英文稿件修改回复
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]。
回复编辑邮件范文 英文
回复编辑邮件范文英文English:Thank you for reaching out regarding the editing request. I have carefully reviewed the document and made the necessary changes to ensure clarity, coherence, and consistency throughout. I focused on refining the language, restructuring sentences for better flow, and addressing any grammatical errors or inconsistencies. Additionally, I paid close attention to the overall tone and style to align with the intended audience and purpose of the document. Please find the revised version attached for your review. If you have any further questions or need additional revisions, please don't hesitate to letme know, and I'll be happy to assist further.中文翻译：感谢您就编辑请求与我联系。
我已经仔细审阅了文件，并进行了必要的修改，以确保整体清晰、连贯和一致。
我着重于优化语言、重组句子以获得更好的流畅性，并解决任何语法错误或不一致之处。
此外，我还密切关注了整体语调和风格，以与文件的预期受众和目的保持一致。
请查看附上的修订版，如果您有任何进一步的问题或需要额外的修改，请不要犹豫告诉我，我将很乐意提供进一步的帮助。
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer
Response to Specific Points- Reviewer A:
In part (1) of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is presented, which was discussed above. You continue "Regrettably, not much attention is drawn to specific differences between the chosen examples that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities of perception more precisely", and "if perceptual systems, as suggested, hler (Kindeed act on the basis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special `veridicality' properties of the perceptual outcome", and "the difficult analytic problems of concrete modeling of perception are not even touched". The model as presented is not a model of vision or audition or any other particular modality, but is a general model to confront the alternative neural receptive field paradigm, although examples from visual perception are used to exemplify the principles discussed. The more specific visual model was submitted elsewhere, in the Orientational Harmonic model, where I showed how harmonic resonance accounts for specific visual illusory effects. As discussed above, the attempt here is to propose a general principle of neurocomputation, rather than a specific model of visual, auditory, or any other specific sensory modality. Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather than a theory, i.e. an alternative principle of neurocomputation with specific and unique properties, as an alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field. If this paper is eventually accepted for publication, then I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the use of the unconventional harmonic resonance mechanism.
样品瑕疵修改回复信函英文
样品瑕疵修改回复信函英文[Your Name][Your Address][City, State, ZIP][Email Address][Date][Recipient's Name][Recipient's Address][City, State, ZIP]Dear [Recipient's Name],I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to address the issues raised regarding the sample product you recently sent us for review.First and foremost, please accept our sincere apologies for the quality concerns identified in the sample. We understand the frustration and disappointment this may have caused. Rest assured, we are committed to rectifying the issue and ensuring that you receive a flawless and satisfactory product.Having thoroughly examined the sample in question, we have identified the specific areas of improvement required. Our dedicated team of technical experts is already working diligently to rectify these flaws. We are performing additional quality checks and implementing stringent measures to prevent any recurrence of such issues in the future.In light of these developments, we would like to offer you several options to resolve the matter to your utmost satisfaction:1. Replacement: We can arrange for a revised sample to be sent to you at the earliest convenience. This revised sample will undergo extensive quality control procedures to ensure that it meets your expectations.2. Repair: If you would prefer to salvage the existing sample, we can facilitate repairs and modifications to address the identified flaws. Our team will work closely with you to ensure that the end result surpasses your requirements.3. Refund: If you are unsatisfied with the product and would prefer a refund, we are prepared to issue you a full refund for the sample. Please note that we deeply value your trust and would appreciate the opportunity to make amends with a revised sample, should you chooseto provide us with a second chance.We kindly request that you inform us of your preferred course of action within the next five business days. Your satisfaction is our utmost priority, and we will proceed accordingly based on your decision.Once again, please accept our sincere apologies for any inconvenience caused. We greatly appreciate your patience and understanding throughout this process. Your feedback is invaluable in helping us improve our products and services.Please feel free to contact us at [Your Phone Number] or [Your Email Address] if you have any further questions or concerns. We eagerly look forward to resolving this matter and restoring your faith in our products.Thank you for your attention, and we appreciate your continued support.Sincerely,[Your Name]。
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见之欧阳科创编
