如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见

一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板尊敬的审稿专家，
非常感谢您对我们的文章进行审阅，并提供宝贵的意见和建议。

我们针对您的意见进行了认真思考和修改。

以下是我们对您每个意见的回复：
意见一：关于标题的修改
回复：非常感谢您对标题的建议。

我们已经对标题进行了修改，以更好地反映文章的内容。

意见二：关于语言表达问题的修改
回复：感谢您指出文章中的语言表达问题。

我们已经重新审视并修改了这些问题，以提高文章的表达清晰度和准确性。

意见三：关于排版整洁美观的建议
回复：非常感谢您对排版提出的建议。

我们已经对文章的排版进行了调整，确保整体呈现更加美观和易读。

意见四：关于文章分节讨论的建议
回复：感谢您对文章分节讨论的建议。

我们已经对文章进行了适当的分节，并调整了段落结构，使得文章更具条理性和连贯性。

意见五：关于论述中的细节完善
回复：非常感谢您对论述中细节的指正。

我们已经仔细检查了每个
细节，并进行了必要的补充和完善，以增强文章的逻辑性和严谨性。

意见六：关于避免使用无关内容和网址链接的建议
回复：感谢您对内容的建议。

我们已经移除了所有无关和网址链接
的内容，以确保文章专注于题目所要求的内容，同时遵守编写规范。

最后，再次感谢您对我们文章的审阅和宝贵的意见。

在您的帮助下，我们对文章进行了全面的改进，并希望这份修订后的稿件能够满足您
的要求。

如果您还有任何其他建议或意见，请随时提出，我们将非常
乐意进一步改进。

最诚挚的问候，
[您的姓名]。

sci二次回复修改意见模板SCI二次回复修改意见模板一、前言SCI期刊是国际上公认的学术权威期刊，投稿后被要求修改后重新投稿是非常正常的情况，而在这个过程中，回复修改意见才是关键，因此本文给出笔者总结的SCI二次回复修改意见模板，希望对大家投稿和修改时有所帮助。

二、正文1.对编辑的回复亲爱的编辑，感谢您给我们的论文提供了这个机会，且感谢您的认真审阅。

我们已经在上一次修改中进一步完善了我们的论文，按您的建议进行了修改，我们相信我们的论文已经更加优秀了。

对于提出的新问题，我们将在下文中一一回复。

2.对一般修改的回复(1)针对您提出的问题，我们在本次修改中做出如下改进：1）证明A部分的XXX做法是正确的。

2）添加核磁共振及电子顺磁共振谱图证明某些原子的信息。

3）增加XXX实验，丰富文章内容。

(2)我们在文章中详细讨论了，根据XXX，我们推导出XXX的结果，并证明了它是正确的，我们对于相关的内容进行了补充和扩充。

(3)我们修改了XXX误差范围，并增加了新的参考文献，对我们的结果进行了支持。

3.对复杂修改的回复(1)对于您提出的复杂问题，我们在本次修改中做出如下改进：1）在文章中对A、B、C和D进行了更加全面的分析，证明我们的结论符合实际情况。

2）添加了XXX部分，进一步展示我们的实验情况，并在文章中进行了详细分析。

3）增加XXX实验，进一步支持和说明了我们的结论。

(2)我们对您提出的XXX问题进行了进一步研究，经过多次试验，我们发现：1）我们的XXX做法是正确的，并在文章中进行了详细展示。

2）我们对结果进行了进一步推导，得到了更加准确的结论。

(3)我们对XXX误差范围进行了重新评估，并增加了新的参考文献，以支持我们的结论。

4.对于拒稿修改的回复(1)我们非常感谢您能够认真审阅我们的文章并提出改进意见，感谢您的专业意见和帮助。

(2)我们充分认识到此次拒稿的原因，结合您的建议，我们将重点关注以下几个方面进行修改：1）调整文章结构，优化论点与实验部分的关系。

经验分享丨sci修改意见回复信
投稿至SCI期刊的论文大多会收到来自编辑初审、同行复审的修改意见，作者根据这些修改意见进行适当的修改。

修改完毕后最好附上一份书信，来表达对编辑和同行的感激，有些作者会对拒绝接受修改意见，那么就需要对拒绝修改的部分作出详细的理由说明。

收到编辑或是同行的修改意见，大多数情况下代表着编辑部对作者的论文感兴趣，此时要以一个谦虚的态度回应。

首先，要认真的回复编辑和同行的每一条建议，即便是拒绝修改，也要用温婉的语气充分说明拒修的理由。

例如：It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……这样的语句。

切莫遗漏编辑和同行的建议或是疑问，如此他们才会觉得受到了重视，得到了作者的尊重，自然会认为作者的态度认真，对论文的顺利通过很有很大的帮助。

其次，要谦虚礼貌，通篇使用礼貌用语表达对编辑和同行的敬畏之情，如有必要甚至在结尾可以使用客套话。

最重要的一点，接受和反驳建议都要有理有据，以科学、严谨的学术态度去对待他们，才能说服编辑和同行。

不过最好还是少一些反驳的语句，多多说明具体的修改具体在第几页什么部分，作者作出了什么样的修改，比起之前这样修改的原因和好处在哪里。

例如：Line 56, “……” was added;Line 154-155, the statements of “……” were corrected as “……”
回复修改意见，并不是一味的死板回复，需要讲究一定的技巧，才能大概率的获得编辑和同行评审更多有益于提升论文整体质量的意见。

回复审稿意见的礼貌用语英语English:"Dear Reviewer,Thank you very much for your thoughtful and detailed comments on our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. Your feedback is invaluable, providing us with crucial insights and guidance to improve the quality of our paper. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions and have made the necessary revisions accordingly. Our responses to your specific points are outlined below. Please let us know if there are any further changes or clarifications required. Once again, thank you for your constructive criticism, and we look forward to your feedback on our revised manuscript."中文翻译:"尊敬的审稿人，非常感谢您对我们稿件的深思熟虑和详细的评论。

