RESPONSE-LETTER回復(fù)信函寫法

1、We are truly grateful to the reviewers suggestions on English. Based on thesecomments, we have made careful modifications on the manuscript.Dear Editor:We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have ma

2、de careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red color. In addition, we have consulted native English speakers for paper revision before the submission this time. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazines standard. Below you will find our point-b

3、y-point responses to the reviewers comments/ questions: 1234.Yours sincerely*Dear Prof.*:Thank you very much for your kindly comments on our manuscript (No*). Based on your and reviewers suggestions, we carefully revised the manuscript.We are now sending the revised article for your re-consideration

4、 to publish in Journal of Plant Physiology. Please see our point to point responses to all your comments below, and the corresponding revisions in the body of manuscript, both marked in blue. We look forward to hearing form you soon for a favorable 8 decision.Thank you again for your time and consid

5、eration.Sincerely,*1. *2.*3.*Below, the original comments are in black, and our responses are in blue.*Following typographical and grammatical errors in original manuscript have been removed and corrected:(1) Line 20 page 1 in the original manuscript: the drag.Revised in the revised manuscript: The

6、dragRESPONSES TO REVIEWERS COMMENTSDear Dr:We are truly grateful to yours and other reviewers critical comments and thoughtful suggestions. Based on these comments and suggestions, we have made careful modifications on the original manuscript. All changes made to the text are in red color. In additi

7、on, we have consulted native English speakers for paper revision before the submission this time. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazines standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers comments/ questions: Comments from the Editor-in-Chief: 回復(fù)后1月，要求小休，并認(rèn)為英文水平

8、已經(jīng)大大提高，要求明確我下一步想如何研究，因此老外由幫我寫了回復(fù)信，如下是第二封信的開場(chǎng)白：Dear Dr. Chernick:We must thank you and all other reviewers for the critical feedback. We feel lucky that our manuscript went to these reviewers as the valuable comments from them not only helped us with the improvement of our manuscript, but suggested s

9、ome neat ideas for future studies. Please do forward our heartfelt thanks to these experts. Based on the comments we received, careful modifications have been made to the R1 manuscript. All changes were marked in red text. In addition, we also have a native English speakers double-checked the Englis

10、h for the revised R2 version. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazines standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers comments/ questions:Dear Editor:Thank you very much for your supervision of the reviewing process of my manuscript (Ref. No. of XXXXXXX). We a

11、lso highly appreciate the reviewers carefulness, conscientious, and the broad knowledge on the relevant research fields, since they have given me a number of beneficial suggestions. According to the reviewers instructions, we have made the following revisions on this manuscript:1. After examining th

12、e reviewers comments carefully, we must admit that we havenot expressed our meaning correctly in the previous manuscript. Sorry for this confusion. In the revised version, the “rougher” has been corrected as “weaker andbroader”. (See Line 7 from top, 3.1 Phase identification).2. As suggested by the

13、reviewer, Fig. 3a has been referred into the revised manuscriptto reveal flattening of the milled powders. (See Line 4 from top, 3.2 Microstructure)3. In the review comments, the reviewer has pointed out that “The particle size of thepowders in Fig. 3b&c appear to be comparable?” We have again exami

14、ned Fig. 3band 3c carefully. Compared with the particle size of powders in Fig. 3b, the particlesize of particles in Fig. 3c showed a very slight increase. (See Line 17 from top, 3.2Microstructure)4. As suggested by the reviewer, we have outlined the operating mechanism in the revised manuscript for

15、 the sake of better understanding and clarity. (See Lines 7-11 from top, 4.Conclusions)5. In the review comment, we are very appreciated to know that a marked hardcopy ofthe manuscript has been sent by post concerning additional corrections of Englishlanguage. We have waited the hardcopy for more th

16、an 2 months since May 9, 2008.However, we have not yet received the hardcopy till now, due to some unknownreasons. With the permission of XXXXXXX (Email: XXXXXXX), we have invited another native English speaker inour university, who is a visiting professor from USA engaged in the research field ofMa

17、terials Science and Engineering, to go through the whole manuscript. The Englishlanguage in the current manuscript has been polished and improved.We hope that these revisions are satisfactory and that the revised version will beacceptable for publication in XXXXXXX.Thank you very much for your work