望对大家有帮助 1.Dear Prof. XXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.If you have any question about this paper, please don’thesitate to let me know.Sincerely yours,Dr. XXXXResponse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments:1. XXXXXXX2. XXXXXXX2.Dear Professor ***,Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)by ***Many thanks for your email of 24Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice of the above paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it.After carefully studying the reviewer’ comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.If you need any otherinformation, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is ***, and Tel.is ***, and Fax is +***.Yourssincerely,Detailed response to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s adviceOverall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it. Although the reviewer’s comments are generallypositive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.3.The manuscript is revised submission (×××－××××) with new line and page numbers in the text, somegrammar and spelling errors had also been corrected. Furthermore, the relevant regulations had been made in the original manuscript according to the comments of reviewers, and the major revised portions were marked in red bold. We also responded point by point to each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the location of therevision.Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.List of Major Changes:1).........2).........3)... ......Response to Reviewers:1).........2).........3) .........Response to Reviewer XXWe very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of the reviewer. We have carefully considered the comments and have revisedthe manuscript accordingly. The comments can be summarized as follows:1) XX2) XXDetailed responses1) XX2) XX4.Dear editor XXWe have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX” by XX. According to the comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript. The revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the commentsof the one reviewer are attached.Sincerelyyours,XX5.Response to Reviewer AReviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealed himself to be Professor Dr. Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig. I wrote him a general response to both reviews in January 2000, followed by these responses to specific points, both his own, and those of the otherreviewer .Response to Specific PointsWhat follows is a brief and cursory discussion of the various issues raised by yourself and the other reviewer. If you should revise your judgment of the validity of the theory, these points will be addressed at greater length in a new version of the paper that I would resubmit to Psychological Review.Response toSpecific Points- Reviewer A:In part (1) of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is presented, which was discussed above. You continue "Regrettably, not much attention is drawn to specific differences between the chosen examples that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities of perception more precisely", and "if perceptual systems, assuggested, hler (Kindeed act on the basis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special `veridicality' properties of the perceptual outcome", and "the difficult analytic problems of concrete modeling of perception are not even touched". The model as presented is not a model of vision or audition or any other particular modality,but is a general model to confront the alternative neural receptive field paradigm, although examples from visual perception are used to exemplify the principles discussed. The more specific visual model was submitted elsewhere, in the Orientational Harmonic model, where I showed how harmonic resonance accounts for specific visualillusory effects. As discussed above, the attempt here is to propose a general principle of neurocomputation, rather than a specific model of visual, auditory, or any other specific sensory modality. Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather than a theory, i.e. an alternative principle of neurocomputation with specific and uniqueproperties, as an alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field. If this paper is eventually accepted for publication, then I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the use of the unconventional harmonic resonance mechanism.In part (2) (a) of your critique you say "it is not clarifiedwhether the postulated properties of Gestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints." and "I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat just the case of hler: (1961, p. 7) "Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it,we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague." Wolfgang Kthe dog cited to demonstrate `emergence'. For this a hierarchy relation is needed." The principle of emergence in Gestalt theory is a very difficult concept to express in unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was presented to illustrate this rather elusive concept with a concrete example. Ido not suggest that HR as proposed in this paper can address the dog picture as such, since this is specifically a visual problem, and the HR model as presented is not a visual model. Rather, I propose that the feature detection paradigm cannot in principle handle this kind of ambiguity, because the local features do not individually contain the informationnecessary to distinguish significant from insignificant edges. The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the section on "Recognition by Reification" (p. 15-17) in which I propose that recognition is not simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, i.e. by the "lighting up" of a higher level feature node,but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which the higher level feature node reifies its particular pattern back at the input level, modulated by the exact pattern of the input. I appeal to the reader to see the reified form of the dog as perceived edges and surfaces that are not present in the input stimulus, as evidence for this reificationin perception, which appears at the same time that the recognition occurs. The remarkable property of this reification is that the dog appears not as an image of a canonical, or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture and configuration allowed by the input, as observed in the subjective experience of the dog picture. This explanation issubject to your criticism in your general comments, that "the author demonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions". I can only say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can be used to make the case.In the words of Wolfgang K?hler: (1961, p.7)"Human experience in thephenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague."Wolfgang