审稿意见回复

 第一篇

1.审稿意见分类

a.分类式回复：如果意见很多，可以试着将它们进行分类，例如将方法相关的意见分在一起、语言相关的一组等等，如果将意见进行分组，记得在信里提及“I have separated my responses to the reviewers’ comments according to several categories in order to achieve an integrated approach in my responses.”。

b.点列式回复:如果评审员的意见是长长的段落，可以将意见分离成点各别回应，如果不确定某项意见的意思，可以先解释自己对该意见的理解，然后再进行回复。

2.与审稿意见的分歧处理

同行评审的老师通常是领域内的专家，如果作者认为审稿人误解了论文里的任何段落，有时候很有可能是因为表达不够清楚。这种情况下，可以礼貌性的指出误解然后提供必要的说明。可以这么写“I am sorry that this part was not clear in the original manuscript. I should have explained that (……详细说明). I have revised the contents of this part”。

第二篇：SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）

List of Responses

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). 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 studied comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the response to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer #1:

1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)

Response: ××××××

2. Response to comment: (……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：

We are very sorry for our negligence of ……...

We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...

It is really true as Reviewer suggested that ……

We have made corrections according to the Reviewer’s comments.

We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion

As Reviewer suggested that……

Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……

最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：

Special thanks to you for your 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 some 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 them in red in the revised paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

实例

修稿意见：

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 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 compound 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 included.

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 model? 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 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 .etc. 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 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 demonstrated, 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, the detailed description already given in the text, hence would not be included here. Captions should be short and crispy.

===============================================

回复：

Dear Editor,

I quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the reviewer’s insightful comments. Now I have revised the JCIS-06-247 exactly according to the reviewer’s comments, 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 purposes 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 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 previous 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 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 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 doesn’t change, indicating 60 min is already enough. A figure showing the CO uptake as a function of bubbling time was given in the Supporting 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-concentration 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 clarity 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 reviewer’s comments are quite helpful, and I revised my paper point-by-point. Thank you and the review again for your help!

第三篇

1. 询问稿件进展

如果稿件拖得时间过久，还是可以适当给编辑发个邮件问一下进度的，但是二个月以内的建议还是不要鲁莽行事，以免给编辑留下不好的印象。

模板一:

Dear Editor,

I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you again to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript(ref:****)，although nearly one month has passed since I contacted you last time. I would greatly appreciate it if you could spend some of your time checking the status for me.

Best regards

XXX

模板二:

Dear Editor:

I'm not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the status of my submitted manuscript titled "****" (Ms. Ref. No.: ****) although the status of "with editor" for my manuscript have been lasting for more than ***** weeks. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been send to reviewers or not?

Best regards

XXX

模板三:

Dear Editor:

From Editor I knew the review have completed and uploaded their revised advice the online system around 时间. But I did not get it. So please get the revised advice from the editor. I expect you can send these information to my mailbox.

Thank you very much.

your sincerely

模板四:

Dear Editor:

I write this email to ask whether my paper has been accepted. And if is still being reviewed, when can I get the information of the final result? How long, in ordinary condition, can you finish reviewing a paper ? I would very much appreciate you if you could affort a little time to answer these question. Thanks a lot!

Best regards!

sincerely yours

XXX

2. 回复编辑的审稿意见

这一点强调一下，为了表示充分的尊重，编辑和审稿人的意见，我都是根据对方的邮件进行逐一回复的，审稿人的回复单独列一篇进行讲解。

模板一(大修,按要求改):

Dear editor,

We submit hereby a revised manuscript entitled “XXX”(manuscript ID: XXX,) which is co-authored by XXX. We have carefully revised the manuscript text based on the format requirements of 杂志 and the editors’ suggestions. The changes we have made are highlighted with yellow background in the marked revised manuscript. We would be very grateful if the manuscript could be published in 杂志. Additionally, clean revised manuscript and clean revised supporting information are also uploaded. The following part is the point-by-point responses to the editor:

Editor’s comments:

For original research, please check that the main manuscript file is in the Full Paper format (e.g., includes section headings). More formatting requirements can be found in the author guidelines at XXX.

Response: Thanks for your letter, and we have checked the manuscript throughout and also revised the manuscript according to 杂志 in the revised manuscript. (maybe wordy)

To submit your revision, go to XXX and log in as an Author using your username and password. Your submission can be found under the menu item "Submissions Needing Revision". Please include a point-by-point response to the reviewer comments in the "Response to Reviewers" box, including a list of changes made and a rebuttal to any comments with which you disagree. You may in addition upload your response and rebuttal as a separate file. All changes to your manuscript should be highlighted in the main manuscript file. You will also be asked to upload a .zip archive containing the production data that will be used if your manuscript is accepted. See below for more details.

