论文大修回复模板

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

投稿Energy，35天后返回修改，给的大修，求教有经验的虫友如何回复审稿意见比较好。另外，为什么附件里只有一个人的审稿人意见？Dear***, The review of this paper is now complete, and I am including the Reviewers' reports (directly at the end of this email and sometimes as attachments).  As you can see, one Reviewer recommends rejection, and the others recommend possible reconsideration after major revisions.  If you are able to revise the manuscript thoroughly in response to the Reviewers' comments, I believe that it would be suitable for second review.  I should add that, in view of the strong criticisms, anything but a thorough response and revision would just be an unfortunate waste of time. Once you have revised the paper accordingly, please submit with it a note describing in detail your response to these comments and a separate copy of the revised paper marked up to indicate where the revisions were made. NOTE: Upon submitting your revised manuscript, please upload the source files for your article. For additional details regarding acceptable file formats, please refer to the Guide for Authors at: When submitting your revised paper, we ask that you include the following items: Manuscript and Figure Source Files (mandatory) We cannot accommodate PDF manuscript files for production purposes. We also ask that when submitting your revision you follow the journal formatting guidelines.  Figures and tables may be embedded within the source file for the submission as long as they are of sufficient resolution for Production. Refer to the Guide for Authors for additional Highlights (mandatory) Highlights consist of a short collection of bullet points that convey the core findings of the article and should be submitted in a separate file in the online submission system. Please use 'Highlights' in the file name and include 3 to 5 bullet points (maximum 85 characters, including spaces, per bullet point). See the following website for more information Please note that this journal offers a new, free service called AudioSlides: brief, webcast-style presentations that are shown next to published articles on ScienceDirect (see also ). If your paper is accepted for publication, you will automatically receive an invitation to create an AudioSlides presentation. Thank you for your interest in ENERGY. Sincerely, Milorad Lj Bojic, . Editor Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Through a thorough reading and reviewing, the reviewer suggests that the following problems should be addressed and the manuscript should be modified. 1. Keywords should contain "Lauric acid".   2.  XRD results reveal that the IKL and LA/IKL have the same diffraction peak at 2 of , indicating that the LA molecules are mainly located on the IKL surface rather than the inner-layer. Please discuss in more detail. 3. In the FTIR spectra, there are no peaks at 3670 and 3624 cm-1, please check why? 4. The authors note that the LA drives the IKL to exfoliate, which may afford an increase of specific surface area for LA/IKL. However, BET results reveal an obvious reduction of specific surface area. Is there any other reason for this reduction, for example the LA/IKL aggregation? Since SEM images imply that LA/IKL has larger size than IKL. 5. Please check the result of the impregnation ratio of LA in LA/IKL ( wt%), which should be about 58 wt%. Reviewer #2: This manuscript reported a novel form-stable phase change material (FSPCM) for thermal energy storage which was prepared by*******. I have read the whole paper and find that this study is simple and less novelty. The very similar work been published in Journal of Materials Science & Engineering (Preparation and Thermal Properties of Binary Organic / kaolin Composites as Shape-stabilized Phase Change Material for Thermal Energy Storage, 2013, 31, 268-272.) In addition, the Ref. 19 and Ref. 29 have been cited repeatedly. Therefore, this paper in present stage could not be accepted for publication in Energy. Reviewer #3: COMMENTS: (1) The authors need to be careful in their English usage. Therefore, full of the paper should be reviewed. Especially, some sentences in the introduction section are lack of continuity. (2) What is LOI in Table 1? Please clearly write it. (3) On page 4, line 7, "The suspension was ultrasonic at 70 oC for 2 h…." should be corrected as "The suspension was kept in ultrasonic bath at 70 oC for 2 h…." (4) The performances of energy storage and release of composite PCMs are substantially dependent on their thermal conductivity. Therefore, the thermal conductivity of the composite PCM is important parameter in thermal energy storage applications.  Please clarify the why did the authors measure the thermal conductivity value of the composite PCM. It is possible; the authors should be provided the thermal conductivity value of the composite PCM. (5) There are some writing errors in the text. For example; ---On page 1, line 24, "kaolinite is one ….. " should be "Kaolinite is one ….."---On page 1, line 59, "In recently years, ….." should be corrected as "In recent years , …."---On page 5, line 1, "Differential scanning calorimety (DSC) was carried out….." should be     corrected as "Differential scanning calorimety (DSC) measurements were carried out…."---On page 5, line 15, "The morphology and microstructure was….." should be corrected as "The morphology and microstructure were….."---On page 6, line 58, "FTIR spectroscopy and the results is shown….." should be corrected as "FTIR spectroscopy and the results are shown .." ---On page 7, line 19, "The adsorption peaks at 2923 cm-1 and 2854 cm-1 is caused….." should be corrected as "The adsorption peaks at 2923 cm-1 and 2854 cm-1 are caused.." ---On page 8, line 19, "…… of mespores below …..." should be corrected as "…… of mesopores below ……."---On page 8, line 47, "……SEM images were made." should be "…SEM images were obtained. ---On page 9, in the caption of section "thermal properties…..." should be corrected as "Thermal properties……" (4) The following papers can be useful to more clearly understanding the form-stable composite PCM: ---Capric-myristic acid/expanded perlite composite as form-stable phase change material for latent heat thermal energy storage, Renewable Energy  Volume: 33   Issue: 12   DEC 2008 Pages: 2599-2605    ---Preparation, characterization and thermal properties of Lauryl alcohol/Kaolin as novel form-stable composite phase change material for thermal energy storage in buildings, Applied Thermal Engineering, Volume 59, Issues 1-2, 25 September 2013, Pages 336-347 ---Structures and thermal properties of fatty acid/expanded perlite composites as form-stable phase change materials Energy and Buildings, Volume 68, Part A, January 2014, Pages 587-592 ---Preparation, characterization and thermal properties of lauric acid/expanded perlite as novel form-stable composite phase change material, Chemical Engineering Journal  Volume: 155   Issue: 3   Pages: 899-904   Published: DEC 15 2009 ---Preparation, thermal properties and thermal reliability of eutectic mixtures of fatty acids/expanded vermiculite as novel form-stable composites for energy storage Journal of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry  Volume: 16   Issue: 5   Pages: 767-773   Published: SEP 25 2010