K?hler (K?hler 1923 p. 64)"Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptotheses, which cannot be verified by direct observation at the timewhen they are formed nor for a long time thereafter. Of such a kind were Ampere's theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gases, the electronic theory, the hypothesis of atomic disinte gration in the theory of radioactivity. Some of these assumptions have since been verified by direct obser vation, or have at least come close to such direct verification; others are stillfar removed from it. But physics and chemistry would have been condemned to a permanent embryonic state had they abstained from such hypotheses; their development seems rather like a continuous effort steadily to shorten the rest of the way to the verification of hypotheses which survive this process"In section (2) (b) ofyour critique you complain that "there is no serious discussion of possible alternatives", and you mention Neo-Gibsonian approaches, PDP, Grossberg's ART model and Pribram's holographic theory. In the next version of the paper this omission will be corrected, approximately as follows. Gibson's use of the term resonance is really ametaphorical device, since Gibson offers no mechanisms or analogies of perceptual processes, but merely suggests that there is a two-way flow of information (resonance) between behavior and the environment. This is really merely a metaphor, rather than a model.The PDP approach does address the issue of emergence, but since the basiccomputational unit of the neural network model is a hard-wired receptive field, this theory suffers all the limitations of a template theory. The same holds for Grossberg's "Adaptive Resonance Theory", which also uses the word resonance metaphorically to suggest a bottom-up top- down matching, but in Grossberg's model that matching is actuallyperformed by receptive fields, or spatial templates. The ART model demonstrates the limitations of this approach. For the only way that a higher-level detector, or "F2 node", can exhibit generalization to different input patterns, is for it to have synaptic weights to all of the patterns to which it responds. In essence, the pattern of synaptic weights is asuperposition or blurring together of all of the possible input patterns to which the F2 node should respond. In top-down priming mode therefore that F2 node would "print" that same blurred pattern back at the lower "F1 node" level, activating all of the possible patterns to which that F2 node is tuned to respond. For example if an ART model were trained torespond to an "X"-shaped feature presented at all possible orientations, top-down priming of this node after training would "print"a pattern of all those X-shaped features at all orientations superimposed, which is simply an amorphous blob. In fact, that same node would respond even better to a blob feature than to any single X feature. In thepresence of a partial or ambiguous X-like pattern presented at a particular orientation, the ART model could not complete that pattern specific to its orientation. The HR model on the other hand offers a different and unique principle of representation, in which top-down activation of the higher level node can complete a partial or ambiguous input patternin the specific orientation at which it appears, but that same priming would complete the pattern differently if it appeared in a different orientation. This generalization in recognition, but specification in completion, is a property that is unique to the harmonic resonance representation.Kuhn observes that the old paradigm can always bereformulated to account for any particular phenomenon addressed by the new paradigm, just as the Ptolomaic earth- centered cosmology could account for the motions of the planets to arbitrary precision, given enough nested cycles and epicycles of the crystal spheres. Similarly, a conventional neural network model can always be contrived to exhibit thesame functional behavior of generalized recognition but specific completion described above, but only by postulating an implausible arrangement of spatial receptive fields. In this case that would require specific X-feature templates applied to the input at every possible orientation, any one of which can stimulate a single rotation-invariant X-feature node, to account for bottom-up rotation invariance in recognition. However in order to also account for top-down completion specific to orientation, top-down activation of the higher-level invariant node would have to feed back down to a set of top-down projection nodes, each of which is equipped with an X-shaped projective template at a particular orientation, able to project acomplete X-shaped pattern on the input field. But the top-down completion must select only the specific orientation that best matches the pattern present in the input, and complete the pattern only at that best matching orientation. This system therefore requires two complete sets of X-feature receptive fields or templates, one set for bottom-up recognition andthe other set for top-down completion, each set containing X-feature templates at every possible orientation, and similar sets of receptive fields would be required for the recognition of other shaped patterns such as "T" and "V" features. This represents a "brute force" approach to achieving invariance, which although perhaps marginally plausible in this specificexample, is completely implausible as a general principle of operation of neurocomputation, given the fact that invariance appears to be so fundamental a property of human and animal perception. However, as Kuhn also observes, a factor such as neural plausibility is itself a "personal and inarticulate aesthetic consideration" that cannot be determinedunambiguously by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science.With regard to Pribram's Holographic theory, the concept of a hologram is closely related to a standing wave model, since it too works by interference of waveforms. The difference is that the hologram is "frozen in time" like a photograph, and