Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)

审稿意见回复信英⽂模板和语料总结审稿意见回复信英⽂模板和语料总结模板1.Dear prof. XX and dear reviewersRe: Manuscript ID: XXXXX and Title: XXXXXXThank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “XXXXXX ” (ID). Those comments are valuable and very helpful. We have read through comments carefully and have made corrections. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Revisions in the text are shownusing red highlight for additions, and strikethrough font for deletions. The responses to the reviewer’s comments are marked in red and presented following.We would love to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript and we highly appreciate your time and consideration.Sincerely.XXXXX.Reviewer #1:Q1. Interpretation could be deepened regarding xx. 关于xx的讨论应该更深⼊⼀些.Response：We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clearly and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we have added a more detailed interpretation regarding xxx. More detailed statistical analysis was added on page…Q2.the English language needs to be revised for clarity …Response：We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript. The language presentation was improved with assistance from a native English speaker with appropriate research background.Q3.Page 10, the last sentence of the first chapter should read: …,Response：We agree with the comment and re-wrote the sentence in the revised manuscript as the following: ….Q4.Please provide details of results, and please analyze and discuss it.Response：We are grateful for the suggestion. As suggested by the reviewer, we have added more details of…其他语料：1. Thank you for your suggestion. As suggested by reviewer, we have added the suggested content to the manuscript onpage…2. Thank you for your comments, the discussion regarding this question is presented following: …3. We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have added a moredetailed interpretation regarding…4. Thank you for your comment, and our reply is as follows: …5. Response: We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. According to the reviewer’s comment, we have providedmore details to describe the possible reasons.6. We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. We have…7. We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clear and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we have added abrief description as follows:8. We have modified this expression throughout the text according to the comment.9. Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 6-28, page 6)10. Thank you for underlining this deficiency. This section was revised and modified according to the information showedin the work suggested by the reviewer (Line 41, page 3).11. Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 6-28, page 6).12. Modified throughout the text according to the comment (Line 20, page 1).Thank you for the title suggested. Theprecedent version of the title has been replaced, becoming…13. We appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation of our work.14. Our deepest gratitude goes to you for your careful work and thoughtful suggestions that have helped improve thispaper substantially.15. We have carefully revised the language issue again based on the latest file uploaded on October 5th. This revision ishighlighted in green (for adding) and strikethrough font (for deleting) in the text. At the same time, we have uploaded the file of the revised manuscript and flowchart file.16. Thank you for your precious comments and advice. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising andimproving our paper. We have revised the manuscript accordingly，and our point-by-point responses are presented above.17. We appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation of our work and agree with the comments regarding the limitationsof our study.模板2.来⾃公众号《⼤葱的后花园》Dear Editors (或编辑的具体姓名Prof. xxx) and reviewers:Thank you for your precious comments and advice. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Response to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. ⼀般第⼀段是reviewer对你⽂章的总结。

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！。

SAMPLE RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS’ COMMENTSBelow are actual comments to a review I wrote sometime ago. I include it here so you can see the level of detail/discussion I expect for your letter. Also, though you don’t have to do it for my class; if you’re doi ng it for an actual journal, make sure to use department letterhead.