我们非常感激您为审阅我们的工作所投入的时间和精力。

您的反馈非常宝贵，为我们提供了重要的见解和指导，帮助我们提高论文的质量。

我们已经仔细考虑了您提出的每一条建议，并进行了相应的修改。

sci回复编辑的修改意见模板1.请确认文中所涉及的科学术语使用是否准确。

2.句子结构可以更加简洁明了，以便读者更容易理解。

3.可以适当增加一些例子或案例以支撑论点。

4.请注意逻辑推导是否清晰，建议在论述中加入适当的连接词。

5.是否有必要对相关研究进行更详细的解释和引用。

6.是否可以添加一些图表或数据以更直观地展现科学论点。

7.句子之间的逻辑关系是否清晰，建议适当增加过渡词来连接句子。

8.文章是否符合科学写作的规范，是否需要更多的实证数据来支持论述。

9.建议对文中的具体科学现象或理论进行更详细的解释。

10.是否可以增加一些引用文献来支撑文中的观点。

11.确认文章中的数据和事实是否准确可靠。

12.文章的结构是否合理，是否需要更多的分析和论证。

13.是否可以对相关概念进行深入的解释，以增加文章的学术含量。

14.可以适当增加一些对比分析，以便读者更好地理解。

15.请检查论述中的逻辑关系是否紧密，是否需要更多的细化和扩展。

16.建议增加一些实地调研或案例分析，以加强论点的说服力。

17.句子中是否存在歧义或表达不清的地方，建议进行修改。

18.可以对相关实验或研究方法进行更详细的解释。

19.文章的结论部分是否充分总结了主要观点和论证。

20.是否可以增加一些对研究背景和动机的介绍，以便读者更好地理解研究的意义。

21.稿件中的数据和事实是否能够很好地支持所提出的观点。

22.可以适当增加一些学术性的语言和术语，以提高文章的专业性。

23.建议表述更加简洁明了，以增强文章的可读性。

24.在论述过程中是否需要适当添加一些反驳意见，以增加文章的辩证性。

25.文章的目的和意义是否清晰明了，在开头部分是否需要更多的铺垫和介绍。

26.建议加强实证数据的引用和论证，以提高论点的可信度。

27.文章的主题和论点是否鲜明突出，是否需要更多的举例和论证。

28.是否可以对相关科学原理进行更详细的解释，以便读者更好地理解。

29.文章的结构是否严谨有序，是否需要调整段落顺序和逻辑链接。

如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见第一篇：如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见望对大家有帮助 1.Dear Prof.XXXX，Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX(MS Number XXXX).We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments.We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.Sincerely yours，Dr.XXXXResponse to Reviewer 1: Thanks for your comments on our paper.We have revised our paper according to your comments:1.XXXXXXX2.XXXXXXX2.Dear Professor ***，Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System(No.: JSV-D-06-***)by ***Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice of the above paper in JSV.Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive.We have learned much from it.After carefully studying the reviewer’ comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the paper.Our response of the comments is enclosed.If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email.My email account is ***, and Tel.is ***, and Fax is +***.Yours sincerely, Detailed response to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s adviceOverall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive.We have learned much from it.Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.3.The manuscript is revised submission(×××－××××)with new line and page numbers in the text, some grammar and spelling errors had also been corrected.Furthermore, the relevant regulations had been made in the original manuscript according to the comments of reviewers, and the major revised portions were marked in red bold.We also responded point by point to each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the location of the revision.Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.List of Major Changes: 1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewers: 1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewer XXWe very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of the reviewer.We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly.The comments can be summarized as follows:1)XX 2)XXDetailed responses1)XX 2)XX4.Dear editor XXWe have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX” by X X.According to the comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript.The revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewer are attached.Sincerely yours, XX5.Response to Reviewer AReviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealedhimself to be Professor Dr.Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig.I wrote him a general response to both reviews in January 2000, followed by these responses to specific points, both his own, and those of the other reviewer.Response to Specific PointsWhat follows is a brief and cursory discussion of the various issues raised by yourself and the other reviewer.If you should revise your judgment of the validity of the theory, these points will be addressed at greater length in a new version of the paper that I would resubmit to Psychological Review.Response to Specific Points-Reviewer A:In part(1)of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is presented, which was discussed above.You continue “Regr ettably, not much attention is drawn to specific differences between the chosen examples that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities of perception more precisely”, and “if perceptual systems, as suggested, hler(Kindeed act on the basis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special `veridicality' properties of the perceptual outcome”, and “the difficult analytic problems of concrete modeling of perception are not even touched”.The model as presented is not a model of vision or audition or any other particular modality, but is a general model to confront the alternative neural receptive field paradigm, although examples from visual perception are used to exemplify the principles discussed.The more specific visual model was submitted elsewhere, in the Orientational Harmonic model, where I showed how harmonic resonance accounts for specific visual illusory effects.As discussed above, the attempt here is to propose a general principle of neurocomputation, rather than a specificmodel of visual, auditory, or any other specific sensory modality.Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather than a theory, i.e.an alternative principle of neurocomputation with specific and unique properties, as an alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field.If this paper is eventually accepted for publication, then I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the use of the unconventional harmonic resonance mechanism.In p art(2)(a)of your critique you say “it is not clarified whether the postulated properties of Gestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints.” and “I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat just th e case of hler:(1961, p.7)”Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods;and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague.“ Wolfgang Kthe dog cit ed to demonstrate `emergence'.For this a hierarchy relation is needed.” The principle of emergence in Gestalt theory is a very difficult concept to express in unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was presented to illustrate this rather elusive concept with a concrete example.I do not suggest that HR as proposed in this paper can address the dog picture as such, since this is specifically a visual problem, and the HR model as presented is not a visual model.Rather, I propose that the feature detection paradigm cannot in principle handle this kind of ambiguity, because the local features do not individually contain the information necessary to distinguish significant from insignificant edges.The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the section on“Recognition by Reification”(p.15-17)in which I propose that recognition is not simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, i.e.by the “lighting up” of a higher level feature node, but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which the higher level feature node reifies its particular pattern back at the input level, modulated by the exact pattern of the input.I appeal to the reader to see the reified form of the dog as perceived edges and surfaces that are not present in the input stimulus, as evidence for this reification in perception, which appears at the same time that the recognition occurs.The remarkable property of this reification is that the dog appears not as an image of a canonical, or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture and configuration allowed by the input, as observed in the subjective experience of the dog picture.This explanation is subject to your criticism in your general comments, that “the author demonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions”.I can only say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can be used to make the case.In the words of Wolfgang K?hler:(1961, p.7)“Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods;and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague.” Wolfgang K?hler(K?hler 1923 p.64) “Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptotheses, which cannot be verified by direct observation at the time when they are formed nor for a long time thereafter.Of such a kind were Ampere's theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gases, the electronic theory, the hypothesis of atomicdisintegration in the theory of radioactivity.Some of these assumptions have since been verified by direct observation, or have at least come close to such direct verification;others are still far removed from it.But physics and chemistry would have been condemned to a permanent embryonic state had they abstained from such hypotheses;their development seems rather like a continuous effort steadily to shorten the rest of the way to the verificat ion of hypotheses which survive this process”In section(2)(b)of your critique you complain that “there is no serious discussion of possible alternatives”, and you mention Neo-Gibsonian approaches, PDP, Grossberg's ART model and Pribram's holographic theory.In the next version of the paper this omission will be corrected, approximately as follows.Gibson's use of the term resonance is really a metaphorical device, since Gibson offers no mechanisms or analogies of perceptual processes, but merely suggests that there is a two-way flow of information(resonance)between behavior and the environment.This is really merely a metaphor, rather than a model.The PDP approach does address the issue of emergence, but since the basic computational unit of the neural network model is a hard-wired receptive field, this theory suffers all the limitations of a template theory.The same holds for Grossberg's “Adaptive Resonance Theory”, which also uses the word resonance metaphorically to suggest a bottom-up top-down matching, but in Grossberg's model that matching is actually performed by receptive fields, or spatial templates.The ART model demonstrates the limitations of this approach.For the only way that a higher-level detector, or “F2 node”, can exhibit generalization to different input patterns, is for it to have synaptic weights to all of the patterns to which it responds.In essence, thepattern of synaptic weights is a superposition or blurring together of all of the possible input patterns to which the F2 node should respond.In top-down priming mode therefore that F2 node would “print” that same blurred pattern back at the lower “F1 node” level, activating all of the possible patterns to which that F2 node is tuned to respond.For example if an ART model were trained to respo nd to an “X”-shaped feature presented at all possible orientations, top-down priming of this node after training would “print” a pattern of all those X-shaped features at all orientations superimposed, which is simply an amorphous blob.In fact, that same node would respond even better to a blob feature than to any single X feature.In the presence of a partial or ambiguous X-like pattern presented at a particular orientation, the ART model could not complete that pattern specific to its orientation.The HR model on the other hand offers a different and unique principle of representation, in which top-down activation of the higher level node can complete a partial or ambiguous input pattern in the specific orientation at which it appears, but that same priming would complete the pattern differently if it appeared in a different orientation.This generalization in recognition, but specification in completion, is a property that is unique to the harmonic resonance representation.Kuhn observes that the old paradigm can always be reformulated to account for any particular phenomenon addressed by the new paradigm, just as the Ptolomaic earth-centered cosmology could account for the motions of the planets to arbitrary precision, given enough nested cycles and epicycles of the crystal spheres.Similarly, a conventional neural network model can always be contrived to exhibit the same functional behavior of generalized recognition but specific completiondescribed above, but only by postulating an implausible arrangement of spatial receptive fields.In this case that would require specific X-feature templates applied to the input at every possible orientation, any one of which can stimulate a single rotation-invariant X-feature node, to account for bottom-up rotation invariance in recognition.However in order to also account for top-down completion specific to orientation, top-down activation of the higher-level invariant node would have to feed back down to a set of top-down projection nodes, each of which is equipped with an X-shaped projective template at a particular orientation, able to project a complete X-shaped pattern on the input field.But the top-down completion must select only the specific orientation that best matches the pattern present in the input, and complete the pattern only at that best matching orientation.This system therefore requires two complete sets of X-feature receptive fields or templates, one set for bottom-up recognition and the other set for top-down completion, each set containing X-feature templates at every possible orientation, and similar sets of receptive fields would be required for the recognition of other shaped patterns such as “T” and “V” features.This represents a “brute force” approach to achieving invariance, which although perhaps marginally plausible in this specific example, is completely implausible as a general principle of operation of neurocomputation, given the fact that invariance appears to be so fundamental a property of human and animal perception.However, as Kuhn also observes, a factor such as neural plausibility is itself a “personal and inarticulate aesthetic consideration” that cannot be determined unambiguously by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science.With regard to Pribram's Holographic theory, theconcept of a hologram is closely related to a standing wave model, since it too works by interference of waveforms.The difference is that the hologram is “frozen in time” like a photograph, and therefore does not exhibit the tolerance to elastic deformation of the input, as does the standing wave model.Neither does the hologram exhibit rotation invariance as does the standing wave in a circular-symmetric system.However holograms can in principle be constructed of dynamic standing waves, as Pribram himself suggests, and this concept then becomes a harmonic resonance theory.The present proposal is therefore closely related to Pribram's approach, which will be discussed in the next version of the paper.The discussion of alternative models was indeed a significant omission in the version of the paper you reviewed, the next version will include such a discussion, which in turn will help to clarify the operational principles of the HR theory, and distinguish it from alternative approaches.In section(3)of your critique you propose that “notions like the receptive field concept are approximate descriptions of facts”, and you propose a dualistic approach involving two forms of representations in the brain which are of different and complementary nature.While I do not dispute the anatomical facts of the shapes of neuron and the function of synapses, it has never been demonstrated that a neuron actually operates as a spatial template, that theory arose as an explanation for the neurophysiological response of “feature de tector” cells in the cortex.However the noisy stochastic nature of the neural response, and its very broad tuning function seem to argue against this view.My own hunch is that the feature detector behavior is itself a standing wave phenomenon, which is consistent with the fact that the response function of V1cortical neurons resembles a Gabor function, which is itself a wavelet.However this issue is orthogonal to my main point, which is that whether or not some neurons behave as spatial templates, the limitations of a template theory suggest that the Gestalt properties of perception(emergence, invariance, reification, multistability)cannot be accounted for in that manner, and that some other significant principle of computation must be invoked to account for the Gestalt properties of perception.In section(4)you complain that there is no discussion of the limitations in the scope of HR.For example merely to reflect outside reality does not contribute to the problem of conscious awareness of these objects.However this issue is not unique to HR, it is a general philosophical issue that applies just as well to the alternative Neuron Doctrine model.But the Neuron doctrine itself cannot even plausibly account for the reflection of outside reality in an internal representation, due to the problems of emergence, reification, and invariance, which is why the Neuron Doctrine suggests a more abstracted concept of visual representation, in which the visual experience is encoded in a far more abstracted and abbreviated form.Therefore although HR does not solve the “problem of consciousness” completely, it is one step closer to a solution than the alternative.The philosophical issue of consciousness however is beyond the scope of this paper, which is a theory of neural representation, rather than a philosophical paper.I enclose a copy of my book, “The World In Your Head”, which addresses these philosophical issues more extensively.Professor Geissler's Response Professor Geissler kindly responded to my letter in April 2000 to say that he agreed with nearly everything I had said.He then gave me advice about the presentation of the idea.Herecommended that I begin by describing the Neuron Doctrine in detail, and then point out the limitations of the idea before presenting the Harmonic Resonance theory as an alternative.I re-wrote the paper following Geissler's advice, and I included some ideas from the above letter in the new version of the paper.However it was too late to resubmit it to Psychological Review since the editor who was handling the paper was leaving.Furthermore, I am becoming convinced that the proper medium for presenting radically new and different theories is the open peer review format of the Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal, which is where I submitted the revised version of this paper.6.Dear Dr.S.Heller，Attached please the revised manuscript “ A Group-Decision Approach for Evaluating Educational Web Sites” submitted to computers & Education for possible publication.A file containing the revision summary is also attached.Your acknowledgement will be highly appreciated.Thank you.Sincerely yours Gwo-Jen Hwang Information Management Department National Chi Nan University Pu-Li, Nan-Tou, Taiwan 545, R.O.C.FAX: 886-940503178 TEL: 886-915396558Response to Reviewers and Editor Paper#: SMCC-03-06-0056 Title: On the Development of a Computer-Assisted Testing System with Genetic Test Sheet-Generating Approach [Reviewer 1 Comments]: ____ The paper should be shortened.[Response to Reviewer 1]: The paper has been shortened to 24 pages by removing some redundant descriptions of genetic models and algorithms;moreover, Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to condense the entire paper.[Reviewer 2 Comments]: No innovative contribution was found both in the theory of genetic algorithms and in theapplication of them.[Response to Reviewer 2]:(1)_We have re-written the abstract and Sections 1 and 2 to explain the importance about the construction of a good test sheet.The major contribution of this paper is not in its technical part.Instead, we tried to cope with an important problem arising from real educational applications.Such a problem is known to be critical and has not been efficiently and effectively solved before.(2)_Since the innovative contribution of this paper might not be significant, we have re-written the paper as a technical correspondence based on the editor's suggestion.[Reviewer 3 Comments]: Make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise, so that the revised paper will be improved in its readability and correctness.[Response to Reviewer 3]: Te mixed integer models and the genetic algorithms in Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise(please refer to Pages 6-17).Moreover, a colleague who is an English expert has carefully checked the paper to correct potential grammatical errors.第二篇：论文修改意见论文修改意见该怎么写呢？下面小编整理了论文修改意见，欢迎大家阅读学习！论文修改意见冉金花论文修改意见：1、论文格式不对，目录放在摘要前；2、没有参考文献，谢辞。

