如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见.docx
《如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见.docx(8页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见
之老阳三干创作
望对大家有帮忙1.DearProf.XXXX,ThankyouverymuchforyourletterandthecommentsfromtherefereesaboutourpapersubmittedtoXXXX(MSNumberXXXX).Wehavecheckedthemanuscriptandreviseditaccordingtothecomments.Wesubmitheretherevisedmanuscriptaswellasalistofchanges.Ifyouhaveanyquestionaboutthispaper,pleasedon’thesitatetoletmeknow.Sincerelyyours,Dr.XXXXResponsetoReviewer1:
Thanksforyourcommentsonourpaper.Wehaverevisedourpaperaccordingtoyourcomments:
1.XXXXXXX2.XXXXXXX2.DearProfessor***,Re:
An***RotatingRigid-flexibleCoupledSystem(No.:
JSV-D-06-***)by***Manythanksforyouremailof24Jun2006,regardingtherevisionandadviceoftheabovepaperinJSV.Overallthecommentshavebeenfair,encouragingandconstructive.Wehavelearnedmuchfromit.Aftercarefullystudyingthereviewer’commentsandyouradvice,wehavemadecorrespondingchangestothepaper.Ourresponseofthecommentsisenclosed.Ifyouneedanyotherinformation,pleasecontactmeimmediatelybyemail.Myemailaccountis***,andTel.is***,andFaxis+***.Yourssincerely,Detailedresponsetoreviewer’scommentsandAsianEditor’sadviceOverallthecommentshavebeenfair,encouragingandconstructive.Wehavelearnedmuchfromit.Althoughthereviewer’scommentsaregenerallypositive,wehavecarefullyproofreadthemanuscriptandedititasfollowing.
(1)
(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) Besidestheabovechanges,wehavecorrectedsomeexpressionerrors.Thankyouverymuchfortheexcellentandprofessionalrevisionofourmanuscript.3.Themanuscriptisrevisedsubmission(×××-××××)withnewlineandpagenumbersinthetext,somegrammarandspellingerrorshadalsobeencorrected.Furthermore,therelevantregulationshadbeenmadeintheoriginalmanuscriptaccordingtothecommentsofreviewers,andthemajorrevisedportionsweremarkedinredbold.Wealsorespondedpointbypointtoeachreviewercommentsaslistedbelow,alongwithaclearindicationofthelocationoftherevision.Hopethesewillmakeitmoreacceptableforpublication.ListofMajorChanges:
1).........2).........3).........ResponsetoReviewers:
1).........2).........3).........ResponsetoReviewerXXWeverymuchappreciatethecarefulreadingofourmanuscriptandvaluablesuggestionsofthereviewer.Wehavecarefullyconsideredthecommentsandhaverevisedthemanuscriptaccordingly.Thecommentscanbesummarizedasfollows:
1)XX2)XXDetailedresponses1)XX2)XX4.DeareditorXXWehavereceivedthecommentsonourmanuscriptentitled“XX”byXX.Accordingtothecommentsofthereviewers,wehaverevisedourmanuscript.Therevisedmanuscriptandthedetailedresponsestothecommentsoftheonereviewerareattached.Sincerelyyours,XX5.ResponsetoReviewerAReviewerAverykindlycontactedmedirectly,andrevealedhimselftobeProfessorDr.Hans-GeorgGeissleroftheUniversityofLeipzig.IwrotehimageneralresponsetobothreviewsinJanuary2000,followedbytheseresponsestospecificpoints,bothhisown,andthoseoftheotherreviewer.ResponsetoSpecificPointsWhatfollowsisabriefandcursorydiscussionofthevariousissuesraisedbyyourselfandtheotherreviewer.Ifyoushouldreviseyourjudgmentofthevalidityofthetheory,thesepointswillbeaddressedatgreaterlengthinanewversionofthepaperthatIwouldresubmittoPsychologicalReview.ResponsetoSpecificPoints-ReviewerA:
Inpart
(1)ofyourcritiquethemajorcomplaintisthatnotheoryispresented,whichwasdiscussedabove.Youcontinue"Regrettably,notmuchattentionisdrawntospecificdifferencesbetweenthechosenexamplesthatwouldbenecessarytopinpointspecificitiesofperceptionmoreprecisely",and"ifperceptualsystems,assuggested,hler(KindeedactonthebasisofHR,theremustbemanymorespecificconstraintsinvolvedtoensurespecial`veridicality'propertiesoftheperceptualoutcome",and"thedifficultanalyticproblemsofconcretemodelingofperceptionarenoteventouched".Themodelaspresentedisnotamodelofvisionorauditionoranyotherparticularmodality,butisageneralmodeltoconfrontthealternativeneuralreceptivefieldparadigm,althoughexamplesfromvisualperceptionareusedtoexemplifytheprinciplesdiscussed.Themorespecificvisualmodelwassubmittedelsewhere,intheOrientationalHarmonicmodel,whereIshowedhowharmonicresonanceaccountsforspecificvisualillusoryeffects.Asdiscussedabove,theattempthereistoproposeageneralprincipleofneurocomputation,ratherthanaspecificmodelofvisual,auditory,oranyotherspecificsensorymodality.Again,whatIamproposingisaparadigmratherthanatheory,i.e.analternativeprincipleofneurocomputationwithspecificanduniqueproperties,asanalternativetotheneurondoctrineparadigmofthespatialreceptivefield.Ifthispaperiseventuallyacceptedforpublication,thenIwillresubmitmypapersonvisualillusoryphenomena,referringtothispapertojustifytheuseoftheunconventionalharmonicresonancemechanism.Inpart