18、concerning my paper.Wish you all the best!Sincerely yours,XXXXXXX一篇稿子從醞釀到成型歷經(jīng)艱辛，投出去之后又是漫長(zhǎng)的等待，好容易收到編輯的回信，得到的往往又是審稿人不留情面的一頓狂批。這時(shí)候，如何有策略有技巧的回復(fù)審稿人就顯得尤為重要。好的回復(fù)是文章被接收的重要砝碼，而不恰當(dāng)?shù)幕貜?fù)輕則導(dǎo)致再次修改從而拖延發(fā)稿時(shí)間，重則導(dǎo)致文章被拒，前功盡棄。下面把我平時(shí)總結(jié)的一些答復(fù)審稿人的策略和寫回復(fù)信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。首先，絕對(duì)服從編輯的意見。在審稿人給出各自的意見之后，編輯一般不會(huì)再提出自己的意見。但是，編輯一旦提出某些意見，就意

19、味著他認(rèn)為這是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。這時(shí)，我們唯一能夠做的只能是服從。因?yàn)楫吘故侨思艺莆罩鷼⒂鑺Z的大權(quán)。第二，永遠(yuǎn)不要跟審稿人爭(zhēng)執(zhí)。跟審稿人起爭(zhēng)執(zhí)是非常不明智的一件事情。審稿人意見如果正確那就不用說(shuō)了，直接照辦就是。如果不正確的話，也大可不必在回復(fù)中冷嘲熱諷，心平氣和的說(shuō)明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血?dú)夥絼偅蝗伺牧水?dāng)然不爽，被人錯(cuò)拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名門正派里的弟子，看到一審結(jié)果是major而不是minor本來(lái)就已經(jīng)很不爽了，難得抓住審稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出來(lái)打死。有次審稿，一個(gè)審稿人給的意見是增加兩篇參考文獻(xiàn)（估計(jì)也就是審稿人自己的文章啦），結(jié)果作者在回復(fù)中寫到，m

20、aking a reference is not charity！看到之后我當(dāng)時(shí)就笑噴了，可以想象審稿人得被噎成什么樣。正如大家所想的那樣，這篇稿子理所當(dāng)然的被拒了，雖然后來(lái)經(jīng)編輯調(diào)解改成了major revision，但畢竟耽誤的是作者自己的時(shí)間不是？第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所謂修改就是對(duì)文章內(nèi)容進(jìn)行的修改和補(bǔ)充，所謂argue就是在回復(fù)信中對(duì)審稿人的答復(fù)。這其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟審稿人argue。對(duì)于語(yǔ)法、拼寫錯(cuò)誤、某些詞匯的更換、對(duì)某些公式和圖表做進(jìn)一步解釋等相對(duì)容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根據(jù)審稿意見照做。而對(duì)于新意不足、

21、創(chuàng)新性不夠這類根本沒法改的，還有諸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比較，補(bǔ)充大量實(shí)驗(yàn)等短時(shí)間內(nèi)根本沒法完成的任務(wù)，我們則要有理有據(jù)的argue。在Argue的時(shí)候首先要肯定審稿人說(shuō)的很對(duì)，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重點(diǎn)是blablabla，跟他說(shuō)的不是一回事。然后為了表示對(duì)審稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段這方面的discussion，這樣既照顧到了審稿人的面子，編輯那也能交待的過去。第四，聰明的掌握修改時(shí)間。拿到審稿意見，如果是minor，意見只有寥寥數(shù)行，那當(dāng)然會(huì)情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至幾小時(shí)搞定修改稿。這時(shí)候，問題在于要不要馬上投回去了？我的意見是放一放，多看一看，兩個(gè)星期之后再投出去。

22、這樣首先避免了由于大喜過望而沒能及時(shí)檢查出的小毛病，還不會(huì)讓編輯覺得你是在敷衍他。如果結(jié)果是major，建議至少放一個(gè)月再投出去，顯得比較鄭重。上面是一些一般性的答復(fù)審稿人的策略，在實(shí)際中的應(yīng)用還需要大家見仁見智。下面談?wù)劥饛?fù)信的寫法。寫答復(fù)信的唯一目的是讓編輯和審稿人一目了然的知道我們做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和寫法都要圍繞這一目的。一般來(lái)說(shuō)可以把答復(fù)信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是簡(jiǎn)明扼要的列出所有修改的條目，讓編輯和審稿人在第一時(shí)間對(duì)

23、修改量有個(gè)概念，同時(shí)它還充當(dāng)著修改目錄的作用，詳見下面的例子。剩下的兩部分是分別對(duì)編輯和審稿人所做的答復(fù)，格式可以一樣，按照“意見”“argue”（如果有的話）“修改”這樣逐條進(jìn)行。清楚醒目起見，可以用不同字體分別標(biāo)出，比如“意見”用italic，“argue”正常字體，“修改”用bold。下面舉例說(shuō)明各部分的寫法和格式。編輯意見：請(qǐng)?jiān)谛薷母逯杏秒p倍行距。審稿人1： 意見1：置疑文章的創(chuàng)新性，提出相似的工作已經(jīng)被A和B做過。 意見2：算法表述不明確。 意見3：對(duì)圖3的圖例應(yīng)做出解釋。審稿人2： 意見1：圖2太小。 意見2：第3頁(yè)有個(gè)錯(cuò)別字。很顯然，根據(jù)上面的答復(fù)策略，我們準(zhǔn)備對(duì)除1號(hào)審稿人意見