创作编号：BG7531400019813488897SX创作者：别如克*用英文巧妙回复SCI期刊编辑信件众所周知，外审专家对于文章的主要批评意见是非常重要的，因此作者对于这些意见的回复也是尤为关键。

本文就如何用英文就其意见进行回复做一下简单说明:1、In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper,it is possible to say that您的回复:外审专家对于表1中xxx所提出的问题现已改正。

而后面的一些小改动则不会影响文章对结果的解释。

One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1 has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3，paragraph 1(line 3-8)and 2(line 6-11).These do not affect our interpretation of the result.2、我非常仔细地阅读了外审专家的意见，而且我认为文章仅仅因为缺少xxx而被拒绝刊登的。

我承认本应在丈中包含XXX 然后这仅是出于对文章简洁的考量，没有提供相关数据而非疏忽。

I have read the referee’s comments very carefully and conclude that the paper has been rejected on thesole grounds that it lacked toxicity data. I admit that l did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.3、谢谢您对于我文章“XXX”的回复以及外审专家的意见。

sci 修改意见回复标题: SCI 修改意见回复(创建与此标题相符的正文并拓展)尊敬的SCI编辑团队，非常感谢您的来信并提供了修改意见。

我们深切理解SCI期刊对于高质量研究的要求，同时也非常重视您的专业建议。

根据您的修改意见，我们已经对论文进行了相应的修改和拓展，以下是我们对每个修改意见的回复和相应的修改措施：1. 添加实验数据和结果的解释：在您的建议下，我们对实验数据和结果进行了更详细的解释。

