中文论文审稿意见回复模板

第一，不论审稿人提了什么意见，你在回复的时候一定要说：谢谢您的建议，您的所有建议都非常的重要，它们对我的论文写作和科研工作都具有重要的指导意义！第二，如果审稿人提的意见你暂时无法做到（比如，要你增加实验或改进实验等）。那么，为了论文尽快发表，你必须拒绝这样的要求。但是，你不要摆出一大堆理由来证明这个意见是不好实现的。你应该说：“谢谢您的建议，它非常的重要，由于您的建议，我发现了我目前工作中的不足之处，我会在以后的工作中按照您的建议提高科研水平，取得更多成绩！”这样说，等于委婉的拒绝了评审意见，又让评审人觉得你很看重他的意见。第三，如果审稿人的意见明显有问题，也不说能说审稿人的意见是错误的，可以他的意见发表任何的评论，只需要列出你的理由和证据就可以了，结尾也不要强调自己的观点是正确的。一句话，就是凭证据说话。第四，如果审稿人的评价比较傲慢，而且有失公平。那么，不用客气，直接写信给编辑，痛批审稿人。（我就遇到过这样的情况，痛批后反而被录用。）第五，在回复信的结尾最好写上再次谢谢您的建议，希望能够从您哪里学到更多的知识。这句话最好用黑体，要显眼。