******************************************************************* Date<Editor’s name & title><Journal name><postal address>Dear Prof. <Editor’s Name>:First, I want to thank you and your reviewers for the extremely helpful comments provided for our paper. In the paper we’ve addressed all comments – both specific and general – from all three reviewers.There are too many comments and changes for us to list them all here. However, we would like to highlight some of the more general ones.Many of reviewer #1147’s comments came from notes directly on the document. Therefore, though the “typed” comments were two paragraphs, references to that reviewer appear quite frequently below.Finally, the numbers in parentheses refer to the reviewer.1. All three reviewers made reference to awkward sentences and lack of clarity in theflow of the text. We’ve addressed this issue across and within each section,paragraph, and sentence. As a result, we feel this version reads more cohesively and fluidly.Additionally, extra care was taken to remove polemical statements (#1072; #1147;#647)2. “What, exactly, does “after high school” mean? Does it mean high schoolgraduation?” (#1072; im plied by #1147).To address this, the following text was added to the description of the sample: All students who were selected in the 8th grade were reinterviewed in each of thesubsequent years, regardless of their individual progress. Their subsequent grade level(e.g. 10th grade, 12th grade, etc.) is not the criteria for inclusion. The fact that thestudent was in the original cohort is the criteria for subsequent inclusion. As a result,though the cohort may be in the 12th grade, some of the students may not be, becausethey were held back, dropped out, or may have skipped a grade and thus graduatedearlier than their 8th grade cohort. However, even with these variances within the post-8th grade years, throughout this document, we will use the same language used by theNational Education Longitudinal Study – 8th grade (1988), 12th grade (1992), and twoyears after high school (1994).3. Literature Review/Backgrounda. Due to the lack of clarity, the reference to sociocultural variables was removed(#1072).b. The text was changed to make it clear when we were referring to differenceswithin African American families as compared to differences between them andtheir non-African American counterparts (#1072).c. In the section on theoretical models, race and gender were addressed separatelyfrom social class (#1072; #1147).d. A theoretical/conceptual framework was identified – intersectionality – andfollowed throughout the document (Editor; #1027; #1147).e. The family organization section was rewritten to make it less confusing to thereader (#647).f. Sources/Citations were included where requested (#1147).4. Data and Methodsa. We made it clear that parents were also interviewed for this study. Further, wemade it clear when d ata came from the parent’s survey versus the student’s (#1072).b. Text was added to more clearly describe the tests given to the students (#1147):The tests developed and administered with the NELS were similar to the tests given forthe National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Cognitive tests for theNELS are based on Item Response Theory (IRT), where the student's score is based onthe probability of getting all of the questions correct.c. Text was added to make it clear that the parental configurations were notmutually exclusive categories (#1147):The three types of single-parent households are NOT configured to be mutuallyexclusive (see below for an example), but were developed to reflect the types of single-parent families most prevalent among African American children.And later in that same discussion:Again, the configurations are not mutually exclusive, i.e. any student in a marriedfamily is also in a two-parent household.d. The definition of dummy variables was removed (#1147).5. Resultsa. We made it clear that multiple regression was used for analysis (#1072).b. Summary statistics are included (#1072) because if one wants to replicate ourwork, s/he will need that information. We did not discuss those results for we felt they were self-explanatory and we did not want to use precious manuscript space …especially given our additions with this revision.c. Tables have been reformatted to be consistent with the style manual of theAmerican Psychological Association (Editor; #1072).d. We removed references to “African American students” and used the term“students.” However, we did leave it once at the end for purposes of emphasis and clarity.e. Reviewer #1072 is concerned that each regression model is not discussed. Eachmodel and pertinent findings within them are indeed discussed. We feel that the awkward writing style (which has now been corrected), may have buried this and thus led the reader to think we were “misleading.”f. Reviewer #1027 is also concerned that interaction effects were not run. Footnoteb in Table 4 now reads:Interaction effects were run between all parental configurations and 8th SES. Becausenone were statistically significant, the results are not shown here.Other interaction effects were not run because it is the relationship between parental configuration and SES that is most central to the questions raised in this paper.6. Discussion/Conclusiona. Reference to “statistical analyses of data collected with q uestionnaires [being] alimitation only insofar as African American households are concerned” wasremoved (#1072).b. To justify our claim about the intersecting categories of race/class/gender(#1072), we included the following sentence:Drawing on the discussion of race in the literature review (see above) and the findingsof this study, we conclude that African American family structure is at its core innatelytied to changes in the economy and the simultaneously intersecting categories ofrace/class/gender.c. Large portions of the discussion section were rewritten to discuss and interpretour findings in the context of what is already known. We also include a discussion of what needs further study (#1072; implied by Editor and #1147).Sincerely,Prof. Juan Battlejbattle@(212) 817-8775。

