论文修改对审稿人的回复模板

保持正确的语调，做出回应。

说明

（1）在回复审稿人意见的时候，除了写明修改内容外，还有一些话是必须要写的。这个其实也可以归纳为礼貌用语，大家一般也都会注意到。但是，有些时候还是容易“放飞自我”。实验室的一位师兄，花了很长的时间搞出来一个很有idea的文章。

（2）在回复审稿意见的时候，前面还是客客气气的回复，一读到关于自己核心idea的时候，立马心态就炸了，言辞什么的就有点过激了，最后当然直接被拒了。其实能作为审稿人，一般都是这个领域的专家或者有一定贡献的人，既然能指出你的问题，就说明还是存在不合理的地方，那就认认真真去修改就好了，千万不要太持才傲物。

（3）里很多人都会轻易犯错，尤其是刚发论文的时候，总觉得自己一定要根据审稿人的每一条意见都做出修改。我以自己的亲身经历发誓，这样做只会使你的论文变得支离破碎，可读性变差且言之无物（因为我自己曾改出过这么一篇不忍直视的论文，连我自己都读不下去）。论文上署的是你的名字，你得对所有内容负责。

（4）不妨想想审稿人的审稿动机和职责，他们才不会去想这些审稿意见对你的论文究竟有没有用。如果你不同意某些意见，或者觉得一些意见并不能提升你论文的价值的话，那就把握好回复的分寸，对这些意见予以一定反驳，并且反驳时尽量使用参考文献，使之有理有据。

你知道怎么回复审稿意见么

首先，诚恳的态度是至关重要的，提交文章修改后要附上一个cover letter。里面包含这些内容：（1）感谢编辑安排审稿以及审稿人提出的宝贵意见。（2）作者已经认真按照审稿人的要求对问题一一作答，并对文章进行了仔细的修改，文章的所有修改都着重标出。（3）因为你们的建议，经过修改后的文章变得更好，读者们可以获得更有价值的信息。（4）再次感谢编辑和审稿人的帮助。虽然cover letter的内容也都是客套话，但是编辑跟审稿人看着也会舒心不少。特别是审稿人，需要认真地无偿地审阅文章，难能可贵的是还需要找出不足的地方。即便有时因为研究方向不是很一致，他们有的问题有点业余，又或者提意见时比较不客气，回复审稿意见的时候也一定要尊重他们。第二，另外起草一个单独的response letter。 在这里用问答式一一列出每个审稿人的意见并且一一作答。对于文字的修改要求，直接接受就行了。有的审稿人要求增加参考文献，也许这是审稿人唯一显示他私心的地方——比如要求引用他的文章，不是很离谱的情况下也可以照办，或者打个折嘛，要求引用三篇最后加上一篇嘛。回答问题的时候，最好简洁和就事论事，不要拖泥带水。要注意不要为了回答某个问题而导致更多的疑问，尽量将讨论局限在有限的范围内。第三，有的审稿人与文章的研究方向有差异，或者没有认真读文章，导致对文章的理解有误，从而提出一些莫名其妙的问题。回答这些问题的时候，可以首先引用一下文章的相关句子，然后指出文章的真正意思。接着承认是自己的表达出现问题了，让审稿人曲解了意思，最后指出句子已经重写，表达的意思已经更准确了。这样的回答，既巧妙地回答了该问题，也避免了让审稿人尴尬。第四，如果遇到了非常难回答的问题，比如审稿人质疑文章的创新性有限，价值不大。这些是文章的硬伤，是没有办法修改的。赞同审稿人的意见肯定不好，但是用回避的方式不回答更不好，既不礼貌也侧面赞同了审稿人。这个问题尽管很难回答，但是还是要去争取一下，比如再强调一下文章里面相关的几个句子。要知道每个人的见解不同，虽然一个审稿人觉得意义不大，但是决定权毕竟是在编辑手里，只要编辑在综合多个审稿人意见之后还觉得文章有可取之处，也就没有问题。而response letter是所有审稿人都可以看到的，诚恳的回答会获得其他审稿人的好感。第五，审稿意见里面经常出现的问题是要求补充信息，比如更多的实验结果或者与该文章相关的另外的一些信息。这样的问题需要仔细斟酌一下，如果仅仅是审稿人出于自己的好奇，是可以选择在response letter 里提供而不是直接添加到文章里面。而如果对所有读者都有用，则需要加到文章里面。对于审稿人提出的不合理的建议，可以心平气和地找个客观的理由委婉地拒绝或者提供一些参考资料，不要让审稿人觉得你对他的问题视而不见。英论阁SCI论文润色出版支持

【SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板】 List of Responses 0.1 Dear Editors and Reviewers: 1.1 Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer's comments concering our manuscript “Title”(ID: ). 1.2 Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript "Title"(ID). 2.1 Thoses comments are very helpful for us to revise and imporve our paper. 2.2 Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the importance guiding significane to our researches. 3.1 We have studied these comments carefully and tried our best to revise and imporve the manuscript. 3.2 made great changes in the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments. 3.3 We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. 4.1 Our main corrections in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as follows and a PDF file "xxx.pdf" ( main corrections are marked in red and blue color ). 4.2 Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. 5.1 The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as following: 6.1 Responds to the reviewer's comments: 6.1.1 Response to comment: [... COMMENT ...] 6.1.2 Response: ... 7.1 We are very sorry for our negligence of ... 7.2 We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ... 7.3 It is really true as Reviewer suggested that ... 7.4 we have made correction according to the Reviewer's comments. 7.5 we have re-write this part to the Reviewer's suggestion. 7.6 As Reviewer suggested that ... 7.7 Considering the Reviewer's suggestion, we have ... 7.8 Thank you for pointing this out. 8.1 Line 22-33, the statements of "... ... " were corrected as "... ..." 8.2 Line 333, "... ..." was added/deleted. 8.3 ... was usde here as .. to ... 8.4 In addition, by studying that, we can directly compare our results with previous studies. 8.5 more details in the first paragraph of Section 3.3. 8.6 A and B's research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablabla, which is very different from A and B's work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. 8.7 We have added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manuscript, see ... 9.1 Special thanks to you for your good comments. 3.3 we tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. 4.3 these changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. 5.2 And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. 9.2 we appreciate Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. 10.1 once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. list of actions: LOA1: The revised manuscript is double spaced / marked in red / ... LOA2: a paragraph has been added in page 5 to further explain the algorithm ... LOA3: Explanations of the legned of Figure 3 have been added in page 7. LOA4: Fig. 2 has been enlarged / changed / ... LOA5: All typos have been removed.