(2)(a)ofyourcritiqueyousay"itisnotclarifiedwhetherthepostulatedpropertiesofGestaltsactuallyfollowfromthisdefinitionorpartlyderivefromadditionalconstraints."and"IdoubtthatanyofthereviewedexamplesforHRcantreatjustthecaseofhler:
(1961,p.7)"Humanexperienceinthephenomenologicalsensecannotyetbetreatedwithourmostreliablemethods;andwhendealingwithit,wemaybeforcedtoformnewconceptswhichatfirst,willoftenbeabitvague."WolfgangKthedogcitedtodemonstrate`emergence'.Forthisahierarchyrelationisneeded."TheprincipleofemergenceinGestalttheoryisaverydifficultconcepttoexpressinunambiguousterms,andthedogpicturewaspresentedtoillustratethisratherelusiveconceptwithaconcreteexample.IdonotsuggestthatHRasproposedinthispapercanaddressthedogpictureassuch,sincethisisspecificallyavisualproblem,andtheHRmodelaspresentedisnotavisualmodel.Rather,Iproposethatthefeaturedetectionparadigmcannotinprinciplehandlethiskindofambiguity,becausethelocalfeaturesdonotindividuallycontaintheinformationnecessarytodistinguishsignificantfrominsignificantedges.ThesolutionoftheHRapproachtovisualambiguityisexplainedinthepaperinthesectionon"RecognitionbyReification"(p.15-17)inwhichIproposethatrecognitionisnotsimplyamatteroftheidentificationoffeaturesintheinput,i.e.bythe"lightingup"ofahigherlevelfeaturenode,butitinvolvesasimultaneousabstractionandreification,inwhichthehigherlevelfeaturenodereifiesitsparticularpatternbackattheinputlevel,modulatedbytheexactpatternoftheinput.Iappealtothereadertoseethereifiedformofthedogasperceivededgesandsurfacesthatarenotpresentintheinputstimulus,asevidenceforthisreificationinperception,whichappearsatthesametimethattherecognitionoccurs.Theremarkablepropertyofthisreificationisthatthedogappearsnotasanimageofacanonical,orprototypicaldog,butasadogperceptthatiswarpedtotheexactpostureandconfigurationallowedbytheinput,asobservedinthesubjectiveexperienceofthedogpicture.Thisexplanationissubjecttoyourcriticisminyourgeneralcomments,that"theauthordemonstratesmoreinsightthanexplicitlystatedinassumptionsanddrawnconclusions".Icanonlysaythat,inKuhn'swords,sometimesitisonlypersonalandinarticulateaestheticconsiderationsthatcanbeusedtomakethecase.InthewordsofWolfgangK?
hler:
(1961,p.7)"Humanexperienceinthephenomenologicalsensecannotyetbetreatedwithourmostreliablemethods;andwhendealingwithit,wemaybeforcedtoformnewconceptswhichatfirst,willoftenbeabitvague."WolfgangK?
hler(K?
hler1923p.64)"Naturalsciencescontinuallyadvanceexplanatoryhyptotheses,whichcannotbeverifiedbydirectobservationatthetimewhentheyareformednorforalongtimethereafter.OfsuchakindwereAmpere'stheoryofmagnetism,thekinetictheoryofgases,theelectronictheory,thehypothesisofatomicdisintegrationinthetheoryofradioactivity.Someoftheseassumptionshavesincebeenverifiedbydirectobservation,orhaveatleastcomeclosetosuchdirectverification;othersarestillfarremovedfromit.Butphysicsandchemistrywouldhavebeencondemnedtoapermanentembryonicstatehadtheyabstainedfromsuchhypotheses;theirdevelopmentseemsratherlikeacontinuouseffortsteadilytoshortentherestofthewaytotheverificationofhypotheseswhichsurvivethisprocess"Insection
(2)(b)ofyourcritiqueyoucomplainthat"thereisnoseriousdiscussionofpossiblealternatives",andyoumentionNeo-Gibsonianapproaches,PDP,Grossberg'sARTmodelandPribram'sholographictheory.Inthenextversionofthepaperthisomissionwillbecorrected,approximatelyasfollows.Gibson'suseofthetermresonanceisreallyametaphoricaldevice,sinceGibsonoffersnomechanismsoranalogiesofperceptualprocesses,butmerelysuggeststhatthereisatwo-wayflowofinformation(resonance)betweenbehaviorandtheenvironment.Thisisreallymerelyametaphor,ratherthanamodel.ThePDPapproachdoesaddresstheissueofemergence,butsincethebasiccomputationalunitoftheneuralnetworkmodelisahard-wiredreceptivefield,thistheorysuffersallthelimitationsofatemplatetheory.ThesameholdsforGrossberg's"AdaptiveResonanceTheory",whichalsousesthewordresonancemetaphoricallytosuggestabottom-uptop-downmatching,butinGrossberg'smodelthatmatchingisactuallyperformedbyreceptivefields,orspatialtemplates.TheARTmodeldemonstratesthelimitationsofthisapproach.Fortheonlywaythat