitive tests for theNELS are based on Item Response Theory (IRT), where the student's score is based onthe probability of getting all of the questions correct.c. Text was added to make it clear that the parental configurations were notmutually exclusive categories (#1147):The three types of single-parent households are NOT configured to be mutuallyexclusive (see below for an example), but were developed to reflect the types of single-parent families most prevalent among African American children.And later in that same discussion:Again, the configurations are not mutually exclusive, i.e. any student in a marriedfamily is also in a two-parent household.d. The definition of dummy variables was removed (#1147).5. Resultsa. We made it clear that multiple regression was used for analysis (#1072).b. Summary statistics are included (#1072) because if one wants to replicate ourwork, s/he will need that information. We did not discuss those results for we felt they were self-explanatory and we did not want to use precious manuscript space …especially given our additions with this revision.c. Tables have been reformatted to be consistent with the style manual of theAmerican Psychological Association (Editor; #1072).d. We removed references to “African American students” and used the term“students.” However, we did leave it once at the end for purposes of emphasis and clarity.e. Reviewer #1072 is concerned that each regression model is not discussed. Eachmodel and pertinent findings within them are indeed discussed. We feel that the awkward writing style (which has now been corrected), may have buried this and thus led the reader to think we were “misleading.”f. Reviewer #1027 is also concerned that interaction effects were not run. Footnoteb in Table 4 now reads:Interaction effects were run between all parental configurations and 8th SES. Becausenone were statistically significant, the results are not shown here.Other interaction effects were not run because it is the relationship between parental configuration and SES that is most central to the questions raised in this paper.6. Discussion/Conclusiona. Reference to “statistical analyses of data collected with q uestionnaires [being] alimitation only insofar as African American households are concerned” wasremoved (#1072).b. To justify our claim about the intersecting categories of race/class/gender(#1072), we included the following sentence:Drawing on the discussion of race in the literature review (see above) and the findingsof this study, we conclude that African American family structure is at its core innatelytied to changes in the economy and the simultaneously intersecting categories ofrace/class/gender.c. Large portions of the discussion section were rewritten to discuss and interpretour findings in the context of what is already known. We also include a discussion of what needs further study (#1072; implied by Editor and #1147).Sincerely,Prof. Juan Battlejbattle@(212) 817-8775。