SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板.docx
《SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板.docx（17页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）
ListofResponses
DearEditorsandReviewers:
Thankyouforyourletterandforthereviewers’commentsconcerningour
manuscriptentitled“PaperTitle”（ID:
文章稿号）.Thosecommentsareallvaluable
andveryhelpfulforrevisingandimprovingourpaper,aswellastheimportant
guidingsignificancetoourresearches.Wehavestudiedcommentscarefullyandhave
madecorrectionwhichwehopemeetwithapproval.Revisedportionaremarkedin
redinthepaper.Themaincorrectionsinthepaperandtherespondstothereviewer’s
commentsareasflowing:
Respondstothereviewer’scomments:
Reviewer#1:
1.Responsetocomment:
,（简要列出意见,,）
Response:
×××××
2.Responsetocomment:
,（简要列出意见,,）
Response:
×××××
。
。
。
。
。
。
逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏
针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：
Weareverysorryforournegligenceof⋯⋯...
Weareverysorryforourincorrectwriting⋯⋯...
ItisreallytrueasReviewersuggestedthat
⋯⋯
WehavemadecorrectionaccordingtotheReviewer
’scomments.
Wehaverewritten-thispartaccordingtotheReviewer
’ssuggestion
AsReviewersuggestedthat
⋯⋯
ConsideringtheReviewer
’ssuggestion,wehave
⋯⋯
最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：
Specialthankstoyouforyourgoodcomments.
Reviewer#2:
同上述
Reviewer#3:
××××××
Otherchanges:
1.Line60-61,thestatementsof“⋯⋯”werecorrectedas“⋯⋯⋯⋯”
2.Line107,“⋯⋯”wasadded
3.Line129,“⋯⋯”wasdeleted
××××××
Wetriedourbesttoimprovethemanuscriptandmadesomechangesinthe
manuscript.Thesechangeswillnotinfluencethecontentandframeworkofthe
paper.Andherewedidnotlistthechangesbutmarkedinredinrevisedpaper.
WeappreciateforEditors/Reviewers’warmworkearnestly,andhopethatthe
correctionwillmeetwithapproval.
Onceagain,thankyouverymuchforyourcommentsandsuggestions
以下是审稿人意见和本人的回复。
与大家分享。
从中可以看出，这位审稿人认真读了文章，提出很多宝贵的意见。
这些意见
分布在文章的各个地方。
我很诧异有人真正读了我的文章。
看到这些意见，
我觉得很感激，不是因为接收文章的原因，而是这些意见能真正有助于提高
文章的质量。
从中还看出，回答审稿人问题的“技巧”。
对于回答问题，有的人就是一味反驳，却不加改进。
记得ACSStyleGuide里面说，当审稿人问到问题的，哪怕是他理解错误，
这
也说明作者这么写，其他读者也会理解错误，引起歧义。
因此，作者就是要
修改句子，使表达不引起歧义。
因此：
有时间一味反驳，还不如指出具体改进在第几页、第几段。
============================================
Reviewers'comments:
Reviewer#3:
Whilerevisingthescript,itistobesuggestedthatauthorshould
clearlyindicatetheaim&scopeofthestudyandwhilemakingconclusion,itistobe
mentionedhowthestudyisusefulforthepracticalpurposes.Inadditionthefollowing
arethefewsuggestions/comments,whichmaybeincludedwhilerevision.
1.Introductionpartfirstparalastline,authormustavoidtowriteambiguousstatementi.e.,muchworkisstillahead,mayindicateproperly.
2.Authorcouldnotdemonstratethereasonwhy,toselecttheorganiccompound
suchasethylpyruvateforthisstudy?
3.Experimentalpart:
Itisdifficulttounderstandthein-situRAIRSexperiments
withhomemadeliquid-solidRAIRScell.Moredetailedinformationmaybeusefulfor
theothersthosewhoareworkinginthearea.Photographoftheassembledcellmay
beincluded.
4.Thedescriptiongivenfortheexperimentalsetup（page4）canbepresentedbyflowdiagraminstead,asaneasetounderstandthesetup.
5.ReslutsPart（Page6）:
"COadlayerswithidenticalmonolayercoverages",themonolayercoverage,isitbeenperformedwithsomeadsorptionmodel?
Further,itwassuggestedthatCO-saturatedPtsurface,butnotmentionedaboutthesaturationexperiments.Isitobtainedafter60minofCObubbling?
6.Page12,2ndpara:
ThedisplacementofEtPybyCCl4flushing,isitconfirmed
bytheEtPypeaks?
Ifso,ithastobementionedclearlyinthepara.Alsointhesame
para,authorreferredforFig.7aand7bbutinthefigures,itdidn'tappear,onlyfigure
7appeared.Ifeelitrefersforfigure7,portionAandB,tobecorrected.Similarly,in
thetextreferredthefig2a,2b.etcbutonthefiguresheetitismentionedas2A,
2B.etc.tobecorrected.
7.Page14,1stpara:
'contaminationofthePtsurfacebycorrosionofo-ringsinhighconcentrationEtPy',butthestatementhasnotbeensupportedbyotherevidence/literature.
8.Pages14through17:
theobservedreactivityofvarioussolventsforadsorbed
COonthePtsurface（figs3&4）hastobediscussedmoreprecisely.Thisrevieweris
unabletofollowthereasonwhytheyshoweddifferentreactivity,isitprincipallydue
totheorganicmoieties,orduetotheimpuritiesofcommerciallyavailablechemicals
oramixedeffect.Ithastobeclearlydemonstrated,however,theonlyexperiment
performedwithCO/water?