therefore does not exhibitthe tolerance to elastic deformation of the input, as does the standing wave model. Neither does the hologram exhibit rotation invariance as does the standing wave in a circular- symmetric system. However holograms can in principle be constructed of dynamic standing waves, as Pribram himself suggests, and this concept then becomes a harmonic resonance theory.The present proposal is therefore closely related to Pribram's approach, which will be discussed in the next version of the paper.The discussion of alternative models was indeed a significant omission in the version of the paper you reviewed, the next version will include such a discussion, which in turn will help to clarify the operational principles of theHR theory, and distinguish it from alternative approaches.In section (3) of your critique you propose that "notions like the receptive field concept are approximate descriptions of facts", and you propose a dualistic approach involving two forms of representations in the brain which are of different and complementary nature. While I do not dispute theanatomical facts of the shapes of neuron and the function of synapses, it has never been demonstrated that a neuron actually operates as a spatial template, that theory arose as an explanation for the neurophysiological response of "feature detector" cells in the cortex. However the noisy stochastic nature of the neural response, and its very broad tuning functionseem to argue against this view. My own hunch is that the feature detector behavior is itself a standing wave phenomenon, which is consistent with the fact that the response function of V1 cortical neurons resembles a Gabor function, which is itself a wavelet. However this issue is orthogonal to my main point, which is that whether or not some neurons behave as spatialtemplates, the limitations of a template theory suggest that the Gestalt properties of perception (emergence, invariance, reification, multistability) cannot be accounted for in that manner, and that some other significant principle of computation must be invoked to account for the Gestalt properties of perception.In section (4) you complain that there isno discussion of the limitations in the scope of HR. For example merely to reflect outside reality does not contribute to the problem of conscious awareness of these objects. However this issue is not unique to HR, it is a general philosophical issue that applies just as well to the alternative Neuron Doctrine model. But the Neuron doctrine itself cannot evenplausibly account for the reflection of outside reality in an internal representation, due to the problems of emergence, reification, and invariance, which is why the Neuron Doctrine suggests a more abstracted concept of visual representation, in which the visual experience is encoded in a far more abstracted and abbreviated form. Therefore although HR does not solve the"problem of consciousness" completely, it is one step closer to a solution than the alternative. The philosophical issue of consciousness however is beyond the scope of this paper, which is a theory of neural representation, rather than a philosophical paper. I enclose a copy of my book, "The World In Your Head", which addresses these philosophical issues moreextensively.Professor Geissler's ResponseProfessor Geissler kindly responded to my letter in April 2000 to say that he agreed with nearly everything I had said. He then gave me advice about the presentation of the idea. He recommended that I begin by describing the Neuron Doctrine in detail, and then point out the limitations of the idea。
回复审稿意见的礼貌用语英语
回复审稿意见的礼貌用语英语English:"Dear Reviewer,Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. Your feedback is invaluable, providing us with crucial insights and guidance to improve the quality of our paper. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. Our responses to your specific points are outlined below. Please let us know if there are any further changes or clarifications required. Once again, thank you for your constructive criticism, and we look forward to your feedback on our revised manuscript."中文翻译:"尊敬的审稿人，非常感谢您对我们稿件的深思熟虑和详细的评论。
我们非常感激您为审阅我们的工作所投入的时间和精力。
您的反馈非常宝贵，为我们提供了重要的见解和指导，帮助我们提高论文的质量。
我们已经仔细考虑了您提出的每一条建议，并进行了相应的修改。
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见第一篇：如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见望对大家有帮助 1.Dear Prof.XXXX，Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX(MS Number XXXX).We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments.We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.Sincerely yours，Dr.XXXXResponse to Reviewer 1: Thanks for your comments on our paper.We have revised our paper according to your comments:1.XXXXXXX2.XXXXXXX2.Dear Professor ***，Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System(No.: JSV-D-06-***)by ***Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice of the above paper in JSV.Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive.We have learned much from it.After carefully studying the reviewer’ comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the paper.Our response of the comments is enclosed.If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email.My email account is ***, and Tel.is ***, and Fax is +***.Yours sincerely, Detailed response to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s adviceOverall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive.We have learned much from it.Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.3.The manuscript is revised submission(×××－××××)with new line and page numbers in the text, some grammar and spelling errors had also been corrected.Furthermore, the relevant regulations had been made in the original manuscript according to the comments of reviewers, and the major revised portions were marked in red bold.We also responded point by point to each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the location of the revision.Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.List of Major Changes: 1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewers: 1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewer XXWe very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of the reviewer.We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly.The comments can be summarized as follows:1)XX 2)XXDetailed responses1)XX 2)XX4.Dear editor XXWe have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX” by X X.According to the comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript.The revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewer are attached.Sincerely yours, XX5.Response to Reviewer AReviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealedhimself to be Professor Dr.Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig.I wrote him a general response to both reviews in January 2000, followed by these responses to specific points, both his own, and those of the other reviewer.Response to Specific PointsWhat follows is a brief and cursory discussion of the various issues raised by yourself and the other reviewer.If you should revise your judgment of the validity of the theory, these points will be addressed at greater length in a new version of the paper that I would resubmit to Psychological Review.Response to Specific Points-Reviewer A:In part(1)of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is presented, which was discussed above.You continue “Regr ettably, not much attention is drawn to specific differences between the chosen examples that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities of perception more precisely”, and “if perceptual systems, as suggested, hler(Kindeed act on the basis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special `veridicality' properties of the perceptual outcome”, and “the difficult analytic problems of concrete modeling of perception are not even touched”.The model as presented is not a model of vision or audition or any other particular modality, but is a general model to confront the alternative neural receptive field paradigm, although examples from visual perception are used to exemplify the principles discussed.The more specific visual model was submitted elsewhere, in the Orientational Harmonic model, where I showed how harmonic resonance accounts for specific visual illusory effects.As discussed above, the attempt here is to propose a general principle of neurocomputation, rather than a specificmodel of visual, auditory, or any other specific sensory modality.Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather than a theory, i.e.an alternative principle of neurocomputation with specific and unique properties, as an alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field.If this paper is eventually accepted for publication, then I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the use of the unconventional harmonic resonance mechanism.In p art(2)(a)of your critique you say “it is not clarified whether the postulated properties of Gestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints.” and “I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat just th e case of hler:(1961, p.7)”Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods;and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague.“ Wolfgang Kthe dog cit ed to demonstrate `emergence'.For this a hierarchy relation is needed.” The principle of emergence in Gestalt theory is a very difficult concept to express in unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was presented to illustrate this rather elusive concept with a concrete example.I do not suggest that HR as proposed in this paper can address the dog picture as such, since this is specifically a visual problem, and the HR model as presented is not a visual model.Rather, I propose that the feature detection paradigm cannot in principle handle this kind of ambiguity, because the local features do not individually contain the information necessary to distinguish significant from insignificant edges.The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the section on“Recognition by Reification”(p.15-17)in which I propose that recognition is not simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, i.e.by the “lighting up” of a higher level feature node, but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which the higher level feature node reifies its particular pattern back at the input level, modulated by the exact pattern of the input.I appeal to the reader to see the reified form of the dog as perceived edges and surfaces that are not present in the input stimulus, as evidence for this reification in perception, which appears at the same time that the recognition occurs.The remarkable property of this reification is that the dog appears not as an image of a canonical, or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture and configuration allowed by the input, as observed in the subjective experience of the dog picture.This explanation is subject to your criticism in your general comments, that “the author demonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions”.I can only say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can be used to make the case.In the words of Wolfgang K?hler:(1961, p.7)“Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods;and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague.” Wolfgang K?hler(K?hler 1923 p.64) “Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptotheses, which cannot be verified by direct observation at the time when they are formed nor for a long time thereafter.Of such a kind were Ampere's theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gases, the electronic theory, the hypothesis of atomicdisintegration in the theory of radioactivity.Some of these assumptions have since been verified by direct observation, or have at least come close to such direct verification;others are still far removed from it.But physics and chemistry would have been condemned to a permanent embryonic state had they abstained from such hypotheses;their development seems rather like a continuous effort steadily to shorten the