投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理）如何回复 SCI 投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理） 如何回复 SCI 投稿审稿人意见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.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。 以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。续两点经验：1. 最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事；2. 绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想改投另外高档杂志----因为你既然 已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的 “story” 了。以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是 接受。 我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂 志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是 SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂 志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另 外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。 自我感觉总结（不一定对）：1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势；2）国内杂志编辑人员认真负责的人不多，稿子寄去后，少则几个月，多则一年多没有任何 消息；3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发；4）国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而过关，原因见少帖）。还因为：很少杂志编辑 把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是 看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定 一般杂志（影响因子 1-5）。欢迎大家批评指正。 我常用的回复格式: Dear reviewer: I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advic e, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were ans wered below. 1） 2） .... 引用审稿人推荐的文献的确是很重要的，要想办法和自己的文章有机地结合起来。 至于实验大部分都可以不用补做， 关键是你要让审稿人明白你的文章的重点是什么， 这个实 验对你要强调的重点内容不是很必要，或者你现在所用的方法已经可以达到目的就行了。 最后要注意，审稿人也会犯错误，不仅仅是笔误也有专业知识上的错误，因为编辑找的审稿 人未必是你这个领域的专家。 只要自己是正确的就要坚持。 在回复中委婉地表达一下你的意 见，不过要注意商讨语气哦！
【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.
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:
R.O. Preda, D.N. 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.
D.N. VIZIREANU, R.O 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。
