response - letter写法

We are truly grateful to the reviewers’ suggestions on English. Based on these comments, 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 made 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 magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions: 1 2 3 4 ...

Yours sincerely ******

Dear Prof.****:

Thank you very much for your kindly comments on our manuscript (No******). Based on your and reviewer’s suggestions, we carefully revised the manuscript.

We are now sending the revised article for your re-consideration 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 consideration.

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 drag……

RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS Dear 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 addition, we have consulted native English speakers for paper revision before the submission this time. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s standard. Below you will find our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments/ questions:

Comments from the Editor-in-Chief:

回复后1月，要求小休，并认为英文水平已经大大提高，要求明确我下一步想如何研究，因此老外由帮我写了回复信，如下是第二封信的开场白：

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 some 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 English for the revised R2 version. We hope the new manuscript will meet your magazine’s 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 also highly appreciate the reviewer’s carefulness, conscientious, and the broad knowledge on the relevant research fields, since they have given me a number of beneficial suggestions. According to the reviewer’s instructions, we have made the following revisions on this manuscript:

1. After examining the reviewer’s comments carefully, we must admit

that we have

not expressed our meaning correctly in the previous manuscript. Sorry for this confusion. In the revised version, the “rougher” has been corrected as “weaker and

broader”. (See Line 7 from top, 3.1 Phase identification).

2. As suggested by the reviewer, Fig. 3a has been referred into the revised manuscript

to 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 the

powders in Fig. 3b&c appear to be comparable?” We have again examined Fig. 3b

and 3c carefully. Compared with the particle size of powders in Fig. 3b, the particle

size of particles in Fig. 3c showed a very slight increase. (See Line 17 from top, 3.2 Microstructure)

4. As suggested by the reviewer, we have outlined the operating mechanism in the revised manuscript for 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 of

the manuscript has been sent by post concerning additional corrections of English

language. We have waited the hardcopy for more than 2 months since May 9, 2008.

However, we have not yet received the hardcopy till now, due to some unknown

reasons. With the permission of XXXXXXX (Email: XXXXXXX), we have invited another native English speaker in our university, who is a visiting professor from USA engaged in the research field of Materials Science and Engineering, to go through the whole manuscript. The English language in the current manuscript has been polished and improved.

We hope that these revisions are satisfactory and that the revised version will be

acceptable for publication in XXXXXXX.

Thank you very much for your work concerning my paper.

Wish you all the best!

Sincerely yours, XXXXXXX

一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。

首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。

第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？

第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。

第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。

上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。

写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不同字体分别标出，比如“意见”用italic，“argue”正常字体，“修改”用bold。下面举例说明各部分的写法和格式。

编辑意见：请在修改稿中用双倍行距。

审稿人1：

意见1：置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过。 意见2：算法表述不明确。

意见3：对图3的图例应做出解释。

审稿人2：

意见1：图2太小。

意见2：第3页有个错别字。

很显然，根据上面的答复策略，我们准备对除1号审稿人意见1之外的所有意见进行相应改动，而对1.1采取argue为主的策略。答复如下：

List of Actions

LOA1: 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 the legend of Figure 3 have been added in page 7. LOA5: Figure 2 has been enlarged. LOA6: All typos have been removed.

==================分页=======================

Responses to Editor

请在修改稿中用双倍行距。

We have double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.

==================分页=======================

Responses to Reviewers

To Reviewer 1:

意见1：置疑文章的创新性，提出相似的工作已经被A和B做过。

Thank you for pointing this out. A and B’s research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and B’s work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. We have added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manuscript, see LOA2.

“blablablabla(此处把A和B的工作做一个review，并提出自己工作和他们的区别之处)”

意见2：算法表述不明确。

We have added the following discussion to further explain algorithm ***, see LOA3.

“blablablabla（此处进一步解释该算法）”

意见3：对图3的图例应做出解释。

We have added the following explanations of the legend of Figure 3, see LOA3.

“blablablabla（图3图例的解释）”

==================分页=======================

To Reviewer 2:

意见1：图2太小。

We have enlarged Figure 2, see LOA 4.

意见2：第3页有个错别字。

We have removed all typos, see LOA5.