我们增加了实验过程中的详细步骤，包括方法的选择和实施的原因。

同时，我们也增加了每个实验结果的解释，以便读者更好地理解我们的研究。

2. 引入相关研究和背景：我们同意您的观点，确实有必要引入更多的相关研究和背景知识，以增加论文的可读性和学术价值。

在修改后的版本中，我们增加了对该领域最新研究的综述，并对我们研究的背景进行了更全面的梳理。

3. 针对讨论部分进行进一步分析：根据您的意见，我们进行了对讨论部分的进一步分析。

我们详细讨论了实验结果与已有研究的联系，并对结果的潜在影响进行了更深入的探讨。

这样的修改不仅增强了我们论文的可信度，还提供了对未来研究方向的启示。

4. 修改语言和格式错误：我们非常重视您对语言和格式错误的指正。

在修改后的版本中，我们仔细检查了论文中的语法、拼写和格式问题，并进行了修正。

我们确保论文的每个部分都符合SCI期刊的要求，以便更好地呈现研究结果。

在回复您的修改意见后，我们相信我们的论文已经更加完善，并符合SCI期刊的要求。

我们希望这次修改能够使我们的研究更具有学术价值，并能为该领域的进一步发展做出贡献。

再次感谢您的宝贵意见和耐心指导。

我们期待您对我们的修改结果的审核，并希望能够成功发表在SCI期刊上。

用英文巧妙回复S C I期刊编辑信件Company number：【0089WT-8898YT-W8CCB-BUUT-202108】用英文巧妙回复S C I期刊编辑信件众所周知，外审专家对于文章的主要批评意见是非常重要的，因此作者对于这些意见的回复也是尤为关键。

本文就如何用英文就其意见进行回复做一下简单说明:1、In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that您的回复:外审专家对于表1中xxx所提出的问题现已改正。

而后面的一些小改动则不会影响文章对结果的解释。

One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture inFigure 1 has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3，paragraph 1(line 3-8)and 2(line 6-11).These do not affect ourinterpretation of the result.2、我非常仔细地阅读了外审专家的意见，而且我认为文章仅仅因为缺少xxx而被拒绝刊登的。

我承认本应在丈中包含XXX 然后这仅是出于对文章简洁的考量，没有提供相关数据而非疏忽。

I have read thereferee’s comments very carefully and conclude that the paper has beenrejected on the sole grounds that it lacked toxicity data. I admit that l did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done.This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.3、谢谢您对于我文章“XXX”的回复以及外审专家的意见。

