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。

如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Response to Editor and Reviewer这是我的英文修改稿回复信Dear Editor,RE: Manuscript IDWe would like to thank XXX (name of Journal) for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.We thank the reviewers for their careful read and thoughtful comments on previous draft. We have carefully taken their comments into consideration in preparing our revision, which has resulted in a paper that is clearer, more compelling, and broader. The following summarizes how we responded to reviewer comments.Below is our response to their comments.Thanks for all the help.Best wishes,Dr. XXXCorresponding Author下面是如何对Reviewer的意见进行point by point回答：一些习惯用语如下：Revision — authors’ responseReviewer #1:Major comments1.The referee correctly noted that our language about XXX was ambiguous.Therefore, we changed the text and the figures to emphasize that …. To further support the concept that, we have analyzed …. As depicted inSupplementary Fig. S1…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have emphasized our observations ofXXX in results and discussion sections. We have added new findings (see above point) in Supplementary Fig S. to support…3.As requested by the reviewer we have added a scheme (SupplementaryFig.) that summarizes…Minor comments1.We have removed the word SUFFICIENT from the title.2.We have added and improved the scale bars in the figure 1 and 2.3.We have added statistics to Fig 5C.4.We have corrected the typescript errors in the XXX paragraph.Reviewer #2:1.Because of the reviewer’s request, we have performed new experiments tobetter clarify… The new Fig. shows that… This finding suggests that…2.As suggested by the reviewer we have added new data of XXX to clarify thepoint that…3.We agree with the reviewer that … Because of the reviewer’s request wehave used XXX to confirm that… The new data are depicted inSupplementary Fig .4.Because of reviewer’s request, we have analyzed the efficiency of RNAi byquantitative RT-PCR the efficiency of RNAi. We have now added the new panel in Supplementary Fig.Reviewer #3:1.Because of the referee’s comment, we have moved the panel of Fig. 5 intothe new Figure 6 and we have added new experiments to address …. The new Fig. 6 shows that….2.In response to the reviewer’s requests, we have studied…. The new dataare depicted in Suppplementary Fig.3.We agree with reviewer that…. However, a recent paper has shown that ….We have added this reference and modified the sentence to underline….4.We have changes Figure 1 with a picture that…. The previous one was tooweek and the green fluorescence was lost during the conversion in PDFformat.5.Because of review’s request, we have changed as much as possible themagnification in order to maintain the same scale bar but also to preserve details.6.The difference between XXX and XXX is not statistically significant. In orderto better clarify this issue we changed the graphics of our statistical analysis in Fig.另外一篇5分杂志的回复：1nd Revision – authors’ responseReferee #1:We want to begin by thanking Referee #1 for writing that “the finding in our manuscript is generally interesting and important in the field.” We also appreciated the constructive criticism and suggestion. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer, as summarized below.1.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiment demonstrating…; inthe new experiment, this result is presented in the revised Fig.2.The referee suggests demonstrating that…. This experiment was performedin XXX by comparing…3.The referee comments that it is unclear whether the effect of ….is due to ….To address the referee’s comment, we revised Fig. and demonstrated that….To further confirm…. Two new data have been added in the revised Fig. In summary, the results in Fig. demonstrate that….4.Thanks to the referee’s comment, the wrong figure numbers were correctedin the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We want to thank Referee #2 for constructive and insightful criticism and advice. We addressed all the points raised by the reviewer as summarized below.1.The referee recommends to show…. We performed the experiment and itsresult is included in the revised Fig.2.According to the referee’s suggestion, the experiments in Fig. wererepeated several times and representative data are included in the revised Fig.3.Based on the referee’s comment that, echoing comment #4 of Referee #1,above. As stated above, we have included new results, which include:4.All minor points raised by the reviewer were corrected accordingly.2nd Revision – authors’ responseWe would like to thank the referees for their thoughtful review of our manuscript. We believe that the additional changes we have made in response to the reviewers comments have made this a significantly stronger manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response to the referee’s comments.Referee #1:Referee #1 request two minor editorial changes. Both changes have been made accordingly in the revised manuscript.Referee #2:We sincerely apologize to Referee #2 for not completely addressing all of the points raised in the previous response. We have done so below and added additional data in hopes that this reviewer will be supportive of publication.1.Referee #2 requests evidence that …. According to the referee’ssuggestion, a XXX assay was performed in XXX cells to demonstrate that ….The result is presented in Fig.2.Page 17, “the” E3 was changed to “an” E3.3.Referee #2 asks whether…. We would like to note that we investigated ….inour previous study and found no evidence that …. Therefore, in thismanuscript we focused on ….Welcome To Download !!!欢迎您的下载，资料仅供参考！。