你按审稿人的建议认认真真地修改，特别是第二个审稿人，说你的论文simple and less novelty，这是很大的硬伤，这个问题不解决，很难录用的。还有你们细节太不注意了，英语写作也要提高。

好好根据审稿意见修改文章，特别是意见不好的那位。每一天都要回复，并说明文章是怎么带的，或者对审稿意见进行解释。

编辑要求在COVER LETTER逐点解释修改的内容，对所有同行评议的内容都应逐点解释。逐点的意思是要回答审稿人的每个问题。而不是详细列举在文章中如何具体修改的（用红色标出来就可以了或是word的跟踪修订功能） SCI文章修回的COVER LETTER模板如下： Dear you very much for your letter and advice. We have revised the paper, and would like to re-submit it for your consideration. We have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers, and the amendments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. We hope that the revision is acceptable, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. With best wishes,Yours sincerely,XXXXXX================================================================（换页）We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for the constructive and positive to Reviewer 1XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXReplies to Reviewer 2XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXReplies to Reviewer 3XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(1)、简要介绍你的稿件；

(2)、介绍你对修改稿所作的revision；

(3)、感谢reviewers的意见，并说明已经回答了审稿人提出的问题。

to reviewer：其实就是在一个文档里，逐条地、认真地回答审稿人提出的每一个问题（important），届时上传修改稿时，也将esponse to reviewer作为独立的文档上传。

SCI文章修回的COVER LETTER模板如下：Dear you very much for your letter and advice. We have revised the paper, and would like to re-submit it for your consideration. We have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers, and the amendments are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript. We hope that the revision is acceptable, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely,XXXXXX================================================================（换页）We would like to express our sincere thanks to the reviewers for the constructive and positive to Reviewer 1XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXReplies to Reviewer 2XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXReplies to Reviewer 3XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

注意：

1、 对于审稿人的建议一定要礼貌地回答；

2、不要利用不同审稿人之间的不同意见相互辩驳；

3、回答不利的意见，一定要有分度，不能有较真和抵触的想法；

4、无论如何都需要对编辑和审稿人致谢。