24、1之外的所有意見進(jìn)行相應(yīng)改動(dòng)，而對(duì)1.1采取argue為主的策略。答復(fù)如下：List of ActionsLOA1: The revised manuscript is double spaced.LOA2: A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have been added in page 3.LOA3: A paragraph has been added in page 5 to further explain the algorithm *.LOA4: Explanations of th

25、e legend of Figure 3 have been added in page 7.LOA5: Figure 2 has been enlarged.LOA6: All typos have been removed.=分頁(yè)=Responses to Editor請(qǐng)?jiān)谛薷母逯杏秒p倍行距。We have double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.=分頁(yè)=Responses to ReviewersTo Reviewer 1:意見1：置疑文章的創(chuàng)新性，提出相似的工作已經(jīng)被A和B做過。Thank y

26、ou for pointing this out. A and Bs research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and Bs work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. We have added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manuscrip

27、t, see LOA2.“blablablabla(此處把A和B的工作做一個(gè)review，并提出自己工作和他們的區(qū)別之處)”意見2：算法表述不明確。We have added the following discussion to further explain algorithm *, see LOA3.“blablablabla（此處進(jìn)一步解釋該算法）”意見3：對(duì)圖3的圖例應(yīng)做出解釋。We have added the following explanations of the legend of Figure 3, see LOA3.“blablablabla（圖3圖例的解釋）”=分頁(yè)=

28、To Reviewer 2:意見1：圖2太小。We have enlarged Figure 2, see LOA 4.意見2：第3頁(yè)有個(gè)錯(cuò)別字。We have removed all typos, see LOA5.=分頁(yè)=總之，寫答復(fù)信的宗旨就是用最少的時(shí)間和工作量達(dá)到論文被接收的目的。這里權(quán)當(dāng)是拋磚引玉，希望和大家多多交流?；貜?fù)審稿人，態(tài)度決定一切也許說(shuō)的有點(diǎn)過，但個(gè)人覺得還是很有道理的。最近我的一篇SCI接受了。這篇文章花了我大半年時(shí)間，于今年暑假完稿并投出。投的雜志是美國(guó)的*雜志。一個(gè)多月前受到編輯的通知：要求大修！三個(gè)審稿人，一個(gè)建議積極，說(shuō)只是語(yǔ)言問題，并沒提有關(guān)內(nèi)容的問題；第二

29、、三審稿人都提了很多問題，總共14個(gè)大問題，有的大問題里面還有小問題。三個(gè)審稿人得第一個(gè)問題都是語(yǔ)言問題（一般中國(guó)作者投英美雜志大都會(huì)遇到此問題，當(dāng)然，我的看來(lái)比較嚴(yán)重）。拿到這個(gè)通知，說(shuō)實(shí)在的，頭都大了。有幾個(gè)問題直指文章的死角，回答不好的話，文章的立意直接會(huì)受到懷疑。不過，我決定修改！本著態(tài)度誠(chéng)懇，認(rèn)真、嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)求實(shí)的原則，我花了22天的時(shí)間把所有問題回答完畢，該補(bǔ)充的實(shí)驗(yàn)進(jìn)行了補(bǔ)充，該分析的數(shù)據(jù)又進(jìn)行重新分析，基本是嚴(yán)格按照審稿人的建議意義修改。最后整篇文章的80%左右進(jìn)行了大修，當(dāng)然結(jié)論不能改動(dòng)，只能從補(bǔ)充的那個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)中得到進(jìn)一步的加強(qiáng)。語(yǔ)言問題，本來(lái)想請(qǐng)修改公司潤(rùn)色，后來(lái)在小木蟲上求助,

30、絕大數(shù)蟲友建議自己修改, 只有這樣不能達(dá)到鍛煉和提升自己的目的,于是決定完全自己修改。于是乎，就找了十幾篇*最近發(fā)表的論文（英美作者寫的）進(jìn)行仔細(xì)研讀，論文語(yǔ)言格式可以套用，加上自己的論述對(duì)象就OK了。最后回答問題15頁(yè)，補(bǔ)充實(shí)驗(yàn)3個(gè)，原文章80%的修改最終于10月31日提交。后來(lái)經(jīng)過半個(gè)月的再審，就直接錄用了！現(xiàn)在回想起來(lái)，感觸頗多，本打算著再次小修，然后才能接 受（一般都這樣），沒想到還算順利。后來(lái)，自己總結(jié)一下認(rèn)為：回復(fù)審稿人的意見是很講技巧的，說(shuō)不好就完了，特別是對(duì)于要求大修的文章！更是如此。謙遜、謹(jǐn)慎、認(rèn)真、求實(shí)的態(tài)度最為重要。對(duì)于不太清楚的地方也不能回避，要本著自己理解給以回答，最

