SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見(jiàn)范文模板大全

1、晴兒SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見(jiàn)範(fàn)文模板大全修改稿回答審稿人意見(jiàn)（最重要部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿號(hào)). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as th

2、e important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers comments are as flowing:Responds to th

3、e reviewers comments:Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (簡(jiǎn)要列出意見(jiàn))Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (簡(jiǎn)要列出意見(jiàn))Response: ××××××。逐條意見(jiàn)回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏針對(duì)不同問(wèn)題有下列幾個(gè)禮貌術(shù)語(yǔ)可適當(dāng)用用：We are very sorry for our negligence of .We are very sorry for our incor

4、rect writing .It is really true as Reviewer suggested thatWe have made correction according to the Reviewers comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewers suggestionAs Reviewer suggested thatConsidering the Reviewers suggestion, we have 最後特意感謝一下這個(gè)審稿人意見(jiàn)：Special thanks to you for yo

5、ur good comments. Reviewer #2: 同上述Reviewer #3: ××××××Other changes: 1. Line 60-61, the statements of “” were corrected as “”2. Line 107, “” was added 3. Line 129, “” was deleted ×××××× We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made so

6、me changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, tha

7、nk you very much for your comments and suggestions以下是審稿人意見(jiàn)和本人回複。與大家分享。從中可以看出，這位審稿人認(rèn)真讀了文章，提出很多寶貴意見(jiàn)。這些意見(jiàn)分布在文章各個(gè)地方。我很詫異有人真正讀了我文章?？吹竭@些意見(jiàn)，我覺(jué)得很感激，不是因?yàn)榻邮瘴恼略?，而是這些意見(jiàn)能真正有助於提高文章質(zhì)量。從中還看出，回答審稿人問(wèn)題“技巧”。對(duì)於回答問(wèn)題，有人就是一味反駁，卻不加改進(jìn)。記得ACS Style Guide裏面說(shuō)，當(dāng)審稿人問(wèn)到問(wèn)題，哪怕是他理解錯(cuò)誤，這也說(shuō)明作者這麼寫(xiě)，其他讀者也會(huì)理解錯(cuò)誤，引起歧義。因此，作者就是要修改句子，使表達(dá)不引起歧義。因此：

8、有時(shí)間一味反駁，還不如指出具體改進(jìn)在第幾頁(yè)、第幾段。=Reviewers' comments:Reviewer #3: While revising the script, it is to be suggested that author should clearly indicate the aim & scope of the study and while making conclusion, it is to be mentioned how the study is useful for the practical purposes. In addition the

9、 following are the few suggestions/comments, which may be included while revision.1. Introduction part first para last line, author must avoid to write ambiguous statement i.e., much work is still ahead, may indicate properly.2. Author could not demonstrate the reason why, to select the organic comp

10、ound such as ethyl pyruvate for this study? 3. Experimental part: It is difficult to understand the in-situ RAIRS experiments with homemade liquid-solid RAIRS cell. More detailed information may be useful for the others those who are working in the area. Photograph of the assembled cell may be inclu

11、ded.4. The description given for the experimental set up (page 4) can be presented by flow diagram instead, as an ease to understand the set up. 5. Resluts Part (Page 6): "CO adlayers with identical monolayer coverages", the monolayer coverage, is it been performed with some adsorption mod

12、el? Further, it was suggested that CO-saturated Pt surface, but not mentioned about the saturation experiments. Is it obtained after 60 min of CO bubbling?6. Page 12, 2nd para: The displacement of EtPy by CCl4 flushing, is it confirmed by the EtPy peaks? If so, it has to be mentioned clearly in the

13、para. Also in the same para, author referred for Fig. 7a and 7b but in the figures, it didn't appear, only figure 7 appeared. I feel it refers for figure 7, portion A and B, to be corrected. Similarly, in the text referred the fig 2a, 2b. etc but on the figure sheet it is mentioned as 2A, 2B .et

14、c. to be corrected. 7. Page 14, 1st para: 'contamination of the Pt surface by corrosion of o-rings in high concentration EtPy', but the statement has not been supported by other evidence/literature.8. Pages 14 through 17: the observed reactivity of various solvents for adsorbed CO on the Pt