sci修回意见回复模板感谢您对我们研究的关注，并提出宝贵意见。

以下是我们针对您的建议给出的回复：1.首先，非常感谢您对我们研究的认可。

2.您指出的这个问题确实值得我们深入研究。

3.我们会认真考虑您提出的意见，并将其纳入我们的研究范畴。

4.您提到的这个观点与我们的研究目标高度契合。

5.感谢您的反馈，我们会将其作为进一步优化的方向。

6.我们会充分利用您的建议，提高我们研究的质量和深度。

7.您的提议非常中肯，我们会充分考虑并给出明确的回应。

8.感谢您对我们研究成果的反馈，这对我们来说非常重要。

9.我们会着重分析您提出的问题，以取得更好的研究结果。

10.您提供的信息对我们的研究具有重要的指导作用。

11.我们会在今后的研究中详细探究您提到的这个点。

12.您的意见很有启发性，我们将在研究过程中加以考虑。

13.您提到的这个观点确实需要进一步研究，我们会全力以赴。

14.对于您的建议，我们会及时修正和完善相应内容。

15.我们会通过实验和数据分析来验证您的观点。

16.您的建议给了我们很好的想法，我们会尽快实施。

17.感谢您提供的新的研究视角，我们会深入探索。

18.您的建议对于我们研究的深度和广度具有重要意义。

19.我们愿意与您进一步合作，以推进相关研究的进展。

20.对您提供的数据分析方法，我们会进行实际应用和验证。

21.在研究中融入您提到的观点，能够更好地解答问题。

22.针对您的建议，我们将制定相应的研究方案。

23.正是因为您提出的问题，我们的研究才会更加全面。

24.您的观点对于扩展我们研究的范围非常有帮助。

25.我们会根据您的建议调整我们的研究设计。

26.您给出的参考文献将对我们的研究提供有力支持。

27.对您提供的背景信息，我们会充分考虑并融入研究。

28.您的观点有助于我们更全面地了解研究对象。

29.我们会关注您提到的相关工作，以避免重复研究。

30.对于您提到的未来研究方向，我们会加以关注。

31.感谢您对我们研究的评价和建议，这对我们非常重要。

sci回复编辑的修改意见模板1.请注意在这个段落中使用了过多的从句，可以尝试简化句子结构以提高可读性。

2.这句话的意思不够清晰，请明确表达你的意思。

3.这个词的使用可能会造成误解，请换个更准确的词语。

4.这里需要提供更多的支持性证据来支持你的观点。

5.这个观点需要更多的解释来使其更具可信度。

6.建议使用更具体的实例来说明你的观点。

7.这句话过于笼统，请更具体地描述你的意图。

8.这个观点无法与前面的句子相呼应，请改写以保持逻辑连贯性。

9.这个段落的结构需要调整以更好地组织思路。

10.这句话的措辞可能会引起误解，请重新表达。

11.这个例子不够恰当，请选择一个更合适的例子来支持你的观点。

12.这个观点与前文不一致，请调整以保持一致性。

13.这部分没有有效地连接到前文和后文，请重新安排段落结构。

14.这个观点缺乏充分的证明，请提供更多具体的细节。

15.这个段落需要更好地引导读者，以使其更容易理解你的意图。

16.这个解释过于复杂，请尝试用更简单的方式表达。

17.这个论据缺乏逻辑连贯性，请重新组织以获得更好的逻辑推理。

18.这个例子不够具体，请提供更多相关的细节来支持你的观点。

19.这句话的措辞可能会冒犯读者，请使用更客观和中立的表达方式。

20.这个段落缺少一个明确的主题句，请提供一个明确的主题来引导读者。

21.这个解释过于晦涩，请重新组织以达到更清晰的表达。

22.这个段落需要更好地连接上下文，以使读者更容易理解你的思路。

23.这个观点需要更多的支持性证据来加强其可信度。

24.这部分的论证过于片面，请考虑其他相关因素。

25.这句话的结构不够平衡，请尝试调整以提高语法流畅度。

26.这个观点过于绝对化，请更客观地表达你的意见。

27.这个例子可能会引起误解，请选择一个更清晰的例子。

28.这个段落的逻辑关系不够明确，请重新组织以获得更清晰的结构。

29.这个解释过于琐碎，请整合相关信息以获得更有说服力的观点。

30.这个论据缺乏因果关系的证明，请对其进行更详细的阐述。

sci修回意见回复模板-回复[sci修回意见回复模板]，以中括号内的内容为主题，写一篇1500-2000字文章，一步一步回答。

尊敬的编辑：感谢您对我们提交的稿件进行的修回意见，并对我们的研究给予了关注和认可。

我们非常重视您的指导，并将根据您的建议进行修订，以期更好地呈现我们的研究成果。

在下面的文章中，我们将逐一回应您的每个意见，并详细阐述我们的修订方案。

意见1：在引言部分，您建议我们对已有研究进行更全面的回顾和分析。

回应1：我们非常认同您的建议，在修订的文章中，我们会加入更多的文献综述，以系统地介绍和分析之前的研究成果。

我们将对相关研究进行更全面的回顾，并在其中提到我们的研究如何填补之前的空白。

意见2：您对我们的方法部分提出了一些疑问，并建议我们进行更详细的实验设计和解释。

回应2：非常感谢您对我们实验设计的关注。

我们将在修订稿中加入更详细的实验设计说明，包括样本选择、数据采集和处理方法等。

此外，我们将详细解释我们选择特定方法的原因，并对方法的可行性和准确性进行进一步讨论。

意见3：您提到我们的结果和讨论部分需要更清晰和准确。

回应3：我们对您的建议非常重视，为了更清晰地呈现我们的结果和讨论，我们将对数据展示形式进行修改，并加入更多的解释和图表。

我们会重新组织我们的讨论以更好地回答研究问题，并且加入对结果的准确解读，以避免可能的误解。

意见4：您建议我们对结论进行进一步拓展和讨论研究的局限性。

回应4：非常感谢您的意见。

在修订稿中，我们将就我们的研究结果和发现进行更深入的拓展和解释，并还将进一步讨论我们研究的局限性和潜在的改进方向。

我们明白展示研究的局限性对于学术研究的完整性至关重要，我们会进行充分的展示和思考。

通过配合您的建议，我们相信我们的修订稿将更具有学术价值和准确性。

再次感谢您对我们研究的指导和关注。

我们期待与您共同努力，为学术界的发展做出贡献。

最诚挚的问候，[作者姓名]。

sci 修改意见回复尊敬的SCI编辑部，我非常感谢您给予我对文章《XXX》的修改意见。

我已仔细阅读了您的建议，并根据您的指导进行了修改和扩展。

在下面，我将详细说明我对每个修改意见的回复，并附上了修改后的正文。

1. 标题修改您建议将标题从《XXX》改为《XXX》，以更准确地描述我的研究内容。

我完全同意您的观点，因为新的标题更能反映出我的研究的重点和目的。

修改后的正文标题：《XXX》2. 引言部分修改您指出了我的引言部分在描述背景和目标时有些模糊。

我已根据您的建议对引言进行了修改，以更清晰地介绍背景和明确目标。

修改后的正文引言部分：（在此处展示修改后的引言部分）3. 方法部分修改您认为我的方法部分缺乏详细的实验步骤和数据收集方法的描述。

我已根据您的建议对方法部分进行了修改，并添加了更多实验细节和数据收集方法的说明。

我还补充了控制组的设计，以确保实验的可靠性。

修改后的正文方法部分：（在此处展示修改后的方法部分）4. 结果与讨论部分修改您提到我的结果与讨论部分需要更深入地分析和解释实验结果。

我已经重新审视了我的数据，并对结果进行了更详细的分析。

我还添加了对结果的进一步讨论，以提供更全面的观点和解释。

修改后的正文结果与讨论部分：（在此处展示修改后的结果与讨论部分）5. 结论部分修改您建议我在结论部分强调我的研究对领域的重要性，并提出进一步的研究方向。

我已经修改了结论部分，以突出我的研究的意义和建议未来的研究方向。

修改后的正文结论部分：（在此处展示修改后的结论部分）再次感谢您对我的文章提出的有益意见。

我相信这些修改将使我的研究更加完善和准确。

希望我的回复和修改后的正文能够满足您的要求，期待能在SCI上发表这篇文章。

望对大家有帮助 1.Dear Prof. XXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.Sincerely yours,Dr. XXXXResponse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments:1. XXXXXXX2. XXXXXXX2.Dear Professor ***,Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)by ***Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice of the above paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair,encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it.After carefully studying the reviewer’comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is ***, and Tel.is ***, and Fax is +***.Yours sincerely,Detailed response to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s adviceOverall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it. Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.Thank you very much for the excellent and professionalrevision of our manuscript.3.The manuscript is revised submission (×××－××××) with new line and page numbers in the text, some grammar and spelling errors had also been corrected. Furthermore, the relevant regulations had been made in the original manuscript according to the comments of reviewers, and the major revised portions were marked in red bold. We also responded point by point to each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the location of the revision.Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.List of Major Changes:1).........2).........3).........Respon se to Reviewers:1).........2).........3).........Resp onse to Reviewer XXWe very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions ofthe reviewer. We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments can be summarized as follows:1) XX2) XXDetailed responses1) XX2) XX4.Dear editor XXWe have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX”by XX. According to the comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript. The revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewer are attached.Sincerelyyours,XX5.Response to Reviewer AReviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealed himself to be Professor Dr. Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig. I wrote him a general response to both reviews in January 2000, followed by these responses to specific points, both his own, and those of the otherreviewer .Response to Specific PointsWhat follows is a brief and cursory discussion of the various issues raised by yourself and the other reviewer. If you should revise your judgment of the validity of the theory, these points will be addressed at greater length in a new version of the paper that I would resubmit to Psychological Review.Response to Specific Points- Reviewer A:In part (1) of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is presented, which was discussed above. You continue "Regrettably, not much attention is drawn to specific differences between the chosen examples that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities of perception more precisely", and "if perceptual systems, as suggested, hler (Kindeed act on the basis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special `veridicality'properties of the perceptual outcome", and "the difficult analytic problems of concrete modeling of perception are not even touched". The model as presented is not a model of vision or audition or any other particular modality, but is a general model to confront the alternative neural receptive field paradigm, although examples from visual perception are used to exemplify the principles discussed. The more specific visual model was submitted elsewhere, in the Orientational Harmonic model, where I showed how harmonic resonance accounts for specific visual illusory effects. As discussed above, the attempt here is to propose a general principle of neurocomputation, rather than a specific model of visual, auditory, or any other specific sensory modality. Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather than a theory, i.e. analternative principle of neurocomputation with specific and unique properties, as an alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field. If this paper is eventually accepted for publication, then I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the use of the unconventional harmonic resonance mechanism.In part (2) (a) of your critique you say "it is not clarified whether the postulated properties of Gestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints." and "I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat just the case of hler: (1961, p. 7) "Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which atfirst, will often be a bit vague." Wolfgang Kthe dog cited to demonstrate `emergence'. For this a hierarchy relation is needed." The principle of emergence in Gestalt theory is a very difficult concept to express in unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was presented to illustrate this rather elusive concept with a concrete example. I do not suggest that HR as proposed in this paper can address the dog picture as such, since this is specifically a visual problem, and the HR model as presented is not a visual model. Rather, I propose that the feature detection paradigm cannot in principle handle this kind of ambiguity, because the local features do not individually contain the information necessary to distinguish significant from insignificant edges. The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the sectionon "Recognition by Reification" (p. 15-17) in which I propose that recognition is not simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, i.e. by the "lighting up" of a higher level feature node, but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which the higher level feature node reifies its particular pattern back at the input level, modulated by the exact pattern of the input. I appeal to the reader to see the reified form of the dog as perceived edges and surfaces that are not present in the input stimulus, as evidence for this reification in perception, which appears at the same time that the recognition occurs. The remarkable property of this reification is that the dog appears not as an image of a canonical, or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture and configuration allowed by the input, as observed in thesubjective experience of the dog picture. This explanation is subject to your criticism in your general comments, that "the author demonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions". I can only say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can be used to make the case.In the words of Wolfgang K?hler: (1961, p.7)"Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague."Wolfgang K?hler (K?hler 1923 p. 64)"Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptotheses, which cannot be verified by direct observation at the time when they are formed nor for a long time thereafter.Of such a kind were Ampere's theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gases, the electronic theory, the hypothesis of atomic disinte gration in the theory of radioactivity. Some of these assumptions have since been verified by direct obser vation, or have at least come close to such direct verification; others are still far removed from it. But physics and chemistry would have been condemned to a permanent embryonic state had they abstained from such hypotheses; their development seems rather like a continuous effort steadily to shorten the rest of the way to the verification of hypotheses which survive this process"In section (2) (b) of your critique you complain that "there is no serious discussion of possible alternatives", and you mention Neo-Gibsonian approaches, PDP, Grossberg's ART model and Pribram's holographic theory. In the next versionof the paper this omission will be corrected, approximately as follows. Gibson's use of the term resonance is really a metaphorical device, since Gibson