精品文档List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds t o the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××......逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：We are v ery sorry for our negligence of ……...We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s su ggestionAs Reviewer suggested that……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer #2:同上述Reviewer #3:××××××Other changes:1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………”2. Line 107, “……” was added3. Line 129, “……” was deleted××××××We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions..。

Response LetterPaper number: NODY-D-15-00088Paper title: Event-Triggered Control for Multi-Agent Network with Limited Digital CommunicationAuthors:Dear Editor-in-chief, Associate Editor and Anonymous Reviewers,We would like to thank you for your efforts in reviewing our manuscript and providing many helpful comments and suggestions. Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments very carefully. Based on your criticisms, comments and suggestions, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The details are explained below, where the number of the response is in correspondence with the number of the reviewers’ comments and su ggestions.Reply to the Associate EditorAccording to the AE’s and reviewers’ criticisms, comments and suggestions, we have modified the manuscript carefully. The description of a substantial revision and the detailed points to the review reports can be seen in the following responses and in the new revision. Moreover, we have also checked other derivations throughout the paper and some necessary explanations are also included.We would like to thank the reviewer’s great efforts in reading our manuscript and for your constructive comments and suggestions. Our responses to the comments and suggestions are listed as follows:1. Consensus with communication constraints is indeed a quite interesting topic in field of multi-agent systems, the following work on consensus of second-order multi-agent systems may be briefly mentioned: Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control, 22(2):170-182, 2012.Reply:The relevant works of communication constraints in Int. J. Robust and Nonlinear Control is really worth mentioning, and this reference has been added in new revision.2. The communication topology is assumed to be undirected, whether it is possible to do some further work on directed or switching topologies. One more remark may be added to the manuscript to state this issue.Reply:This suggestion is very nice and reasonable. The directed and switching topologies cases will be our future works, and the remark has been provided in the future works part of conclusion.We would like to thank the reviewer ’s great efforts in reading our manuscript and for your constructive comments and suggestions. Our responses to the comments and suggestions are listed as follows:1. The proof of Theorem 1 is not clear. It didn’t show what is the convergence setvery important obviously. Reply: This suggestion is very helpful, and I have rewritten the Theorem 1. I’m sure the new version is much clearer than the old one.2. There are some errors in the proof of Theorem 1. For example,(i) How to determine l in the last line of formula (16). There is no any constraint for l.(ii) The same problem appeared in the last line and previous line of formula (18).Reply: I am very sorry for my carelessness. The last expression ˆ(t )l ll k xin formula (16) and (18) should be replaced by ˆ(t )i ii k x. Now the total four mistakes in formula (16) and (18) have been corrected in revised version. To avoid the similar mistakes, I have also checked the other derivations throughout the manuscript. Again thanks for your carefulness and tolerance.3. What is the function of parameter i σ in the event triggering condition (8). Which performance does it affect? How to choose this parameter according to the demands of performance? The analysis should be given.Reply: This suggestion is very reasonable. Actually, this parameter’s main function is to adjust the performance of event triggering mechanism. Each agent’s event frequency has a great relationship with the parameter i σ. The larger i σ, the eventtimes are less and the performance is better. To obtain the best performance, we σ=in revised version, i.e., we no longer define this parameter directly set 1iexplicitly in revised version.Reply to Referees #3We would like to thank the reviewer ’s great efforts in reading our manuscript and for your constructive comments and suggestions. Our responses to the comments and suggestions are listed as follows:1. The main advantage of this work should be further strengthened in Introduction. Reply: Sincerely thanks for your helpful suggestion. I have rewritten the contribution part in Introduction, and I’m sure the new version is much clearer than the old one.2. What are the novelty in the proposed scheme in this paper?Reply: There are four main novelties in this paper. First, we designed an integrated communication framework for digital multi-agent network, in which the event-triggered strategy and dynamic encode/decode scheme play an important role in communication process. Second, a distributed triggering condition that only depends on local state information of neighbor agents is developed and the corresponding consensus analysis is provided. Third, we gave the specific communication algorithm considering dynamic encode/decode scheme under event-triggered strategy, and we also proposed a self-adaptive quantization algorithm that builds a connection between quantization level and quantization factor. Last, we proposed an improved communication strategy named one-bit quantized scheme such that the global consensus can still be achieved based on only one bit information exchange between agents at each quantized transmission.3. In this Reviewer's opinion, in (6), \hat{e}_i(t) is infeasible since there is both $t$ and $t_k$. The authors should explain this point.Reply: Actually, it is feasible. Here we give the detailed explanation. Just like the statements before the Algorithm 1, we assume each agent i has a memory that canstore its own instant state ()i x t , state estimate ˆ()i xt , and its all neighbor stateestimates ˆ(),j i xt j N ∈. Furthermore, the initial states of all agents are given as ()1(0)(0),,(0)TN x x x =⋯, the all initial event time 0i t and all state estimates ˆ(0),i 1,,i x N = are initialized to 0. Then the Algorithm 1 can be carried out step by step. According to the Algorithm 1 and Remark 1, we can know that the work time of encoder/decoder is only the event time of relevant agents, once the event is triggered, then the corresponding measurement state estimate is updated and rewritten to thememory. As a result, the actuator i can directly obtain ()i x t and ˆ()ii i k x t from its memory to compute the measurement error ˆ()i et .4. The authors should check some typos.Reply: I have checked the manuscript again, and found there really exists some typos. Besides, I have also made some corrections based on my friends’ suggestions. Again thanks for your carefulness and tolerance.Finally, we would like to thank the referees again for the careful reading of our paper. In addition, we have revised the manuscript carefully and believe that the new version is much better than the old one. Hope the revised version is acceptable.Best wishes,Your name,May 28, 2015.。

Response to Reviewer #3:We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. Our response follows (the reviewer’s comments are in italics).General Comments. The paper ‘An overview of the MILAGRO 2006 campaign: Mexico City emissions and their transport and transformation’ by L.T. Molina, et al. is an overview of findings from the MILAGRO field campaign. However, it is not just a ‘paper about papers’ but also provides some further analysis and attempts to extract the most important results.It is very well written and is well balanced between the different topics, such as experimental design, emissions, photochemistry, radiation, and transport. It definitely deserves to be published and is a valuable contribution to the ACP journal.The only weakness of the paper is its length. It is true that some of the chapters can be regarded as stand-alone documents, and it is thus not necessary to read the whole paper. However, it is my belief that the main purpose of the paper (overview of the MILAGRO project, road map to its numerous publications, bringing across the main messages) could have been achieved on less pages, e.g. by omitting some details and rather refer the reader to one or more of the MILAGRO publications. It is difficult to point specifically to omittable sentences as they are rather spread throughout the paper, but I recommend making one more effort to shorten the paper at least somewhat, in order to make it more readily accessible.Reply:We appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer.With regards to the length of the article: as we noted in our response to Reviewers #1 and #2, it is not easy to shorten the article. We are trying to target both readers that are interested in the comprehensive study and readers that are only interested in subsections. The current form serve both of these needs and we are concerned that if we cut out the small overlaps in the introduction to each section as well as the technical material, then the subsections will not be readable to the reader who is only interested in one or a few sections. Therefore we would like to keep the manuscript largely in its current form. However, as suggested by the reviewer, we have reviewed carefully the entire manuscript and have removed redundancies, as shown in the revised manuscript.One more general remark: What about calling Section 12 ‘Summary and Conclusions’ and Section 13 ‘Future work’ in order to better reflect their content.Reply:As suggested by the reviewer, we have changed the title of Section 12 to “Summary and Conclusions” and Section 13 to “Future Research.”Minor comments:1) p.7823, lines 23-25: add already here how many partners, from which countries, duration and funding agenciesReply:As suggested by the reviewer, we