15、surface (figs 3 & 4) has to be discussed more precisely. This reviewer is unable to follow the reason why they showed different reactivity, is it principally due to the organic moieties, or due to the impurities of commercially available chemicals or a mixed effect. It has to be clearly demonstr

16、ated, however, the only experiment performed with CO/water? CCl4 would difficult to describe it in detail.9. The author try to restrain with repeated arguments in the text e.g., page 3 para 1: It was generalized that., also appeared on page 21 first para. 10. Captions of the figures are too long, th

17、e detailed description already given in the text, hence would not be included here. Captions should be short and crispy. =Dear Editor,I quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the reviewers insightful comments. Now I have revised the JCIS-06-247 exactly according to the reviewers comments,

18、and found these comments are very helpful. I hope this revision can make my paper more acceptable. The revisions were addressed point by point below.general The objective of this research was added at the beginning of the third paragraph of Introduction. How the study is useful for practical purpose

19、s was added at the end of Conclusion as one paragraph.1 Ambiguous statement i.e., “much work is still ahead” was deleted.2 Ethyl pyruvate was used here as a typical compound (containing two carbonyl groups) to demonstrate the feasibility of using our diagnosing tool to detect low-coverage CO (coming

20、 from decarbonylation of EtPy) at the liquid-solid interface. EtPy is a reactant used in liquid-phase chiral catalysis, and slight decomposition of EtPy to adsorbed CO was reported to influence the catalytic performance. In addition, by studying that, we can directly compare our results with previou

21、s studies. More details in the first paragraph of Section 3.2.3 The IR cell was designed according to the IR cells used by many electrochemical workers. References were added. A photo was given in the Supporting Information.4 A flow diagram of the experimental setup was given in the new Fig. 1.5 The

22、 CO adsorption experiments were performed in the same adsorption mode, by bubbling CO through a clean Pt surface in different days to achieve the same saturation coverage of CO. Initial experiments indicated that given the CO bubbling rate was 0.85 cm3/min, CO can saturate on Pt after 30-45 min. We

23、bubble CO for 60 min to guarantee the same CO coverage. If we bubble CO for more time, or if we increase the CO flowing rate several times, the CO saturation coverage doesnt change, indicating 60 min is already enough. A figure showing the CO uptake as a function of bubbling time was given in the Su

24、pporting Information.6 The displacement of EtPy by CCl4 was confirmed by the removing of EtPy peaks. The mention of Fig. 7a and 7b etc. throughout the text were all corrected.7 It is known that some solvents such as acetone can corrode the Viton o-ring. We saw the damage of o-ring after using high-c

25、oncentration EtPy. A reference to the Viton o-ring information was given.8 The observed reactivity trend is due to a combination of both effects, with the accumulation of organic moieties on Pt surface during numerous flushing cycles the more important reason. A few proper sentences were added to cl

26、arity this point. 9 The repeated arguments in the first paragraph in Section 4.3 were deleted.10 The too-long captions were significantly shortened. In all, I found the reviewers comments are quite helpful, and I revised my paper point-by-point. Thank you and the review again for your help!=結(jié)果：http:

27、//10.1016/j.jcis.2006.09.005歡迎瀏覽： Organic Chemistry on Solid Surfaces (Review) Z. Ma, F. Zaera*, Surface Scence Reports 61 (2006) 229-281. ScienceDirect TOP25 Hottest Articles in Chemistry /10.1016/j.surfrep.2006.03.001CI修改稿回答審稿人意見(jiàn)範(fàn)文模板 修改稿回答審稿人意見(jiàn)（最重要部分）List of ResponsesDear

28、 Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿號(hào)). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have

29、 studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewers comments:Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (簡(jiǎn)要列出意見(jiàn))Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (簡(jiǎn)要列出意見(jiàn))Response: ××××××。逐條意見(jiàn)回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏針對(duì)不同問(wèn)題有下列幾個(gè)禮貌術(shù)語(yǔ)可適當(dāng)用用：We are very sorry for our negligence