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。

以下是一个SCI论文回复编辑修改意见的模板，供您参考：
尊敬的编辑：
非常感谢您对我们论文的关注和审阅，以及您提出的宝贵意见和建议。

我们非常重视您的反馈，并对您的意见进行了认真分析和考虑。

在您的来信中，您提出了以下几点修改意见和建议，我们将逐一进行回复和说明：
实验方法需要进一步明确和详细：
关于实验方法的表述，我们将对相关内容进行修改和补充，以便让读者更加清楚地了解实验的具体操作和流程。

我们将对实验方法进行重新梳理和描述，并在需要的地方添加更多的细节和说明。

数据分析需要更加严谨和完整：
我们非常同意您的意见，并将对数据分析部分进行重新审视和改进。

我们将对数据进行分析和处理，并添加更多的图表和表格来展示数据结果。

同时，我们也将对数据分析的逻辑和推理进行更加严谨的表述和解释。

结论部分需要更加突出和有说服力：
我们将对结论部分进行重新组织和撰写，以便更好地突出研究结果的重要性和意义。

我们将对结论进行更加精炼和有说服力的表述，并提供更加充分的论据和证据来支持我们的观点。

参考文献需要更加规范和准确：
我们将对参考文献进行重新核对和整理，以确保其准确性和规范性。

我们将对引用的文献进行仔细核对和筛选，并按照要求进行格式化和排版。

再次感谢您的宝贵意见和建议，我们非常重视您的反馈，并将认真修改和完善论文。

如果您还有其他意见和建议，请随时与我们联系。

此致
敬礼！
作者姓名。

如何回复修稿信件模板Dear Editor,We are pleased to answer the questions of the reviewers’and the manuscript (Manuscript number...）) has also been extensively revised according to the comments (resubmitted online). Question #1:Answer:Question #2:Answer:Best wishes,Sincerely yours,Name在修回时，最头痛的是如何满足个别revewer的"不可实现"的要求。

我建议主要是引用理论和文献加以解释，作到精练有逻辑有说服力。

毕竟，写比做还是要简单些。

效果吗，就要看个人的写作能力和编辑的心情了。

当然，你能补数据和你有时间补数据的例外。

Dear editor:Thanks a lot for having reviewed our manuscript.Now we have revised the manuscript according to the revewers'Thanks a lot for having revewed our manuscript. Now we have revised the manuscript according to the reviewerscomments.Most of the revisions are in the manuscript.Some explanations regarding the reisions of our manuscriptare as follows.Dear Prof.XXXX,Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to x0.x (MSNumber x000).We have checked the manuscript and rewsed it according to the comments. We submit here therevsed manuscript as well as a list of changes.lf you have any question about this paper, please don't hesitate to letme know.Sincerely yours,Dr. xXxxXResponse to Reviewer 1:Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revsed our paper according to your comments:1.xxxXXXX2.xxXXXX或Dear editor:Thanks a lot for having reviewed our manuscript. Now we have rewised the manuscript according to the reviewers'comments.Most of the revisions are in the manuscript.Some explanations regarding the revisions of our manuscriptare as follows.。

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。