论文意见回复模板

问题一：如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 第三个审稿人的意见如下： Reviewer #3: The present paper addresses a hot topic of interest in the area. The first part section the paper presents a brief and concise state of the art of the domain approached. Since this topic has been intensively studied during the last decade and a large number of papers and books have been published, this part might be extended to include the most recent research in this domain, and have to be included in Chapter +References: R.O. Preda, D.N. Vizireanu, Blind Watermarking Capacity Analysis of MPEG2 Coded Video, IEEE TELSIKS 2007, 8th International Conference on Telemunications in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services, 26-28 Sept. 2007, Nis, Serbia and Montenegro, p. 465-468. D.N. VIZIREANU, R.O Preda, BD Milovanovic, A New Digital Watermarking scheme for Image Copyright Protection using Wavelet Packets, IEEE TELSIKS 2005, 7th Intern. Conf. on Telem. in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services, 28-30 September 2005, Nis, Serbia and Montenegro, p. 518-521. Some interesting papers have been published recently in CS&SP and have to be included in Chapter 1 +References. The authors contribution is not clearly underlined. Moreover, the performance design criteria are not addressed in the simulation part. The simulation results presented are sometimes uncler. The abbreviations presented in figures are not clear and should be explained in more detail. The results should be more emphasized and the concl......>> 问题二：sci第二次修改 该怎么写回复信件 List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ ments concerning ourmanuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those ments are all valuable and very helpfulfor revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guidingsignificance to our researches. We have studied ments carefully and havemade correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked inred in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to thereviewer’s ments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s ments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to ment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to ment: (……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： 问题三：如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 给范文：Response to ments Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ ments concerning our manuscript entitled xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Those ments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied ments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s ments are as following: ments:（列举提问题切忌要遗漏任何项） 1. ......... Please check and revise. 2. .......... Please revise. 3. .......... Response:（表示遗憾谢并且详细说明改进程/或解释审稿疑惑要详细题号要应面问题编号） 1. We are very sorry for our unclear report in...... 2. It is our negligence and we are sorry about this. According to ment, related content have been improved. ....... 3. As the Reviewer's good advice, ....... Special thanks to you for your good ments. 20xx-xx-xx 国外审稿人是义务的，可以根据文章质量和自己的看法自由地提出意见和建议。国外审稿人绝大多数治学严谨，很注重reputation，可以说拿信誉当生 命。当他们接到审稿要求时，如果很忙或不懂你的专业或领域，他们会decline。但只要答应审稿，一般都是尽职尽责的完成审稿任务。因此，当你接到审稿 人的意见时，首先要摆正心态，保持冷静。不要用偏见的心态去断定审稿人有偏见、歧视。做研究的确很辛苦，发表文章也确实很不容易。但审稿人同 样也很辛苦，也很不容易。