==================分页=======================

总之，写答复信的宗旨就是用最少的时间和工作量达到论文被接收的目的。这里权当是抛砖

引玉，希望和大家多多交流。

回复审稿人，态度决定一切

也许说的有点过，但个人觉得还是很有道理的。

最近我的一篇SCI接受了。这篇文章花了我大半年时间，于今年暑假完稿并投出。投的杂志是美国的******杂志。一个多月前受到编辑的通知：要求大修！三个审稿人，一个建议积极，说只是语言问题，并没提有关内容的问题；第二、三审稿人都提了很多问题，总共14个大问题，有的大问题里面还有小问题。三个审稿人得第一个问题都是语言问题（一般中国作者投英美杂志大都会遇到此问题，当然，我的看来比较严重）。拿到这个通知，说实在的，头都大了。有几个问题直指文章的死角，回答不好的话，文章的立意直接会受到怀疑。不过，我决定修改！本着态度诚恳，认真、严谨求实的原则，我花了22天的时间把所有问题回答完毕，该补充的实验进行了补充，该分析的数据又进行重新分析，基本是严格按照审稿人的建议意义修改。最后整篇文章的80%左右进行了大修，当然结论不能改动，只能从补充的那个实验中得到进一步的加强。语言问题，本来想请修改公司润色，后来在小木虫上求助, 绝大数虫友建议自己修改, 只有这样不能达到锻炼和提升自己的目的,于是决定完全自己修改。于是乎，就找了十几篇******最近发表的论文（英美作者写的）进行仔细研读，论文语言格式可以套用，加上自己的论述对象就OK了。最后回答问题15页，补充实验3个，原文章80%的修改最终于10月31日提交。后来经过半个月的再审，就直接录用了！ 现在回想起来，感触颇多，本打算着再次小修，然后才能接 受（一般都这样），没想到还算顺利。后来，自己总结一下认为：回复审稿人的意见是很讲技巧的，说不好就完了，特别是对于要求大修的文章！更是如此。谦逊、谨慎、认真、求实的态度最为重要。对于不太清楚的地方也不能回避，要本着自己理解给以回答，最后最好在征求一下审稿人的意见，谦虚的染提起对着干问题给以指导，总之要给审稿人以最好的印象，这是文章录用的关键所在。

下面列出审稿意见和我的回复，以期与朋友们问共勉：（由于帖子限制长度，部分问题与回答略）

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 SERS substrate by using electrostatic self-assembly” (ID: ******-09-1602). 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 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 reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer 1#

Response to comment: The review is complete and the main objection lies with the English language. I point 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 polyvinyl alcohol (******) concentration

in electrolyte is performed. With scanning electron microscopy, the morphology of the Ag nanofilm is a two-dimensional structure with nano-scale regions should read as

A new SERS-active ****** on the surface of glass slide has been prepared by a low-cost

electrochemical strategy using polyvinyl alcohol (******) at a proper voltage. The two 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 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 comparison to

the Ag colloid system... The whole MS needs to be edited before it is accepted for publication. Response: As the Reviewer's 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 long sentences into short sentences and edited the whole MS according to the Reviewer’s instruction. Meanwhile, we also have asked some colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to help us for checking the English (see the revised MS). We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review process. 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 reviewer's good instruction, we have revised the whole manuscript carefully and tried to avoid any grammar or 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 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 reviewer's 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 better understanding (especially the part of Introduction). However, due to additional experiments and explanations are added in the revised manuscript according to the other Reviewer′s suggestion, the revised manuscript is still long in some sort. Nevertheless, we have revised the sentences (especially some long sentences) for the whole manuscript in order to make the manuscript more concise. Especially, the corrections done in the margins of the manuscript (pods file) which the Reviewer enclosed are very helpful to us. We are very appreciated for the Reviewers good comments and corrections made for our manuscript.

3. Response to comment: Repetitions and several adjectives should be avoided. For example: authors use \ Also, they indicate \become weaker 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 \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 Reviewer’s good instructions. We have deleted the repeated words such as \\and \in some sentences. Meanwhile, like the Reviewer questioned that we have not studied the SERS spectra of SC for a long, long time. Thus, the using of \to describe the SERS substrate of Ag nanofilm is inapposite. Considering the Reviewer’s good suggestion, we have deleted this adjective in some sentences of the revised manuscript.

4. Response to comment: About organization of the manuscript. There are too many epigrap****** in

section 2. I propose the following points:

2.1. Reagents. Preparation of ****** and ****** (old points 2.1 and 2.2 together)

2.2. Preparation of ******-protected Ag nanoparticles and ******s (old points 2.3 and 2.4 together)

2.3. Experimental equipments (old points 2.5; 2.6 and 2.7 together)

Response: Considering the Reviewer’s good suggestion, we have re-organized the epigrap****** in section 2. We have organized three parts for the section 2 of the revised manuscript. The epigrap****** in section 2 are as following:

2.1. Reagents and preparation of ****** and ******

2.2. Preparation of ******-protected ****** (******-Ag CNPs) and ******s 2.3. Experimental equipments

Special thanks to you for your good comments.

Dear Editors and Reviewers.

We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the manuscript according to the Reviwers′good comments. 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 corrections will meet with approval.

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

We look forward to your information about my revised papers and thank you for your good comments.

Yours sincerely, R.M. Liu

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/wfdv.html