rest of the way to the verificat ion of hypotheses which survive this process”In section(2)(b)of your critique you complain that “there is no serious discussion of possible alternatives”, and you mention Neo-Gibsonian approaches, PDP, Grossberg's ART model and Pribram's holographic theory.In the next version of the paper this omission will be corrected, approximately as follows.Gibson's use of the term resonance is really a metaphorical device, since Gibson offers no mechanisms or analogies of perceptual processes, but merely suggests that there is a two-way flow of information(resonance)between behavior and the environment.This is really merely a metaphor, rather than a model.The PDP approach does address the issue of emergence, but since the basic computational unit of the neural network model is a hard-wired receptive field, this theory suffers all the limitations of a template theory.The same holds for Grossberg's “Adaptive Resonance Theory”, which also uses the word resonance metaphorically to suggest a bottom-up top-down matching, but in Grossberg's model that matching is actually performed by receptive fields, or spatial templates.The ART model demonstrates the limitations of this approach.For the only way that a higher-level detector, or “F2 node”, can exhibit generalization to different input patterns, is for it to have synaptic weights to all of the patterns to which it responds.In essence, thepattern of synaptic weights is a superposition or blurring together of all of the possible input patterns to which the F2 node should respond.In top-down priming mode therefore that F2 node would “print” that same blurred pattern back at the lower “F1 node” level, activating all of the possible patterns to which that F2 node is tuned to respond.For example if an ART model were trained to respo nd to an “X”-shaped feature presented at all possible orientations, top-down priming of this node after training would “print” a pattern of all those X-shaped features at all orientations superimposed, which is simply an amorphous blob.In fact, that same node would respond even better to a blob feature than to any single X feature.In the presence of a partial or ambiguous X-like pattern presented at a particular orientation, the ART model could not complete that pattern specific to its orientation.The HR model on the other hand offers a different and unique principle of representation, in which top-down activation of the higher level node can complete a partial or ambiguous input pattern in the specific orientation at which it appears, but that same priming would complete the pattern differently if it appeared in a different orientation.This generalization in recognition, but specification in completion, is a property that is unique to the harmonic resonance representation.Kuhn observes that the old paradigm can always be reformulated to account for any particular phenomenon addressed by the new paradigm, just as the Ptolomaic earth-centered cosmology could account for the motions of the planets to arbitrary precision, given enough nested cycles and epicycles of the crystal spheres.Similarly, a conventional neural network model can always be contrived to exhibit the same functional behavior of generalized recognition but specific completiondescribed above, but only by postulating an implausible arrangement of spatial receptive fields.In this case that would require specific X-feature templates applied to the input at every possible orientation, any one of which can stimulate a single rotation-invariant X-feature node, to account for bottom-up rotation invariance in recognition.However in order to also account for top-down completion specific to orientation, top-down activation of the higher-level invariant node would have to feed back down to a set of top-down projection nodes, each of which is equipped with an X-shaped projective template at a particular orientation, able to project a complete X-shaped pattern on the input field.But the top-down completion must select only the specific orientation that best matches the pattern present in the input, and complete the pattern only at that best matching orientation.This system therefore requires two complete sets of X-feature receptive fields or templates, one set for bottom-up recognition and the other set for top-down completion, each set containing X-feature templates at every possible orientation, and similar sets of receptive fields would be required for the recognition of other shaped patterns such as “T” and “V” features.This represents a “brute force” approach to achieving invariance, which although perhaps marginally plausible in this specific example, is completely implausible as a general principle of operation of neurocomputation, given the fact that invariance appears to be so fundamental a property of human and animal perception.However, as Kuhn also observes, a factor such as neural plausibility is itself a “personal and inarticulate aesthetic consideration” that cannot be determined unambiguously by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science.With regard to Pribram's Holographic theory, theconcept of a hologram is closely related to a standing wave model, since it too works by interference of waveforms.The difference is that the hologram is “frozen in time” like a photograph, and therefore does not exhibit the tolerance to elastic deformation of the input, as does the standing wave model.Neither does the hologram exhibit rotation invariance as does the standing wave in a circular-symmetric system.However holograms can in principle be constructed of dynamic standing waves, as Pribram himself suggests, and this concept then becomes a harmonic resonance theory.The present proposal is therefore closely related to Pribram's approach, which will be discussed in the next version of the paper.The discussion of alternative models was indeed a significant omission in the version of the paper you reviewed, the next version will include such a discussion, which in turn will help to clarify the operational principles of the HR theory, and distinguish