31、后最好在征求一下審稿人的意見，謙虛的染提起對(duì)著干問題給以指導(dǎo)，總之要給審稿人以最好的印象，這是文章錄用的關(guān)鍵所在。下面列出審稿意見和我的回復(fù)，以期與朋友們問共勉：（由于帖子限制長(zhǎng)度，部分問題與回答略）Dear Editors and Reviewers. Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A simple method for preparation of * used as active, stable and biocompatible S

32、ERS substratebyusingelectrostaticself-assembly”(ID:*-09-1602).Thosecommentsareall valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with appro

33、val. 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# Response to comment: The review is complete and the main objection lies with the English language. I point

34、 out a few sentences only from the ABSTRACT and Conclusion. The rest corrections have to be done by the authors. I encourage the authors for small sentences. ABSTRACT - A new SERS-active * on the surface of glass slide has been prepared by a low-cost electrochemical strategy at a proper voltage and

35、polyvinyl alcohol (*) concentration inelectrolyteisperformed.Withscanningelectronmicroscopy,themorphologyoftheAg nanofilm is a two-dimensional structure with nano-scale regions should read asA new SERS-active * on the surface of glass slide has been prepared by a low-cost electrochemicalstrategyusin

36、gpolyvinylalcohol(*)atapropervoltage. Thetwo dimensional morphology of the * has been examined by scanning electron microscopy. Conclusion - . The morphologies and SERS activity and stability of the *s are characterized by SEM and SERS measurement, respectively. SERS spectra of * and * obtained from

37、these *s compare with those from Ag colloids, which reavals an excellent enhancement effect of the *s as SERS-active substrates. should read as The morphology, stability and SERS activity of the * have been studied. The excellent enhancement of SERS spectra for * and * from the * is observed in comp

38、arison to the Ag colloid system. The whole MS needs to be edited before it is accepted for publication. Response: As the Reviewers good instruction, we have tried our best to revise the English of the whole MS carefully. In order to make the whole MS better understanding, we have revised some longse

39、ntencesintoshortsentencesandeditedthewholeMSaccordingtotheReviewersinstruction. Meanwhile, we also have asked some colleagues who are skilled authors of Englishlanguage papers to help us for checking the English (see the revised MS). We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review pr

40、ocess. Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer 3# 1. Response to comment: English should be checked throughout the text by a native English speaker. Response: According to the reviewers good instruction, we have revised the whole manuscript carefully and tried to avoid any grammar or

41、syntax error. In addition, we have asked several colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English. We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review process. 2. Response to comment: The manuscript is too long. It must be shortened. The authors must be

42、more concise. The introduction takes three pages. In fact, it is very hard to read the paper. There are several sentences that should be changed for a better understanding. Some corrections are done in the margins of the manuscript (pods file). I enclosed a copy of that. Response: We agree the revie

43、wers good advice. Yes, the manuscript is too long (especially the part of introduction), which is very hard to read the paper. And that, there are several sentences are hard for understanding. Thus, we have revised the original manuscript in order to reduce the length of the manuscript and make it b

44、etter understanding (especially the part of Introduction). However, due to additional experiments and explanations are added in the revised manuscript according to the other Reviewers suggestion, the revised manuscript is still long in some sort. Nevertheless, we have revised the sentences (especial

45、ly some long sentences) for the whole manuscript in order to make the manuscript more concise. Especially,thecorrectionsdoneinthemarginsofthemanuscript(podsfile)whichthe Reviewer enclosed are very helpful to us. We are very appreciated for the Reviewers good comments and corrections made for our man

46、uscript. 3. Response to comment: Repetitions and several adjectives should be avoided. For example: authors use . active, stable and biocompatible SERS substrate. a lot of times through the text. Also, they indicate .perfect stability of. or .perfect biocompatible. Well, SERS spectra of SC become we

47、aker when the time goes on thus, no Raman signal will be obtained for a long, long time. It means, that the time deteriorates Ag surface. I think that perfect is not a good adjective.Response: It is really true as the Reviewer suggested that some repetitions and several adjectives should be avoided. Thus, we have made corrections according to the Reviewers good instructions. We have deleted the repeated words such as active, stable and biocompatible in some sentences. Meanwhile, like