问题一：如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 第三个审稿人的意见如下： Reviewer #3: The present paper addresses a hot topic of interest in the area. The first part section the paper presents a brief and concise state of the art of the domain approached. Since this topic has been intensively studied during the last decade and a large number of papers and books have been published, this part might be extended to include the most recent research in this domain, and have to be included in Chapter +References: . Preda, . Vizireanu, Blind Watermarking Capacity Analysis of MPEG2 Coded Video, IEEE TELSIKS 2007, 8th International Conference on Telemunications in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services, 26-28 Sept. 2007, Nis, Serbia and Montenegro, p. 465-468. . VIZIREANU, Preda, BD Milovanovic, A New Digital Watermarking scheme for Image Copyright Protection using Wavelet Packets, IEEE TELSIKS 2005, 7th Intern. Conf. on Telem. in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services, 28-30 September 2005, Nis, Serbia and Montenegro, p. 518-521. Some interesting papers have been published recently in CS&SP and have to be included in Chapter 1 +References. The authors contribution is not clearly underlined. Moreover, the performance design criteria are not addressed in the simulation part. The simulation results presented are sometimes uncler. The abbreviations presented in figures are not clear and should be explained in more detail. The results should be more emphasized and the concl......>> 问题二：sci第二次修改 该怎么写回复信件 List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ ments concerning ourmanuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those ments are all valuable and very helpfulfor revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guidingsignificance to our researches. We have studied ments carefully and havemade correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked inred in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to thereviewer’s ments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s ments: Reviewer #1: 1. Response to ment: (……简要列出意见……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to ment: (……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： 问题三：如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 给范文：Response to ments Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ ments concerning our manuscript entitled xxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Those ments 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 ments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s ments are as following: ments:（列举提问题切忌要遗漏任何项） 1. ......... Please check and revise. 2. .......... Please revise. 3. .......... Response:（表示遗憾谢并且详细说明改进程/或解释审稿疑惑要详细题号要应面问题编号） 1. We are very sorry for our unclear report in...... 2. It is our negligence and we are sorry about this. According to ment, related content have been improved. ....... 3. As the Reviewer's good advice, ....... Special thanks to you for your good ments. 20xx-xx-xx 国外审稿人是义务的，可以根据文章质量和自己的看法自由地提出意见和建议。国外审稿人绝大多数治学严谨，很注重reputation，可以说拿信誉当生 命。当他们接到审稿要求时，如果很忙或不懂你的专业或领域，他们会decline。但只要答应审稿，一般都是尽职尽责的完成审稿任务。因此，当你接到审稿 人的意见时，首先要摆正心态，保持冷静。不要用偏见的心态去断定审稿人有偏见、歧视。做研究的确很辛苦，发表文章也确实很不容易。但审稿人同 样也很辛苦，也很不容易。他们认认真真地阅读你的文章，给你提出中肯的意见，甚至很好的建议。如果还被你措辞强硬的怪罪一阵，换着谁也会生气。要知道，找 理由拒绝一篇文章并不是一件很难的事情。因此，这个时候，你一定要好好的静下心来，好好分析sci论文发表审稿人的意见，找出问题的所在。 1.所有问题必须逐条回答；2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验；3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由；4。对于你不认同的意见，也要委婉有技巧地回答，做到有理有据有节；5. 审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并加以讨论。...>> 问题四：论文审稿意见怎么写 我以前的博士论文，评阅人就是根据我论文里的摘要写的，精炼一下就OK了。评阅书里面应该有自己写的创新点，你可以参照写一下。leonshane(站内联系TA)首先对这篇论文进行简单概括，指出其主要线索：研究目标、方法、意义、创新等，然后指出一两个最大的问题，如果其问题的确是致命的话，那么久建议修改。 你写完你导师会帮你把关的，如果他不看，建议你申请换导师。。。shuoyeb(站内联系TA)一、概况评价项目：论文的创新性成果 论文的学术价值及应用价值 论文反映出作者的基础理论和专门知识水平论文写作论文总体评价 二、综合所有评阅人对论文的学术评语 （选题的意义，论文的创新性成果，学术价值及应用价值，实验结果和计算数据的合理性及可靠性等）……三、论文中存在的问题、不足及意见或建议 1. 评议人认为第*章第*节****中有****的问题*****。 2. ……lbh535(站内联系TA)评审意见应点面结合。面就是总体概况，而点则至少体现评阅人有没有仔细看内容。现在好多论文评审一审就是一大批，特别是社会科学方面的，评阅意见都写些泛泛而谈的东西，感觉评阅人就没太仔细看。qiuqu_200212(站内联系TA)建议答辩，然后简单写些评语即可。k10001(站内联系TA)还有一段八股：论文表明，***在所研究领域掌握了坚实宽广的基础理论和系统深入的专门知识，具备了（很强的）独立从事科学研究工作的能力，论文（具有创新性，）达到了博士论文学术水平。建议组织博士学位论文答辩。nono2009(站内联系TA)评阅表中有提示的，按提示要求的几项内容写评阅意见即可。songjm12(站内联系TA)好好阅读评审书前两页要求部分 写好评语就行了yuffey(站内联系TA)研究问题清晰不，研究目标明确不，方法得当不，结果明显不？ 工作量饱满不，内容充实不？等等 最好的方法是，找个以前的博士论文，抄写抄写。八股文~~ 问题五：sci怎么回复审稿意见 小木虫 问: sci投稿，四个审稿人，两个提了问题，两个改的格式，一个在原文上改，直接发的pdf，估计修改的有一百多处吧，另一个提出第几页第几行改什么等等，编辑要求在修订模式下修改原文，我还需要一一回复修改格式的审稿人么，如何回复他修改的格式呢，他没有提问题，只帮我改了格式。 答: 原则上不用~ 既然在修订模式下进行~ 就一次到位~ 问题六：sci审稿意见回复写在一封信里吗 需要啊~ 而且最好有一个word文档逐条去回复审稿人的意见以及你是如何修改的，并且在修改稿里面用不同的颜色标注出你所修改的部分。 回复审稿意见一定要认真。谦虚这方面，你可以从他提的问题去判断审稿人的水平。如果提的问题明显外行，可以强势一些。不是说每个问题都要修改，但是每个问题都要回应。 问题七：大修审稿意见，重金求教如何回复 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 plete, and I am including the Reviewers' reports (directly at the end of this email and sometimes as attachments). As you can see, one Reviewer remends rejection, and the others remend possible reconsideration after major revisions. If you are able to revise the manuscript thoroughly in response to the Reviewers' ments, I believe that it would be suitable for second review. I should add that, in view of the strong critici *** s, 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 ments 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: elsevier/...uthors When submitting your revised paper, we ask that you include the following items: Manuscript and Figure Source Files (mandatory) We cannot acmodate PDF manuscript files for production purposes. We also ask that when submitting your revision you follow the journal fo......>> 问题八：如何回复编辑和审稿人 回复审稿人的格式很简单，先感谢审稿人的宝贵意见，接着说已经按照要求修改过了，然后就是修改的明细，通常是一问一答，先是审稿人的意见，然后是自己的回答。 问题九：工科类文章审稿意见怎么写 英文 工科类文章审稿意见 Review ments on the article of Engineering 工科类文章审稿意见 Review ments on the article of Engineering 问题十：论文接收 英文审稿意见 怎么写 ①正确性：论点的说服力根植于对客观事物的正确反映，而这又取决于作者的立场、观点、态度、方法是否正确，如果论点本身不正确，甚至是荒谬的，再怎么论证也不能说服人。因此，论点正确是论文的最起码的要求。 ②鲜明性：赞成什么、反对什么，要非常鲜明，千万不能模棱两可，含糊不清。 ③新颖性：论点应该尽可能新颖、深刻，能超出他人的见解，不是重复他人的老生常谈，也不是无关痛痒、流于一般的泛泛而谈，应该尽可能独特、新颖。

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。

【SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板】 List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewer's comments concering our manuscript “Title”(ID: ). Thank you very much for your careful review and constructive suggestions with regard to our manuscript "Title"(ID). Thoses comments are very helpful for us to revise and imporve our paper. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the importance guiding significane to our researches. We have studied these comments carefully and tried our best to revise and imporve the manuscript. made great changes in the manuscript according to the reviewer's comments. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Our main corrections in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewer's comments are as follows and a PDF file "" ( main corrections are marked in red and blue color ). 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 following: Responds to the reviewer's comments: Response to comment: [... COMMENT ...] Response: ... 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 correction according to the Reviewer's comments. we have re-write this part to the Reviewer's suggestion. As Reviewer suggested that ... Considering the Reviewer's suggestion, we have ... Thank you for pointing this out. Line 22-33, the statements of "... ... " were corrected as "... ..." Line 333, "... ..." was added/deleted. ... was usde here as .. to ... In addition, by studying that, we can directly compare our results with previous studies. more details in the first paragraph of Section . 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. We have added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manuscript, see ... Special thanks to you for your good comments. 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 in red in revised paper. we appreciate Editors/Reviewers' warm work earnestly, and hope the correction will meet with approval. 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.