it from alternative approaches.In section(3)of your critique you propose that “notions like the receptive field concept are approximate descriptions of facts”, and you propose a dualistic approach involving two forms of representations in the brain which are of different and complementary nature.While I do not dispute the anatomical facts of the shapes of neuron and the function of synapses, it has never been demonstrated that a neuron actually operates as a spatial template, that theory arose as an explanation for the neurophysiological response of “feature de tector” cells in the cortex.However the noisy stochastic nature of the neural response, and its very broad tuning function seem to argue against this view.My own hunch is that the feature detector behavior is itself a standing wave phenomenon, which is consistent with the fact that the response function of V1cortical neurons resembles a Gabor function, which is itself a wavelet.However this issue is orthogonal to my main point, which is that whether or not some neurons behave as spatial templates, the limitations of a template theory suggest that the Gestalt properties of perception(emergence, invariance, reification, multistability)cannot be accounted for in that manner, and that some other significant principle of computation must be invoked to account for the Gestalt properties of perception.In section(4)you complain that there is no discussion of the limitations in the scope of HR.For example merely to reflect outside reality does not contribute to the problem of conscious awareness of these objects.However this issue is not unique to HR, it is a general philosophical issue that applies just as well to the alternative Neuron Doctrine model.But the Neuron doctrine itself cannot even plausibly account for the reflection of outside reality in an internal representation, due to the problems of emergence, reification, and invariance, which is why the Neuron Doctrine suggests a more abstracted concept of visual representation, in which the visual experience is encoded in a far more abstracted and abbreviated form.Therefore although HR does not solve the “problem of consciousness” completely, it is one step closer to a solution than the alternative.The philosophical issue of consciousness however is beyond the scope of this paper, which is a theory of neural representation, rather than a philosophical paper.I enclose a copy of my book, “The World In Your Head”, which addresses these philosophical issues more extensively.Professor Geissler's Response Professor Geissler kindly responded to my letter in April 2000 to say that he agreed with nearly everything I had said.He then gave me advice about the presentation of the idea.Herecommended that I begin by describing the Neuron Doctrine in detail, and then point out the limitations of the idea before presenting the Harmonic Resonance theory as an alternative.I re-wrote the paper following Geissler's advice, and I included some ideas from the above letter in the new version of the paper.However it was too late to resubmit it to Psychological Review since the editor who was handling the paper was leaving.Furthermore, I am becoming convinced that the proper medium for presenting radically new and different theories is the open peer review format of the Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal, which is where I submitted the revised version of this paper.6.Dear Dr.S.Heller，Attached please the revised manuscript “ A Group-Decision Approach for Evaluating Educational Web Sites” submitted to computers & Education for possible publication.A file containing the revision summary is also attached.Your acknowledgement will be highly appreciated.Thank you.Sincerely yours Gwo-Jen Hwang Information Management Department National Chi Nan University Pu-Li, Nan-Tou, Taiwan 545, R.O.C.FAX: 886-940503178 TEL: 886-915396558Response to Reviewers and Editor Paper#: SMCC-03-06-0056 Title: On the Development of a Computer-Assisted Testing System with Genetic Test Sheet-Generating Approach [Reviewer 1 Comments]: ____ The paper should be shortened.[Response to Reviewer 1]: The paper has been shortened to 24 pages by removing some redundant descriptions of genetic models and algorithms;moreover, Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to condense the entire paper.[Reviewer 2 Comments]: No innovative contribution was found both in the theory of genetic algorithms and in theapplication of them.[Response to Reviewer 2]:(1)_We have re-written the abstract and Sections 1 and 2 to explain the importance about the construction of a good test sheet.The major contribution of this paper is not in its technical part.Instead, we tried to cope with an important problem arising from real educational applications.Such a problem is known to be critical and has not been efficiently and effectively solved before.(2)_Since the innovative contribution of this paper might not be significant, we have re-written the paper as a technical correspondence based on the editor's suggestion.[Reviewer 3 Comments]: Make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise, so that the revised paper will be improved in its readability and correctness.[Response to Reviewer 3]: Te mixed integer models and the genetic algorithms in Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise(please refer to Pages 6-17).Moreover, a colleague who is an English expert has carefully checked the paper to correct potential grammatical errors.第二篇：论文修改意见论文修改意见该怎么写呢？下面小编整理了论文修改意见，欢迎大家阅读学习！论文修改意见冉金花论文修改意见：1、论文格式不对，目录放在摘要前；2、没有参考文献，谢辞。
英文投稿修改意见及回复
英文投稿修改意见及回复常见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]》。
英文期刊回复修稿信件模板
如何回复修稿信件模板Dear Editor,We are pleased to answer the questions of the reviewers’ and the manuscript (Manuscript number…) has als o been extensively revised according to the comments (resubmitted online).Question #1:Answer:Question #2:Answer:Best wishes,Sincerely yours,Name在修回时，最头痛的是如何满足个别reviewer的“不可实现”的要求。
我建议主要是引用理论和文献加以解释，作到精练有逻辑有说服力。
毕竟，写比做还是要简单些。
效果吗，就要看个人的写作能力和编辑的心情了。
当然，你能补数据和你有时间补数据的例外。