CCl4woulddifficulttodescribeitindetail.
9.Theauthortrytorestrainwithrepeatedargumentsinthetexte.g.,page3para
1:
Itwasgeneralizedthat.........,alsoappearedonpage21firstpara.
10.Captionsofthefiguresaretoolong,thedetaileddescriptionalreadygiveninthetext,hencewouldnotbeincludedhere.Captionsshouldbeshortandcrispy.
===============================================
DearEditor,
Iquiteappreciateyourfavoriteconsiderationandthereviewer’insightful
comments.NowIhaverevisedtheJCIS-06-247exactlyaccordingtothereviewer’s
comments,andfoundthesecommentsareveryhelpful.Ihopethisrevisioncanmake
mypapermoreacceptable.Therevisionswereaddressedpointbypointbelow.
[general]Theobjectiveofthisresearchwasaddedatthebeginningofthethird
paragraphofIntroduction.Howthestudyisusefulforpracticalpurposeswasaddedat
theendofConclusionasoneparagraph.
[1]Ambiguousstatementi.e.,“muchworkisstillahead”wasdeleted.
[2]Ethylpyruvatewasusedhereasatypicalcompound（containingtwocarbonylgroups）todemonstratethefeasibilityofusingourdiagnosingtooltodetect
low-coverageCO（comingfromdecarbonylationofEtPy）attheliquid-solidinterface.
EtPyisareactantusedinliquid-phasechiralcatalysis,andslightdecompositionof
EtPytoadsorbedCOwasreportedtoinfluencethecatalyticperformance.Inaddition,
bystudyingthat,wecandirectlycompareourresultswithpreviousstudies.More
detailsinthefirstparagraphofSection3.2.
[3]TheIRcellwasdesignedaccordingtotheIRcellsusedbymanyelectrochemicalworkers.Referenceswereadded.AphotowasgivenintheSupportingInformation.
[4]AflowdiagramoftheexperimentalsetupwasgiveninthenewFig.1.
[5]TheCOadsorptionexperimentswereperformedinthesameadsorptionmode,bybubblingCOthroughacleanPtsurfaceindifferentdaystoachievethesamesaturationcoverageofCO.InitialexperimentsindicatedthatgiventheCObubbling
ratewas0.85cm3/min,COcansaturateonPtafter30-45min.WebubbleCOfor60
mintoguaranteethesameCOcoverage.IfwebubbleCOformoretime,orifwe
increasetheCOflowingrateseveraltimes,theCOsaturationcoveragedoesn’t
change,indicating60minisalreadyenough.AfigureshowingtheCOuptakeasa
functionofbubblingtimewasgivenintheSupportingInformation.
[6]ThedisplacementofEtPybyCCl4wasconfirmedbytheremovingofEtPy
peaks.ThementionofFig.7aand7betc.throughoutthetextwereallcorrected.
[7]ItisknownthatsomesolventssuchasacetonecancorrodetheVitono-ring.
Wesawthedamageofo-ringafterusinghigh-concentrationEtPy.Areferencetothe
Vitono-ringinformationwasgiven.
[8]Theobservedreactivitytrendisduetoacombinationofbotheffects,withtheaccumulationoforganicmoietiesonPtsurfaceduringnumerousflushingcyclesthemoreimportantreason.Afewpropersentenceswereaddedtoclaritythispoint.
[9]TherepeatedargumentsinthefirstparagraphinSection4.3weredeleted.
[10]Thetoo-longcaptionsweresignificantlyshortened.
Inall,Ifoundthereviewer’scommentsarequitehelpful,andIrevisedmypaper
point-by-point.Thankyouandthereviewagainforyourhelp!
==============================================
结果：
http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2006.09.005
欢迎浏览：
OrganicChemistryonSolidSurfaces（Review）
Z.Ma,F.Zaera*,SurfaceScenceReports61（2006）229-281.
ScienceDirectTOP25HottestArticlesinChemistry
http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfrep.2006.03.001
CI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）
ListofResponses
DearEditorsandReviewers:
Thankyouforyourletterandforthereviewers’commentsconcerningour
manuscriptentitled“PaperTitle”（ID:
文章稿号）.Thosecommentsareallvaluable
andveryhelpfulforrevisingandimprovingourpaper,aswellastheimportant
guidingsignificancetoourresearches.Wehavestudiedcommentscarefullyandhave
madecorrectionwhichwehopemeetwithapproval.Revisedportionaremarkedin
redinthepaper.Themaincorrectionsinthepaperandtherespondstothereviewer’s
commentsareasflowing:
Respondstothereviewer’scomments:
Reviewer#1:
1.Responsetocomment:
,（简要列出意见,,）
Response:
×××××
2.Responsetocomment:
,（简要列出意见,,）
Response:
×××××
。
。
。
。
。
。
逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏
针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：
Weareverysorryforournegligenceof
⋯⋯...
Weareverysorryforourincorrectwriting
⋯⋯...
ItisreallytrueasReviewersuggestedthat
⋯⋯
WehavemadecorrectionaccordingtotheReviewer
’scomments.
Wehaverewritten-thispartaccordingtotheReviewer
’ssuggestion
AsReviewersuggestedthat
⋯⋯
ConsideringtheReviewer
升级会员 