offers no mechanisms or analogies of perceptual processes, but merely suggests that there is a two-way flow of information (resonance) between behavior and the environment. This is really merely a metaphor, rather than a model.The PDP approach does address the issue of emergence, but since the basic computational unit of the neural network model is a hard-wired receptive field, this theory suffers all the limitations of a template theory. The same holds for Grossberg's "Adaptive Resonance Theory", which also uses the word resonance metaphorically to suggest a bottom-up top- down matching, but in Grossberg's model that matching is actually performed by receptive fields, or spatialtemplates. The ART model demonstrates the limitations of this approach. For the only way that a higher-level detector, or "F2 node", can exhibit generalization to different input patterns, is for it to have synaptic weights to all of the patterns to which it responds. In essence, the pattern of synaptic weights is a superposition or blurring together of all of the possible input patterns to which the F2 node should respond. In top-down priming mode therefore that F2 node would "print" that same blurred pattern back at the lower "F1 node" level, activating all of the possible patterns to which that F2 node is tuned to respond. For example if an ART model were trained to respond to an "X"-shaped feature presented at all possible orientations, top-down priming of this node after training would "print" a pattern of all those X-shaped features at allorientations superimposed, which is simply an amorphous blob. In fact, that same node would respond even better to a blob feature than to any single X feature. In the presence of a partial or ambiguous X-like pattern presented at a particular orientation, the ART model could not complete that pattern specific to its orientation. The HR model on the other hand offers a different and unique principle of representation, in which top-down activation of the higher level node can complete a partial or ambiguous input pattern in the specific orientation at which it appears, but that same priming would complete the pattern differently if it appeared in a different orientation. This generalization in recognition, but specification in completion, is a property that is unique to the harmonic resonance representation.Kuhn observes that the old paradigm canalways be reformulated to account for any particular phenomenon addressed by the new paradigm, just as the Ptolomaic earth- centered cosmology could account for the motions of the planets to arbitrary precision, given enough nested cycles and epicycles of the crystal spheres. Similarly, a conventional neural network model can always be contrived to exhibit the same functional behavior of generalized recognition but specific completion described above, but only by postulating an implausible arrangement of spatial receptive fields. In this case that would require specific X-feature templates applied to the input at every possible orientation, any one of which can stimulate a single rotation-invariant X-feature node, to account for bottom-up rotation invariance in recognition. However in order to also account for top-down completion specific toorientation, top-down activation of the higher-level invariant node would have to feed back down to a set of top-down projection nodes, each of which is equipped with an X-shaped projective template at a particular orientation, able to project a complete X-shaped pattern on the input field. But the top-down completion must select only the specific orientation that best matches the pattern present in the input, and complete the pattern only at that best matching orientation. This system therefore requires two complete sets of X-feature receptive fields or templates, one set for bottom-up recognition and the other set for top-down completion, each set containing X-feature templates at every possible orientation, and similar sets of receptive fields would be required for the recognition of other shaped patterns such as "T" and "V" features. This represents a "brute force"approach to achieving invariance, which although perhaps marginally plausible in this specific example, is completely implausible as a general principle of operation of neurocomputation, given the fact that invariance appears to be so fundamental a property of human and animal perception. However, as Kuhn also observes, a factor such as neural plausibility is itself a "personal and inarticulate aesthetic consideration" that cannot be determined unambiguously by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science.With regard to Pribram's Holographic theory, the concept of a hologram is closely related to a standing wave model, since it too works by interference of waveforms. The difference is that the hologram is "frozen in time" like a photograph, and therefore does not exhibit the tolerance to elasticdeformation of the input, as does the standing wave model. Neither does the hologram exhibit rotation invariance as does the standing wave in a circular- symmetric system. However holograms can in principle be constructed of dynamic standing waves, as Pribram himself suggests, and this concept then becomes a harmonic resonance theory. The present proposal is therefore closely related to Pribram's approach, which will be discussed in the next version of the paper.The discussion of alternative models was indeed a significant omission in the version of the paper you reviewed, the next version will include such a discussion, which in turn will help to clarify the operational principles of the HR theory, and distinguish it from alternative approaches.In section (3) of your critique you propose that "notions like the receptive field concept areapproximate descriptions of facts", and you propose a dualistic approach involving two forms of representations in the brain which are of different and complementary nature. While I do not dispute the anatomical facts of the shapes of neuron and the function of synapses, it has never been demonstrated that a neuron actually operates as a spatial template, that theory arose as an explanation for the neurophysiological response of "feature detector" cells in the cortex. However the noisy stochastic nature of the neural response, and its very broad tuning function seem to argue against this view. My own hunch is that the feature detector behavior is itself a standing wave phenomenon, which is consistent with the fact that the response function of V1 cortical neurons resembles a Gabor function, which is itself a wavelet. However this issue isorthogonal to my main point, which is that whether or not some neurons behave as spatial templates, the limitations of a template theory suggest that the Gestalt properties of perception (emergence, invariance, reification, multistability) cannot be accounted for in that manner, and that some other significant principle of computation must be invoked to account for the Gestalt properties of perception.In section (4) you complain that there is no discussion of the limitations in the scope of HR. For example merely to reflect outside reality does not contribute to the problem of conscious awareness of these objects. However this issue is not unique to HR, it is a general philosophical issue that applies just as well to the alternative Neuron Doctrine model. But the Neuron doctrine itself cannot even plausibly account for the reflection of outsidereality in an internal representation, due to the problems of emergence, reification, and invariance, which is why the Neuron Doctrine suggests a more abstracted concept of visual representation, in which the visual experience is encoded in a far more abstracted and abbreviated form. Therefore although HR does not solve the "problem of consciousness" completely, it is one step closer to a solution than the alternative. The philosophical issue of consciousness however is beyond the scope of this paper, which is a theory of neural representation, rather than a philosophical paper. I enclose a copy of my book, "The World In Your Head", which addresses these philosophical issues more extensively.Professor Geissler's ResponseProfessor Geissler kindly responded to my letter in April 2000 to say that he agreed with nearlyeverything I had said. He then gave me advice about the presentation of the idea. He recommended that I begin by describing the Neuron Doctrine in detail, and then point out the limitations of the idea before presenting the Harmonic Resonance theory as an alternative. I re-wrote the paper following Geissler's advice, and I included some ideas from the above letter in the new version of the paper. However it was too late to resubmit it to Psychological Review since the editor who was handling the paper was leaving. Furthermore, I am becoming convinced that the proper medium for presenting radically new and different theories is the open peer review format of the Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal, which is where I submitted the revised version of this paper.6.Dear Dr. S. Heller,Attached please the revised manuscript " A Group-DecisionApproach for Evaluating Educational Web Sites" submitted to computers & Education for possible publication. A file containing the revision summary is also attached. Your acknowledgement will be highly appreciated.Thank you.Sincerely yoursGwo-Jen HwangInformation Management DepartmentNational Chi Nan UniversityPu-Li, Nan-Tou, Taiwan 545, R.O.C.FAX: 886-940503178TEL: 886-915396558Response to Reviewers and EditorPaper#: SMCC-03-06-0056Title: On the Development of a Computer-Assisted Testing System with Genetic Test Sheet-Generating Approach[Reviewer 1 Comments]:____ The paper should be shortened.[Response to Reviewer 1]:The paper has been shortened to 24 pages by removing some redundant descriptions of genetic models and algorithms; moreover, Sections 3 and 4have been re-written to condense the entire paper.[Reviewer 2 Comments]:No innovative contribution was found both in the theory of genetic algorithms and in the application of them.[Response to Reviewer 2]:(1)_We have re-written the abstract and Sections 1 and 2 to explain the importance about the construction of a good test sheet. The major contribution of this paper is not in its technical part. Instead, we tried to cope with an important problem arising from real educational applications. Such a problem is known to be critical and has not been efficiently and effectively solved before.(2)_Since the innovative contribution of this paper might not be significant, we have re-written the paper as a technical correspondence based on the editor's suggestion.[Reviewer 3 Comments]:Make the definitions,formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise, so that the revised paper will be improved in its readability and correctness.[Response to Reviewer 3]:Te mixed integer models and the genetic algorithms in Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise (please refer to Pages 6-17). Moreover, a colleague who is an English expert has carefully checked the paper to correct potential grammatical errors.。

用英文巧妙回复S C I期刊编辑信件Modified by JACK on the afternoon of December 26, 2020用英文巧妙回复SCI期刊编辑信件众所周知，外审专家对于文章的主要批评意见是非常重要的，因此作者对于这些意见的回复也是尤为关键。

