如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见.docx

1、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 chang

2、es.If you have any question about this paper, please dont 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

3、 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

4、 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 reviewers comments and Asian Editors adviceOverall the

5、 comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it. Although the reviewers 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.Tha

6、nk 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 manuscrip

7、t 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

8、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 a

9、s 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 comments of the one reviewer are a

10、ttached.Sincerely yours,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, b

11、oth 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

12、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 Regrettably, not much attention is drawn to specific difference

13、s 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 perceptu

14、al 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

15、 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

16、 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

17、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 cri

18、tique 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 the case of hler: (1961, p. 7) Human experience in the phenomenologic

19、al 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 t

20、heory 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,

21、 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 sol

22、ution 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 inv

23、olves 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

24、 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 exac

25、t 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

26、 that, in Kuhns 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,

27、 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

28、kind were Amperes 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; othe

29、rs 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 verification of hypotheses which surviv

30、e this processIn section (2) (b) of your critique you complain that there is no serious discussion of possible alternatives, and you mention Neo-Gibsonian approaches, PDP, Grossbergs ART model and Pribrams holographic theory. In the next version of the paper this omission will be corrected, approxim

31、ately as follows. Gibsons 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 metap

32、hor, 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 Grossbergs Adaptive Resonance Theory, which also uses the word resonance metaphorically to suggest a bottom-up top- down matching, but in Grossbergs 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