SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集.docx
《SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集.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规范文本材料模板全集.docx(8页珍藏版)》请在冰点文库上搜索。
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集
SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全
修改稿回答審稿人の意見(最重要の部分)
ListofResponses
DearEditorsandReviewers:
Thankyouforyourletterandforthereviewers’commentsconcerningourmanuscriptentitled“PaperTitle”(ID:
文章稿號).Thosecommentsareallvaluableandveryhelpfulforrevisingandimprovingourpaper,aswellastheimportantguidingsignificancetoourresearches.Wehavestudiedcommentscarefullyandhavemadecorrectionwhichwehopemeetwithapproval.Revisedportionaremarkedinredinthepaper.Themaincorrectionsinthepaperandtherespondstothereviewer’scommentsareasflowing:
Respondstothereviewer’scomments:
Reviewer#1:
1.Responsetocomment:
(……簡要列出意見……)
Response:
××××××
2.Responsetocomment:
(……簡要列出意見……)
Response:
××××××
。
。
。
。
。
。
逐條意見回答,切忌一定不能有遺漏
針對不同の問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用:
Weareverysorryforournegligenceof……...
Weareverysorryforourincorrectwriting……...
ItisreallytrueasReviewersuggestedthat……
WehavemadecorrectionaccordingtotheReviewer’scomments.
Wehavere-writtenthispartaccordingtotheReviewer’ssuggestion
AsReviewersuggestedthat……
ConsideringtheReviewer’ssuggestion,wehave……
最後特意感謝一下這個審稿人の意見:
Specialthankstoyouforyourgoodcomments.
Reviewer#2:
同上述
Reviewer#3:
××××××
Otherchanges:
1.Line60-61,thestatementsof“……”werecorrectedas“…………”
2.Line107,“……”wasadded
3.Line129,“……”wasdeleted
××××××
Wetriedourbesttoimprovethemanuscriptandmadesomechangesinthemanuscript.Thesechangeswillnotinfluencethecontentandframeworkofthepaper.Andherewedidnotlistthechangesbutmarkedinredinrevisedpaper.
WeappreciateforEditors/Reviewers’warmworkearnestly,andhopethatthecorrectionwillmeetwithapproval.
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:
Reviewer#3:
Whilerevisingthescript,itistobesuggestedthatauthorshouldclearlyindicatetheaim&scopeofthestudyandwhilemakingconclusion,itistobementionedhowthestudyisusefulforthepracticalpurposes.Inadditionthefollowingarethefewsuggestions/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:
theobservedreactivityofvarioussolventsforadsorbedCOonthePtsurface(figs3&4)hastobediscussedmoreprecisely.Thisreviewerisunabletofollowthereasonwhytheyshoweddifferentreactivity,isitprincipallyduetotheorganicmoieties,orduetotheimpuritiesofcommerciallyavailablechemicalsoramixedeffect.Ithastobeclearlydemonstrated,however,theonlyexperimentperformedwithCO/water?
CCl4woulddifficulttodescribeitindetail.
9.Theauthortrytorestrainwithrepeatedargumentsinthetexte.g.,page3para1:
Itwasgeneralizedthat.........,alsoappearedonpage21firstpara.
10.Captionsofthefiguresaretoolong,thedetaileddescriptionalreadygiveninthetext,hencewouldnotbeincludedhere.Captionsshouldbeshortandcrispy.
===============================================
DearEditor,
Iquiteappreciateyourfavoriteconsiderationandthereviewer’sinsightfulcomments.NowIhaverevisedtheJCIS-06-247exactlyaccordingtothereviewer’scomments,andfoundthesecommentsareveryhelpful.Ihopethisrevisioncanmakemypapermoreacceptable.Therevisionswereaddressedpointbypointbelow.
[general]TheobjectiveofthisresearchwasaddedatthebeginningofthethirdparagraphofIntroduction.HowthestudyisusefulforpracticalpurposeswasaddedattheendofConclusionasoneparagraph.
[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.AfigureshowingtheCOuptakeasafunctionofbubblingtimewasgivenintheSupportingInformation.
[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,andIrevisedmypaperpoint-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
http:
//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surfrep.2006.03.001
CI修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板
修改稿回答審稿人の意見(最重要の部分)
ListofResponses
DearEditorsandReviewers:
Thankyouforyourletterandforthereviewers’commentsconcerningourmanuscriptentitled“PaperTitle”(ID:
文章稿號).Thosecommentsareallvaluableandveryhelpfulforrevisingandimprovingourpaper,aswellastheimportantguidingsignificancetoourresearches.Wehavestudiedcommentscarefullyandhavemadecorrectionwhichwehopemeetwithapproval.Revisedportionaremarkedinredinthepaper.Themaincorrectionsinthepaperandtherespondstothereviewer’scommentsareasflowing:
Respondstothereviewer’scomments:
Reviewer#1:
1.Responsetocomment:
(……簡要列出意見……)
Response:
××××××
2.Responsetocomment:
(……簡要列出意見……)
Response:
××××××
。
。
。
。
。
。
逐條意見回答,切忌一定不能有遺漏
針對不同の問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用:
Weareverysorryforournegligenceof……...
Weareverysorryforourincorrectwriting……...
ItisreallytrueasReviewersuggestedthat……
WehavemadecorrectionaccordingtotheReviewer’scomments.
Wehavere-writtenthispartaccordingtotheReviewer’ssuggestion
AsReviewersuggestedthat……
ConsideringtheReviewer’ssuggestion,wehave……
最後特意感謝一下這個審稿人の意見:
Specialthankstoyouforyourgoodcomments.
Reviewer#2:
同上述
Reviewer#3:
××××××
Otherchanges:
1.Line60-61,thestatementsof“……”werecorrectedas“…………”
2.Line107,“……”wasadded
3.Line129,“……”wasdeleted
××××××
Wetriedourbesttoimprovethemanuscriptandmadesomechangesinthemanuscript.Thesechangeswillnotinfluencethecontentandframeworkofthepaper.Andherewedidnotlistthechangesbutmarkedinredinrevisedpaper.
WeappreciateforEditor