本文就如何用英文就其意见进行回复做一下简单说明:1、In reply to the referee’s main criticism of paper, it is possible to say that您的回复:外审专家对于表1中xxx所提出的问题现已改正。

而后面的一些小改动则不会影响文章对结果的解释。

One minor point raised by the referee concerns of the extra composition of the reaction mixture in Figure 1 has now been corrected. Further minor changes had been made on page 3，paragraph1(line 3-8)and 2(line 6-11).These do not affect our interpretation of the result. 2、我非常仔细地阅读了外审专家的意见，而且我认为文章仅仅因为缺少xxx而被拒绝刊登的。

我承认本应在丈中包含XXX 然后这仅是出于对文章简洁的考量，没有提供相关数据而非疏忽。

I have read the referee’scomments very carefully and conclude that the paper has been rejected on the sole grounds that it lacked toxicity data. I admit that l did not include a toxicity table in my article although perhaps I should have done. This was for the sake of brevity rather than an error or omission.3、谢谢您对于我文章“XXX”的回复以及外审专家的意见。

sci修回意见回复模板“sci修回意见回复模板”回复模板尊敬的审稿人/编委/编辑：首先，感谢您对我们的研究工作给予的重视并提出了宝贵的意见和建议。

我们非常重视您的意见，经过认真研究和讨论，我们对您提出的问题进行了深入分析，并做出了相应的修订。

现针对您的意见逐一进行回复如下：1. Thank you very much for your insightful comments. We have carefully considered your suggestions and made the necessary revisions accordingly.非常感谢您的深入评论。

我们已经仔细考虑了您的建议，并相应地进行了修订。

2. We agree with your point that the research could be strengthened by providing more experimental data. Therefore, we have conducted additional experiments on [specific aspect or parameter], and the new data are included in the revised manuscript.我们同意您的观点，即通过提供更多的实验数据可以进一步加强研究的可信度。

因此，我们针对[具体方面或参数]进行了额外的实验，并将新数据包含在修订后的论文中。

3. We appreciate your suggestion to expand the literature review to include more recent studies. In response, we have conducted a thorough review of the most relevant and up-to-date literature in the field and have included the key findings in the revised manuscript.对于您建议加强文献综述部分以包括更多最新研究的建议，我们表示感谢。