他们认认真真地阅读你的文章，给你提出中肯的意见，甚至很好的建议。如果还被你措辞强硬的怪罪一阵，换着谁也会生气。要知道，找 理由拒绝一篇文章并不是一件很难的事情。因此，这个时候，你一定要好好的静下心来，好好分析sci论文发表审稿人的意见，找出问题的所在。 1.所有问题必须逐条回答；2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验；3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由；4。对于你不认同的意见，也要委婉有技巧地回答，做到有理有据有节；5. 审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并加以讨论。...>> 问题四：论文审稿意见怎么写 我以前的博士论文，评阅人就是根据我论文里的摘要写的，精炼一下就OK了。评阅书里面应该有自己写的创新点，你可以参照写一下。leonshane(站内联系TA)首先对这篇论文进行简单概括，指出其主要线索：研究目标、方法、意义、创新等，然后指出一两个最大的问题，如果其问题的确是致命的话，那么久建议修改。 你写完你导师会帮你把关的，如果他不看，建议你申请换导师。。。shuoyeb(站内联系TA)一、概况评价项目：论文的创新性成果 论文的学术价值及应用价值 论文反映出作者的基础理论和专门知识水平论文写作论文总体评价 二、综合所有评阅人对论文的学术评语 （选题的意义，论文的创新性成果，学术价值及应用价值，实验结果和计算数据的合理性及可靠性等）……三、论文中存在的问题、不足及意见或建议 1. 评议人认为第*章第*节****中有****的问题*****。 2. ……lbh535(站内联系TA)评审意见应点面结合。面就是总体概况，而点则至少体现评阅人有没有仔细看内容。现在好多论文评审一审就是一大批，特别是社会科学方面的，评阅意见都写些泛泛而谈的东西，感觉评阅人就没太仔细看。qiuqu_200212(站内联系TA)建议答辩，然后简单写些评语即可。k10001(站内联系TA)还有一段八股：论文表明，***在所研究领域掌握了坚实宽广的基础理论和系统深入的专门知识，具备了（很强的）独立从事科学研究工作的能力，论文（具有创新性，）达到了博士论文学术水平。建议组织博士学位论文答辩。nono2009(站内联系TA)评阅表中有提示的，按提示要求的几项内容写评阅意见即可。songjm12(站内联系TA)好好阅读评审书前两页要求部分 写好评语就行了yuffey(站内联系TA)研究问题清晰不，研究目标明确不，方法得当不，结果明显不？ 工作量饱满不，内容充实不？等等 最好的方法是，找个以前的博士论文，抄写抄写。八股文~~ 问题五：sci怎么回复审稿意见 小木虫 问: sci投稿，四个审稿人，两个提了问题，两个改的格式，一个在原文上改，直接发的pdf，估计修改的有一百多处吧，另一个提出第几页第几行改什么等等，编辑要求在修订模式下修改原文，我还需要一一回复修改格式的审稿人么，如何回复他修改的格式呢，他没有提问题，只帮我改了格式。 答: 原则上不用~ 既然在修订模式下进行~ 就一次到位~ 问题六：sci审稿意见回复写在一封信里吗 需要啊~ 而且最好有一个word文档逐条去回复审稿人的意见以及你是如何修改的，并且在修改稿里面用不同的颜色标注出你所修改的部分。 回复审稿意见一定要认真。谦虚这方面，你可以从他提的问题去判断审稿人的水平。如果提的问题明显外行，可以强势一些。不是说每个问题都要修改，但是每个问题都要回应。 问题七：大修审稿意见，重金求教如何回复 投稿Energy，35天后返回修改，给的大修，求教有经验的虫友如何回复审稿意见比较好。另外，为什么附件里只有一个人的审稿人意见？Dear***, The review of this paper is now plete, and I am including the Reviewers' reports (directly at the end of this email and sometimes as attachments). As you can see, one Reviewer remends rejection, and the others remend possible reconsideration after major revisions. If you are able to revise the manuscript thoroughly in response to the Reviewers' ments, I believe that it would be suitable for second review. I should add that, in view of the strong critici *** s, anything but a thorough response and revision would just be an unfortunate waste of time. Once you have revised the paper accordingly, please submit with it a note describing in detail your response to these ments and a separate copy of the revised paper marked up to indicate where the revisions were made. NOTE: Upon submitting your revised manuscript, please upload the source files for your article. For additional details regarding acceptable file formats, please refer to the Guide for Authors at: elsevier/...uthors When submitting your revised paper, we ask that you include the following items: Manuscript and Figure Source Files (mandatory) We cannot acmodate PDF manuscript files for production purposes. We also ask that when submitting your revision you follow the journal fo......>> 问题八：如何回复编辑和审稿人 回复审稿人的格式很简单，先感谢审稿人的宝贵意见，接着说已经按照要求修改过了，然后就是修改的明细，通常是一问一答，先是审稿人的意见，然后是自己的回答。 问题九：工科类文章审稿意见怎么写 英文 工科类文章审稿意见 Review ments on the article of Engineering 工科类文章审稿意见 Review ments on the article of Engineering 问题十：论文接收 英文审稿意见 怎么写 ①正确性：论点的说服力根植于对客观事物的正确反映，而这又取决于作者的立场、观点、态度、方法是否正确，如果论点本身不正确，甚至是荒谬的，再怎么论证也不能说服人。因此，论点正确是论文的最起码的要求。 ②鲜明性：赞成什么、反对什么，要非常鲜明，千万不能模棱两可，含糊不清。 ③新颖性：论点应该尽可能新颖、深刻，能超出他人的见解，不是重复他人的老生常谈，也不是无关痛痒、流于一般的泛泛而谈，应该尽可能独特、新颖。

