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

《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（5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

望对大家有帮助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.Fortheonlywaythatahigher