之老阳三干创作望对大家有帮忙 1.Dear Prof. XXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. We submit here the revised manuscript as well as a list of changes.If you have any question about this paper, please don’t hesitate to let me know.Sincerely yours,Dr. XXXXResponse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revised our paper according to your comments:1. XXXXXXX2. XXXXXXX2.Dear Professor ***,Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)by ***Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice of the above paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it.After carefully studying the reviewer’ comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the paper. Our response of the comments is enclosed.If you need any other information, please contact me immediately by email. My email account is ***, and Tel.is ***, and Fax is +***.Yours sincerely,Detailed response to reviewer’scomments and Asian Editor’s adviceOverall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learne d much from it. Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.Thank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.3.The manuscript is revised submission (×××－××××) with new line and page numbers in the text, some grammar and spelling errors had also been corrected. Furthermore, the relevant regulations had been made in the original manuscript according to the comments of reviewers, and the major revised portions were marked in red bold. We also responded point by point to each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the location of the revision.Hope these will make it more acceptable for publication.List of Major Changes:1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewers:1).........2).........3).........Response to Reviewer XXWe very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of the reviewer.We have carefully considered the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. The comments can be summarized as follows:1) XX2) XXDetailed responses1) XX2) XX4.Dear editor XXWe have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX” by XX. According to the comments of the reviewers, we have revised our manuscript. The revised manuscript and the detailed responses to the comments of the one reviewer are attached.Sincerely yours,XX5.Response to Reviewer AReviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealed himself to be Professor Dr. Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig. I wrote him a general response to both reviews in January 2000, followed by these responses to specific points, both his own, and those of the other reviewer .Response to Specific PointsWhat follows is a brief and cursory discussion of the various issues raised by yourself and the other reviewer. If you should revise your judgment of the validity of the theory, these points will be addressed at greater length in a new version of the paper that I would resubmit to Psychological Review.Response to Specific Points- Reviewer A:In part (1) of your critique the major complaint is that no theory ispresented, which was discussed above. You continue "Regrettably, not much attention is drawn to specific differences between the chosen examples that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities of perception more precisely", and "if perceptual systems, as suggested, hler (Kindeed act on the basis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special `veridicality' properties of the perceptual outcome", and "the difficult analytic problems of concrete modeling of perception are not even touched". The model as presented is not a model of vision or audition or any other particular modality, but is a general model to confront the alternative neural receptive field paradigm, although examples from visual perception are used to exemplify the principles discussed. The more specific visual model was submitted elsewhere, in the Orientational Harmonic model, where I showed how harmonic resonance accounts for specific visual illusory effects. As discussed above, the attempt here is to propose a general principle of neurocomputation, rather than a specific model of visual, auditory, or any other specific sensory modality. Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather than a theory,i.e. an alternative principle of neurocomputation with specific and unique properties, as an alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field. If this paper is eventually accepted for publication, then I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the use of the unconventional harmonic resonance mechanism.In part (2) (a) of your critique you say "it is not clarified whether the postulated properties of Gestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints." and "I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat just the case of hler: (1961, p. 7) "Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague." Wolfgang Kthe dog cited to demonstrate `emergence'. For this a hierarchy relation is needed." The principle of emergence in Gestalt theory is a very difficult concept to express in unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was presented to illustrate this rather elusive concept with a concrete example. I do not suggestthat HR as proposed in this paper can address the dog picture as such, since this is specifically a visual problem, and the HR model as presented is not a visual model. Rather, I propose that the feature detection paradigm cannot in principle handle this kind of ambiguity, because the local features do not individually contain the information necessary to distinguish significant from insignificant edges. The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the section on "Recognition by Reification" (p. 15-17) in which I propose that recognition is not simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, i.e. by the "lighting up" of a higher level feature node, but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which the higher level feature node reifies its particular pattern back at the input level, modulated by the exact pattern of the input. I appeal to the reader to see the reified form of the dog as perceived edges and surfaces that are not present in the input stimulus, as evidence for this reification in perception, which appears at the same time that the recognition occurs. The remarkable property of thisreification is that the dog appears not as an image of a canonical, or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture and configuration allowed by the input, as observed in the subjective experience of the dog picture. This explanation is subject to your criticism in your general comments, that "the author demonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions". I can only say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can be used to make the case.In the words of Wolfgang K?hler: (1961, p.7)"Human experience in the phenomenological sense cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague."Wolfgang K?hler (K?hler 1923 p. 64)"Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptotheses, which cannot be verified by direct observation at the time when they are formed nor for a long time thereafter. Of such a kind were Ampere's theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gases, the electronic theory, the hypothesis of atomic disinte gration in the theory of radioactivity. Some of theseassumptions have since been verified by direct obser vation, or have at least come close to such direct verification; others are still far removed from it. But physics and chemistry would have been condemned to a permanent embryonic state had they abstained from such hypotheses; their development seems rather like a continuous effort steadily to shorten the rest of the way to the verification of hypotheses which survive this process"In section (2) (b) of your critique you complain that "there is no serious discussion of possible alternatives", and you mention Neo-Gibsonian approaches, PDP, Grossberg's ART model and Pribram's holographic theory. In the next version of the paper this omission will be corrected, approximately as follows. Gibson's use of the term resonance is really a metaphorical device, since Gibson offers no mechanisms or analogies of perceptual processes, but merely suggests that there is a two-way flow of information (resonance) between behavior and the environment. This is really merely a metaphor, rather than a model.The PDP approach does address the issue of emergence, but since the basic computational unit of the neural network model is a hard-wiredreceptive field, this theory suffers all the limitations of a template theory. The same holds for Grossberg's "Adaptive Resonance Theory", which also uses the word resonance metaphorically to suggest a bottom-up top- down matching, but in Grossberg's model that matching is actually performed by receptive fields, or spatial templates. The ART model demonstrates the limitations of this approach. For the only way that a higher-level detector, or "F2 node", can exhibit generalization to different input patterns, is for it to have synaptic weights to all of the patterns to which it responds. In essence, the pattern of synaptic weights is a superposition or blurring together of all of the possible input patterns to which the F2 node should respond. In top-down priming mode therefore that F2 node would "print" that same blurred pattern back at the lower "F1 node" level, activating all of the possible patterns to which that F2 node is tuned to respond. For example if an ART model were trained to respond to an "X"-shaped feature presented at all possible orientations, top-down priming of this node after training would "print" a pattern of all those X-shaped features at allorientations superimposed, which is simply an amorphous blob. In fact, that same node would respond even better to a blob feature than to any single X feature. In the presence of a partial or ambiguous X-like pattern presented at a particular orientation, the ART model could not complete that pattern specific to its orientation. The HR model on the other hand offers a different and unique principle of representation, in which top-down activation of the higher level node can complete a partial or ambiguous input pattern in the specific orientation at which it appears, but that same priming would complete the pattern differently if it appeared in a different orientation. This generalization in recognition, but specification in completion, is a property that is unique to the harmonic resonance representation.Kuhn observes that the old paradigm can always be reformulated to account for any particular phenomenon addressed by the new paradigm, just as the Ptolomaic earth- centered cosmology could account for the motions of the planets to arbitrary precision, given enough nested cycles and epicycles of the crystal spheres. Similarly, a conventional neural network model can alwaysbe contrived to exhibit the same functional behavior of generalized recognition but specific completion described above, but only by postulating an implausible arrangement of spatial receptive fields. In this case that would require specific X-feature templates applied to the input at every possible orientation, any one of which can stimulate a single rotation-invariant X-feature node, to account for bottom-up rotation invariance in recognition. However in order to also account for top-down completion specific to orientation, top-down activation of the higher-level invariant node would have to feed back down to a set of top-down projection nodes, each of which is equipped with an X-shaped projective template at a particular orientation, able to project a complete X-shaped pattern on the input field. But the top-down completion must select only the specific orientation that best matches the pattern present in the input, and complete the pattern only at that best matching orientation. This system therefore requires two complete sets of X-feature receptive fields or templates, one set for bottom-up recognition and the other set for top-down completion, each set containing X-feature templates atevery possible orientation, and similar sets of receptive fields would be required for the recognition of other shaped patterns such as "T" and "V" features. This represents a "brute force" approach to achieving invariance, which although perhaps marginally plausible in this specific example, is completely implausible as a general principle of operation of neurocomputation, given the fact that invariance appears to be so fundamental a property of human and animal perception. However, as Kuhn also observes, a factor such as neural plausibility is itself a "personal and inarticulate aesthetic consideration" that cannot be determined unambiguously by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science.With regard to Pribram's Holographic theory, the concept of a hologram is closely related to a standing wave model, since it too works by interference of waveforms. The difference is that the hologram is "frozen in time" like a photograph, and therefore does not exhibit the tolerance to elastic deformation of the input, as does the standing wave model. Neither does the hologram exhibit rotation invariance as does the standing wave in a circular- symmetric system. However hologramscan in principle be constructed of dynamic standing waves, as Pribram himself suggests, and this concept then becomes a harmonic resonance theory. The present proposal is therefore closely related to Pribram's approach, which will be discussed in the next version of the paper.The discussion of alternative models was indeed a significant omission in the version of the paper you reviewed, the next version will include such a discussion, which in turn will help to clarify the operational principles of the HR theory, and distinguish it from alternative approaches.In section (3) of your critique you propose that "notions like the receptive field concept are approximate descriptions of facts", and you propose a dualistic approach involving two forms of representations in the brain which are of different and complementary nature. While I do not dispute the anatomical facts of the shapes of neuron and the function of synapses, it has never been demonstrated that a neuron actually operates as a spatial template, that theory arose as an explanation for the neurophysiological response of "feature detector" cells in the cortex. However the noisy stochastic nature of the neural response, and its verybroad tuning function seem to argue against this view. My own hunch is that the feature detector behavior is itself a standing wave phenomenon, which is consistent with the fact that the response function of V1 cortical neurons resembles a Gabor function, which is itself a wavelet. However this issue is orthogonal to my main point, which is that whether or not some neurons behave as spatial templates, the limitations of a template theory suggest that the Gestalt properties of perception (emergence, invariance, reification, multistability) cannot be accounted for in that manner, and that some other significant principle of computation must be invoked to account for the Gestalt properties of perception.In section (4) you complain that there is no discussion of the limitations in the scope of HR. For example merely to reflect outside reality does not contribute to the problem of conscious awareness of these objects. However this issue is not unique to HR, it is a general philosophical issue that applies just as well to the alternative Neuron Doctrine model. But the Neuron doctrine itself cannot even plausibly account for the reflection of outside reality in an internalrepresentation, due to the problems of emergence, reification, and invariance, which is why the Neuron Doctrine suggests a more abstracted concept of visual representation, in which the visual experience is encoded in a far more abstracted and abbreviated form. Therefore although HR does not solve the "problem of consciousness" completely, it is one step closer to a solution than the alternative. The philosophical issue of consciousness however is beyond the scope of this paper, which is a theory of neural representation, rather than a philosophical paper. I enclose a copy of my book, "The World In Your Head", which addresses these philosophical issues more extensively.Professor Geissler's ResponseProfessor Geissler kindly responded to my letter in April 2000 to say that he agreed with nearly everything I had said. He then gave me advice about the presentation of the idea. He recommended that I begin by describing the Neuron Doctrine in detail, and then point out the limitations of the idea before presenting the Harmonic Resonance theory as an alternative. I re-wrote the paper following Geissler's advice, and I included some ideas from the above letter in the new version ofthe paper. However it was too late to resubmit it to Psychological Review since the editor who was handling the paper was leaving. Furthermore, I am becoming convinced that the proper medium for presenting radically new and different theories is the open peer review format of the Behavioral and Brain Sciences journal, which is where I submitted the revised version of this paper.6.Dear Dr. S. Heller,Attached please the revised manuscript " A Group-Decision Approach for Evaluating Educational Web Sites" submitted to computers & Education for possible publication. A file containing the revision summary is also attached. Your acknowledgement will be highly appreciated.Thank you.Sincerely yoursGwo-Jen HwangInformation Management DepartmentNational Chi Nan UniversityPu-Li, Nan-Tou, Taiwan 545, R.O.C.FAX: 886-940503178TEL: 886-915396558Response to Reviewers and EditorPaper#: SMCC-03-06-0056Title: On the Development of a Computer-Assisted Testing System with Genetic Test Sheet-Generating Approach[Reviewer 1 Comments]:____ The paper should be shortened.[Response to Reviewer 1]:The paper has been shortened to 24 pages by removing some redundant descriptions of genetic models and algorithms;moreover, Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to condense the entire paper.[Reviewer 2 Comments]:No innovative contribution was found both in the theory of genetic algorithms and in the application of them.[Response to Reviewer 2]:(1)_We have re-written the abstract and Sections 1 and 2 to explain the importance about the construction of a good test sheet. The major contribution of this paper is not in its technical part. Instead, we tried to cope with an important problem arising from real educational applications. Such a problem is known to be critical and has not been efficiently and effectively solved before.(2)_Since the innovative contribution of this paper might not be significant, we have re-written the paper as a technical correspondence based on the editor's suggestion.[Reviewer 3 Comments]:Make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise, so that the revised paper will be improved in its readability and correctness.[Response to Reviewer 3]:Te mixed integer models and the genetic algorithms in Sections 3 and 4 have been re-written to make the definitions, formulas, and other descriptions clearer and more precise (pleaserefer to Pages 6-17). Moreover, a colleague who is an English expert has carefully checked the paper to correct potential grammatical errors.。