Dear editor:Thanks a lot for having reviewed our manuscript. Now we have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Most of the revisions are in the manuscript. Some explanations regarding the revisions of our manuscript are as follows.Dear Prof. XXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.Sincerely yours,Dr. XXXXResponse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments:1. XXXXXXX2. XXXXXXX或Dear editor:Thanks a lot for having reviewed our manuscript. Now we have revised the m anuscript according to the reviewers’ comments. Most of the revisions are in the manuscript. Some explanations regarding the revisions of our manuscript are as follows.。
文章修回英文回复模板
文章修回英文回复模板Dear [Name],Thank you for your email/letter and for bringing this matter to my attention. I appreciate your feedback/suggestions/comments.After carefully reviewing your message, I would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused. I understand your concerns and I assure you that we take this issue seriously.In response to your [complaint/request], I wanted to inform you that we have taken immediate action. [Provide details of the actions taken to address the issue, such as forwarding the complaint to the relevant department, initiating an investigation, or implementing measures to prevent similar incidents in the future.] We value your feedback and want to continuously improve our services. Your input helps us identify areas that require attention, and we are committed to rectifying any shortcomings.Should you have any further queries or issues, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. I will personally ensure that your matter is given top priority and addressed promptly.Once again, I apologize for any inconvenience caused, and I want to thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.Kind regards,[Your Name][Your Title/Position] [Your Contact Information]。
(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 ….。
英文论文修改回复模板
英文论文修改回复模板Modification replyDear reviewer and editorhello!First of all, thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to read and modify my article. Thank you for your valuable suggestions. You have corrected all aspects of the structure, content, research methods and results of my paper, which will play a very important role in improving the quality of my paper.I have carefully studied the comments of the reviewers and carefully revised the paper item by item according to the suggestions:1. Refine the Chinese and English abstracts to make the language more refined;2. English title, author's name and unit are added;3. This paper comprehensively analyzes the drug resistance factors of Acinetobacter baumannii in ICU, focusing onThe relationship between the use of clinical antibiotics and the production of drug-resistant strains, and put forward some suggestions for clinical rational drug use according to statistical analysis4. The text of the paper has been further refined and condensed. At present, the text of the article has been compressed to 3100 Word left and right;5. The discussion part has been refined and the repeated contents have been deleted;6. References were further verified;7. There is no fund project in this paper;8. Complete the brief introduction of the author and corresponding author as required;Finally, thank you again for your guidance, and thank you for reviewing and revising my revised paper again. I hope I can complete an excellent paper with your guidance and help. I sincerely hope my paper can be published in your journal.SincerelySalute!。
sci修改稿礼貌回复
sci修改稿礼貌回复尊敬的SCI修改稿的作者，非常感谢您将您的研究成果提交给我们进行修改和润色。
我们认真阅读了您的稿件，并根据您的要求进行了详细修改和改进。
下面是我们对您的稿件做出的修改和建议的列表，我们希望这些修改能够进一步提升您的文章质量。
修正语法错误：1. 在第二段的第一句中，将"根据"改为"根据我们的分析"，以更清楚地表达您的研究方式。
2. 在第四段的第一句中，将"它"改为"该方法"，以避免指代不明。
3. 在第七段的第三句中，将"因为"改为"由于"，以使句子更加流畅。
改善句子结构和表达：1. 在第三段中，建议将复杂的长句分解为两个简洁的句子，以提高文章的可读性。
2. 在第六段中，建议在引用和解释研究结果之间添加连接词，以更好地连接两者之间的逻辑关系。
添加详细说明和解释：1. 在第五段中，建议添加一两句话来解释为什么您选择了特定的实验条件，并说明这些条件对您的研究结果有何影响。
2. 在第八段中，建议对您的研究结果的B部分进行更详细的解释，以使读者更好地理解您的发现。
修正拼写和标点错误：1. 在第一段的第二句中，将"gis"改为"gifs"。
2. 在第四段的第三句中，将"can"改为"can't"。
3. 在第九段的第二句中，将"effectivness"改为"effectiveness"。
除了以上列出的修改建议，我们还对您的全文进行了细致的校对，以确保语法、拼写和标点等方面的准确性。
我们也对文章的逻辑结构和表达方式进行了评估，并提出了必要的调整。
我们相信，通过这些修改和改进，您的研究成果的质量将会得到提升，并且更符合SCI杂志的发表要求。
我们非常重视您的反馈，如果您对我们所做的修改有任何疑问或意见，请随时与我们联系。
用英文巧妙回复SCI期刊编辑信件
欢迎阅读用英文巧妙回复SCI 期刊编辑信件众所周知，外审专家对于文章的主要批评意见是非常重要的，因此作者对于这些意见的回复也是尤为关键。
本文就如何用英文就其意见进行回复做一下简单说明:1、Inreplytothereferee’smaincriticismofpaper,itispossibletosaythat您的回复:外审专家对于表1中xxx 所提出的问题现已改正。
而后面的一些小改动则2而被拒3Thankyouforyourletterof —andforthereferee’scommentsconcerningourmanuscriptentit led.Wehavestudiedtheircommentscarefullyandhavemadecorrectionwhichwehopemeet withtheirapproval.4、我随信附上修过的文章，其中增添了在外审专家建议下新做的实验报告，可进一步证实原有结论Ienclosedarevisedmanuscriptwhichincludesareportofadditionalexperimentsdoneatther eferee’ssuggestion.Youwillseethatouroriginalfindingsareconfirmed.．5、我们附上依照审稿专家的意见修改的原稿，其中修改部分用红色划线标注。
Wearesendingtherevisedmmanuscriptaccordingtothecommentsofthereviewers.Revised portionareunderlinedinred.678910Wedeletedtherelevantpassagesincetheyarenotessentialtothecontentsofthepaper.11、我觉得外审专家对于XXX的评论有些误解。
Ifeelthatthereviewer’scommentsconcerningFigures1and2resul tfromamisinterpretation ofthedata.12、如果在我们的系统中有非蛋白抑制剂，我们就会将其设为控制组。
用英文巧妙回复SCI期刊编辑信件
用英文巧妙回复S C I期刊编辑信件Modified by JACK on the afternoon of December 26, 2020用英文巧妙回复SCI期刊编辑信件众所周知，外审专家对于文章的主要批评意见是非常重要的，因此作者对于这些意见的回复也是尤为关键。
本文就如何用英文就其意见进行回复做一下简单说明:1、In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that您的回复:外审专家对于表1中xxx所提出的问题现已改正。
而后面的一些小改动则不会影响文章对结果的解释。
One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1 has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3，paragraph1(line 3-8)and 2(line 6-11).These do not affect our interpretation of the result. 2、我非常仔细地阅读了外审专家的意见，而且我认为文章仅仅因为缺少xxx而被拒绝刊登的。
我承认本应在丈中包含XXX 然后这仅是出于对文章简洁的考量，没有提供相关数据而非疏忽。
I have read the referee’scomments very carefully and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lacked toxicity data. I admit that l did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.3、谢谢您对于我文章“XXX”的回复以及外审专家的意见。
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。