SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全Word文件下载.docx

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全Word文件下载.docx

《SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全Word文件下载.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大全Word文件下载.docx（14页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

commentsareasflowing:

Respondstothereviewer’scomments:

Reviewer#1:

1.Responsetocomment:

（）Response:

×

×

2.Responsetocomment:

（）

Response:

Weareverysorryforournegligenceof...

Weareverysorryforourincorrectwriting...

ItisreallytrueasReviewersuggestedthat

WehavemadecorrectionaccordingtotheReviewer’scomments.

Wehavere-writtenthispartaccordingtotheReviewer’ssuggestion

AsReviewersuggestedthat

ConsideringtheReviewer’ssuggestion,wehave

Specialthankstoyouforyourgoodcomments.

Reviewer#2:

Reviewer#3:

Otherchanges:

1.Line60-61,thestatementsof“”werecorrectedas“”

2.Line107,“”wasadded

3.Line129,“”wasdeleted

Wetriedourbesttoimprovethemanuscriptandmadesomechangesinthe

manuscript.Thesechangeswillnotinfluencethecontentandframeworkofthe

paper.Andherewedidnotlistthechangesbutmarkedinredinrevisedpaper.

WeappreciateforEditors/Reviewerswarm’workearnestly,andhopethatthe

correctionwillmeetwithapproval.

Onceagain,thankyouverymuchforyourcommentsandsuggestions

以下是審稿人意見和本人の回複。

與大家分享。

從中可以看出，這位審稿人認真讀了文章，提出很多寶貴の意見。

這些意見

分布在文章の各個地方。

我很詫異有人真正讀了我の文章。

看到這些意見，

我覺得很感激，不是因為接收文章の原因，而是這些意見能真正有助於提高

文章の質量。

從中還看出，回答審稿人問題の“技巧”。

對於回答問題，有の人就是一味反駁，卻不加改進。

記得ACSStyleGuide裏面說，當審稿人問到問題の，哪怕是他理解錯誤，

這

也說明作者這麼寫，其他讀者也會理解錯誤，引起歧義。

因此，作者就是要

修改句子，使表達不引起歧義。

因此：

有時間一味反駁，還不如指出具體改進在第幾頁、第幾段。

============================================

Reviewers'

comments:

Whilerevisingthescript,itistobesuggestedthatauthorshould

clearlyindicatetheaim&

scopeofthestudyandwhilemakingconclusion,itistobe

mentionedhowthestudyisusefulforthepracticalpurposes.Inadditionthefollowing

arethefewsuggestions/comments,whichmaybeincludedwhilerevision.

1.Introductionpartfirstparalastline,authormustavoidtowriteambiguousstatementi.e.,muchworkisstillahead,mayindicateproperly.

2.Authorcouldnotdemonstratethereasonwhy,toselecttheorganiccompoundsuchasethylpyruvateforthisstudy?

3.Experimentalpart:

Itisdifficulttounderstandthein-situRAIRSexperimentswithhomemadeliquid-solidRAIRScell.Moredetailedinformationmaybeusefulfortheothersthosewhoareworkinginthearea.Photographoftheassembledcellmaybeincluded.

4.Thedescriptiongivenfortheexperimentalsetup（page4）canbepresentedbyflowdiagraminstead,asaneasetounderstandthesetup.

5.ReslutsPart（Page6）:

"

COadlayerswithidenticalmonolayercoverages"

themonolayercoverage,isitbeenperformedwithsomeadsorptionmodel?

Further,itwassuggestedthatCO-saturatedPtsurface,butnotmentionedaboutthesaturationexperiments.Isitobtainedafter60minofCObubbling?

6.Page12,2ndpara:

ThedisplacementofEtPybyCCl4flushing,isitconfirmedbytheEtPypeaks?

Ifso,ithastobementionedclearlyinthepara.Alsointhesamepara,authorreferredforFig.7aand7bbutinthefigures,itdidn'

tappear,onlyfigure7appeared.Ifeelitrefersforfigure7,portionAandB,tobecorrected.Similarly,inthetextreferredthefig2a,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）todemonstratethefeasibilityofusingourdiagnosingtooltodetectlow-coverageCO（comingfromdecarbonylationofEtPy）attheliquid-solidinterface.EtPyisareactantusedinliquid-phasechiralcatalysis,andslightdecompositionofEtPytoadsorbedCOwasreportedtoinfluencethecatalyticperformance.Inaddition,bystudyingthat,wecandirectlycompareourresultswithpreviousstudies.MoredetailsinthefirstparagraphofSection3.2.

[3]TheIRcellwasdesignedaccordingtotheIRcellsusedbymanyelectrochemicalworkers.Referenceswereadded.AphotowasgivenintheSupportingInformation.

[4]AflowdiagramoftheexperimentalsetupwasgiveninthenewFig.1.

[5]TheCOadsorptionexperimentswereperformedinthesameadsorptionmode,bybubblingCOthroughacleanPtsurfaceindifferentdaystoachievethesamesaturationcoverageofCO.InitialexperimentsindicatedthatgiventheCObubblingratewas0.85cm3/min,COcansaturateonPtafter30-45min.WebubbleCOfor60mintoguaranteethesameCOcoverage.IfwebubbleCOformoretime,orifweincreasetheCOflowingrateseveraltimes,theCOsaturationcoveragedoesn’tchange,indicating60minisalreadyenough.AfigureshowingtheCOuptakeasa

functionofbubblingtimewasgivenintheSupportingInformation.

[6]ThedisplacementofEtPybyCCl4wasconfirmedbytheremovingofEtPypeaks.ThementionofFig.7aand7betc.throughoutthetextwereallcorrected.

[7]ItisknownthatsomesolventssuchasacetonecancorrodetheVitono-ring.Wesawthedamageofo-ringafterusinghigh-concentrationEtPy.AreferencetotheVitono-ringinformationwasgiven.

[8]Theobservedreactivitytrendisduetoacombinationofbotheffects,withtheaccumulationoforganicmoietiesonPtsurfaceduringnumerousflushingcyclesthemoreimportantreason.Afewpropersentenceswereaddedtoclaritythispoint.

[9]TherepeatedargumentsinthefirstparagraphinSection4.3weredeleted.

[10]Thetoo-longcaptionsweresignificantlyshortened.

Inall,Ifoundthereviewer’scommentsarequitehelpful,andIrevisedmypaper

point-by-point.Thankyouandthereviewagainforyourhelp!

==============================================

結果：

http:

//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2006.09.005

歡迎瀏覽：

OrganicChemistryonSolidSurfaces（Review）

Z.Ma,F.Zaera*,SurfaceScenceReports61（2006）229-281.

ScienceDirectTOP25HottestArticlesinChemistry

//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfrep.2006.03.001

CI

Thankyouforyourletterandforthereviewers’commentsconcerningour

redinthepaper.Themaincorrectionsinthepaperandtherespondstothereviewer

Wehaverewritten-thispartaccordingtotheReviewer’ssuggestion

manuscript.Thesec