在回复审稿人意见的时候，诚恳的态度非常关键，最好可以附上一个新的cover letter。当你不同意审稿人的意见时，你可以说“Thank you for your comments. We understand your concern about XXX. However, because YYY. To make this clearer we have changed ZZZ on page/line XX.”首先站在审稿人的角度上去肯定审稿人的意见，然后客观的指出文章的原意，并且做出具体解释。从另一个角度来看，既然审稿人都理解错了，其他的读者更有可能，说明文章的表达还是需要改进的。建议对相关的句子重写，尽量表述得更加清晰。

在这里我们也分享一些常见的回复审稿人模板供题主参考：

当你同意审稿人意见时，可以这样写：

Thank you for your comments. We agree with your suggestion to XXX, because YYY. We have made changes to ZZZ on page/line XX as you suggested.

回复重点要包括以下几项：

科研人想要成功发表一篇SCI，往往要经历写作、投稿、等待这一系列漫长的过程，当在收到一篇文章返修意见的时候心里别提有多激动了。 收到返修意见说明文章已经被审稿人初步认可，为了让自己的心血不被浪费，文章能顺利发表，我们要花时间和经历去回复审稿意见，这就要求大家除了具备专业性之外，还要注意回复的语气、格式等细节 本篇文章笔者 手把手教各位科研人如何高情商回复 Reviewers ，很纯的干货，认真读完相信你一定有所收获！ 1. 阅读返修意见 首先要认真阅读全部审稿意见，一般每篇文章会有 2-3 个审稿人的意见，每位审稿人的意见数量可能一两条到十几条不等。每位审稿人的意见一般会逐条列出。在阅读退修意见的过程中，我们要清楚目的，首先是弄懂每一条意见，充分 get 审稿人的要求。 其次要对所有意见有一个归纳整理，分清主次。 最后要注意除文章内容之外的一些要求，如文章修回的 deadline，补充完善作者信息等。 2. 制定回复策略 当认真读完审稿人意见之后，建议大家将所有意见复制粘贴到 word 文档，对所列意见逐条分析。根据笔者经验，所有意见可以根据难易程度分为简单、复杂、困难这三种。 下面笔者将以一些既往文章收到过的退修意见为例来向大家说明： 简单的一般是改正错别词、语法，规范格式，补充缩写词全称，提高图片质量，等等。如图 1： 图1 复杂的一般指我们通过查阅文献之后即可用事实依据解答审稿人的疑问，比如为什么选择某个药物、某个实验对象等，因为审稿人有时不一定是你所研究领域的专家，所以我们用事实说话解开审稿人的疑惑也就成功回答了这类问题。如图 2： 图2 困难的一般是指审稿人对文章涉及到的方法、结果、结论等的质疑，这些就需要各位认真斟酌，谨慎回答，切记要有理有据。如图 3： 图3 3. 编辑回复内容 分析过审稿人意见之后，我们就可以着手回复了，下面几条划重点啦： （1）我们注意要对所有的退修意见逐条进行回复 在每条意见下面写上相应回复内容，一般回复的结构为：感谢审稿人的意见+已修改的内容。可以写感谢审稿人善意的提醒/严谨的态度/专业的意见等等，表达出我们虚心学习的态度。 （2）在回复的正文内容的首和尾要分别有一段前言和一段总结 回复的语气一定要诚恳且礼貌，在内容中除了要说明修改的内容之外，还要体现感谢编辑和审稿人对文章的认可以及辛苦的工作。 （3）在回复内容的最后写上「如果有任何问题请随时联系」类似的话 这样既显示了我们认真的态度，也间接表达了我们期盼回复的心情。 （4）如有引用文献回答审稿人问题的，需在回答内容后面附上所参考文献的 DOI 编号，论点+论据会更能使审稿人信服。 下面图 4 为笔者常用的回复审稿人意见的模板，提供给大家参考。 图4 虽然每个人的稿件情况不同，回复信也都是千差万别，但多多少少还是有一定模板性的，尤其是对于第一次遇到这种情况的研究生朋友们，可以先从模板开始熟悉一下此类回复信的大体内容和形式。 模板1：精简版本 下面这个是我自己以前写的一个模板，拿出来分享给大家。 Dear Editor XX and Reviewers, Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files. （这一段基本上是套话） Thanks again! 下面就开始回复文章的审稿意见了，一般首先是回复期刊编辑的整体意见： SUGGESTIONS FROM EDITOR（注意这一段要把编辑原始的建议粘贴在这里，不能只有回应）  Your response to the general comments from the editor 接下来是逐条回应审稿人的建议： COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR: Reviewer #1: Response to the questions one by one Reviewer #2: Response to the questions one by one 模板2: 完整版本 这个模板是完整版本，保留了很多逐条回答审稿人的常用短语和句式，值得收藏和学习！ Dear Editor, Dear reviewers Thank you for your letter dated February 22. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in Journal, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Accordingly, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all the changes highlighted by using the track changes mode in MS Word. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red). We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in the Journal of Mountain Science. Sincerely, XXXXXXX （同样是套话，这个模板写了这么长。。。虽然我不是很喜欢，但是适合拿来逐句学习，为己所用）  Reviewer 1：   Comments to the Author 这个审稿人的意见分为两部分： 第一部分是一般性的评论和修改建议（多为比较大的问题）。 Here are the general comments from the reviewer...  We thank the reviewer for the very interesting comment. In fact… Regarding the suggestion about the methods, we changed this part… Another issue on the methodological section is that...  We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clear and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we have added a brief description as follows: “ 接下来是第二部分“小的建议”，也就是需要逐条回复的那种，一般是用词用句的修改。 Minor comments: The title is too long, I suggest shortening.  Modified throughout the text according to the comment (Line 20, page 1).Thank you for the title suggested. The precedent version of the title has been replaced, becoming... Line 25, page 1… Modified throughout the text according to the comment (Line 20, page 1). Line 18, page 2…  We have modified the sentence according to the previous comment (Line 30, page 2).  Line 33, page 3…  Thank you for underlining this deficiency. This section was revised and modified according to the information showed in the work suggested by the reviewer (Line 41, page 3).  Line 59, page 5…  This phrase was modified according to the comment (Line 30, page 5).  Lines 9-24, page 6…  Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 6-28, page 6).  Line 11, page 6…  This sentence was rephrased according to the comment (Line 8, page 6).  Line 35, page 13: “exit section”->”outlet” (please check also throughout the text, e.g. at line 54, page 13)  We have modified this expression throughout the text according to the comment. 论文的发表终究还是取决于科研硬实力，以上技巧和经验都只是锦上添花，在论文发表方面助大家一臂之力，让我们的稿件更容易被录用。最后祝每个科研人科研丰收，生活美满！