Response: Thanks for your notifications. We will replace the old files with new ones according to the editor’s suggestion when uploading the revised manuscript. These detailed point-by-point responses will be provided in the text box, and simultaneously a file containing the detailed point-by-point responses will be uploaded when resubmitting the revised manuscript files.

We should receive your revised manuscript by 13 Feb 2020. Please inform us if you anticipate you will need more time, as it may be necessary to send your revision as a new submission at a later date. When we receive your revised manuscript, its suitability for publication in Advanced Functional Materials will be reassessed.

Response: Thanks for your notifications, which is highly http://appreciated.In addition, thank you very much for extending the deadline to XXX, so that we can add some experiments to improve the manuscript according to the reviewers’ advice. We appreciated for editors’ and reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the revised manuscript will meet with approval.

...（当时因为新冠肺炎导致补实验时间延长，所以跟编辑沟通了也同意了延长）

后面就是一些关于杂志的信息，主要套路就是这样，根据编辑提的意见，进行相应的回复，切记态度要恭敬，语气要谦卑。

3. 论文确认后版权申明以及确认校样

Dear Editor,

I've read carefully the 'Transfer of copyright agreement' and signed it. Now I e-mailed it to http://you.In addition, we will not order the offprints at the present time.

Thank you very much!

Yours sincerely,

***

4. 文章要求增加基金号及作者以及延长时间.

Dear editor:

I am very glad to receive your E-Mail about the proof of article: ×××××××××, and I have also received the attachments named "the prof of the article" and "Author Query Form".Thank you very much for your hard work and timely reply. But before I finish my revision, I have some questions to ask:

1, Because XXX, I want to extend the revision deadline, this work will be finished by the next weekend at the latest. I wonder if I can do it like this.

2, I want to add a second author and make ×××the third author, ××× has agreed to this change, but I am not sure if the change is allowed by the Journal.

3, I hope I can add a Foundation name, because during this work, I has been helped by right of this

Foundation, but I forgot to write it. I also wonder if I can do it.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely Yours,

×××

5. 文章接收后减免版面费

如果不是报销有限额，尽量这个操作还是不要了。但是避免有需求，所以还是把内容编辑出来。

Dear Editor:

We are glad to see that our paper will be published in ××××. Thanks a million for your work. Although we have been supported by an external grant source, we must admit that it is not enough money to pay page charges. We hope to waive page charges except for payments for language corrections and color figures.

Best wishes,

XXX

第四篇

03

不要直接回复yes 或 no。即使是被要求做一些小的修改，比如改正拼写错误的单词，你可以说“We 've corrected the typo.”。如果是更严重的错误，你还可以加上“We apologize for our error.”

04

尽可能让你的回复内容清晰明了。不要让审稿人或编辑为了找到你修改的地方而再次去阅读手稿。

所以，回复时不要说

“We’ve made the change. See page 5, line 24 of the revised paper”，

而是说“We’ve changed [original text] to [edited text] (page 5, line 24)”。

把修改部分直接明了地展示出来。

但如果你改写了整个段落或某个部分，

你可以这样回答:

“We have revised the text to address your concerns and hope that it is now clearer. Please see page 5 of the revised manuscript, lines 9–20, and page 6, lines 1–20.（我们已按照您的建议修改了文本，希望现在能符合要求。参见第5页，第9-20行，第6页，第1-20行。）”

05

不要忽略审稿人提出的任何建议。应该对每一条意见进行回复——要么做出修改，要么拒绝修改，但是要给出拒绝的理由。

选择明智的做法：即使有时候你不同意审稿人所提出的某些微小的修改建议，但通常对于细微的修改最明智的做法是接受建议，这也能表明你虚心接受建议。

06

在解释你为什么不同意审稿人的建议时，措辞要委婉。为了表明你的观点，你可以使用一些补充材料，如图表和表格，但这些补充材料不能是你论文中的材料。

当审稿人不能理解你的观点时,不要觉得他们是无知的。要去尝试理解审稿人为什么这样问，是不是因为自己表述不清导致审稿人不理解，审稿人关心的问题在哪。

因为作者本人是非常理解文章，但审稿人不一定知道全部的背景知识和实验过程。揣摩可以提高文章的表达能力，尽量避免误解。

07

要对每个审稿人的意见逐一做出回复，就好像他们是你的唯一审稿人一样。不要对一个审稿人说“Please see our answer to comment 34 of Reviewer #2”。

08

在最后结尾时，记得加上这样一句话：“We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.（再次感谢审稿人花时间来审阅我们的稿件。）”

---

 

参考文献

[a] SCI返修篇！无论大修小修，修改回复一定要做好！ - 知乎 (zhihu.com)

[b] SCI修改后如何回答审稿人意见，范文模板 - 知乎 (zhihu.com)

[c] SCI投稿经验(二) 回复编辑 - 知乎 (zhihu.com)

[d] 教科书式的好好说话：如何乖巧地回复审稿意见？ (qq.com)