have moved the information from last paragraph of page 7829 to page 7823.2) p.7824, line 23: facilitates -> facilitateReply:The correction has been made.3) p.7826, line 14: remove colon after ‘showing that’Reply: The correction has been made.4) p.7827, lines 17-25: don’t need to name here all conferences and media, can be shortened (while keeping the link to the website).Reply: We have shortened the paragraph, as suggested.5) p.7827, line 26 and onwards: this should be in the introduction.Reply: We have moved the paragraph to the Introduction.6) p.7829, line 24 and onwards: this is what I suggest to include in the introduction (see first minor comment above)Reply: We have moved the paragraph to the Introduction.7) p.7833, line 12: ‘and more’ -> ‘and a more’Reply: The correction has been made.8) p.7848, line 25: remove ‘is’Reply: The correction has been made.9) p.7850, line 13: ‘constrains’ -> ‘constraints’, line 19: comma around ‘respectively’Reply: The correction has been made.10) p.7853, lines 2 and 3: write ‘the UC Irvine group’ and ‘T0 and T1 sites’.Reply: The correction has been made.11) p.7854, line 11: ‘were’ -> ‘was’Reply: The correction has been made.12) p.7864, line 1: remove ‘reflects the partitioning between OH and HO2, and’Reply:The text has been revised as suggested:“The HO2/OH ratio can be used as a measure of the efficiency of radical propagation.”13) p.7865, line 12: you mean ‘early afternoon’? (as opposed to late afternoon which is VOC limited)Reply:The text has been revised as suggested:“An analysis of ratio of radical loss from the formation of nitric acid and organic nitrates to the total radical production for MCMA 2003 also suggests that ozone production is VOC-limited in the early morning and late afternoon, but becomes NOx-limited during the early afternoon [Mao et al., 2009].”14) p.7870, line 18: ‘composition’ -> ‘compositions’, and: PMcoarse is shown, not PM2.5 Reply:The text is indeed incorrect. The subject figure shows PM2.5 and PM Coarse and not PM2.5 andPM10 as indicated in the text. The sentence has been corrected to read:“The fractional compositions of PM2.5 and PM Coarse are illustrated in Fig. 12.15) p.7887, line 1: ‘leads’ -> ‘lead’Reply: The correction has been made.16) p.7888, line 2: move ‘were’ to after ‘aerosols’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.17) p.7890: The sentences in lines 12 and 18, referring to Hodzic et al., 2009, Mugica et al., 2009, and Christian et al., 2010, are very similar. Combine.Reply:As suggested by the reviewer, the second occurrence of these citations has been eliminated 18) p.7892, line 5: ‘Previous work’ refers to the past, and ‘will’ to the future. Rather write‘missed’, or, e.g., ‘the method used in previous work . . . did not detect’Reply: The suggested correction has been made. The sentence now reads:“Previous work using single wavelengths, particularly at wavelengths longer than 500 nm, did not detect these changes in absorption in the 300 to 500 nm range that are primarily due to oxidized organics (both aged primary and SOA coatings).”19) p.7903, line 23: move comma after ‘NO’ to after the parenthesis.Line 24: factor of 1.4 to 1.9?Reply:The suggested correction has been made. The sentence now reads:“These include slight overpredictions of CO and NO (<30% and <20%, respectively), and a probable underprediction of VOCs by a factor of 1.4 to 1.9 in the inventory.”20) Fig.3: ‘except MCM-2006’? So why is it included in the figure? Mention that the measurements were performed in the Mexico City basin, or refer to section 3.1 or Fig.4. Reply:The suggested correction has been made. The figure caption now reads:“MILAGRO Campaign: Geographic Coverage. Measurements were performed in the MCMA (see Fig. 4). The size of the circle (MAX-Mex, MIRAGE-Mex and INTEX-B) indicates the geographic coverage of the aircraft deployed.”21) Fig.5: ‘9 March’ -> ‘9 March 2006’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.22) Fig.6, NOx, don’t private cars include any Diesel vehicles?Reply:The private cars in Mexico are mostly gasoline-powered; there are very few diesel-powered private cars.23) Fig.7: ‘insert’ -> ‘inset’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.24) Fig.9: ‘at T0’ -> ‘at the supersites T0’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.25) Fig.10: ’19 March’ -> ’19 March 2006’ In the text replace ‘Fig.’ with ‘Figure’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.26) Fig. 11: I don’t see the ‘Modeling Domain’. Guess it’s the whole figure, so the red box in the legend can be omitted. Furthermore, the figure has rather poor print quality.Reply:As suggested by the reviewer, we have revised Figure 11. We have also added a panel showing the percentage change in Ox formation rate as a function of the indicator, ratio of H2O2 production rate to HNO3 production rate.27) Fig.13: ‘March 15’ -> ‘March 15, 2006’Reply: The suggested correction has been made.。

SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corre ctions in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewer’s comments:Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……)Response: ××××××。

逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：We are very sorry for our negligence of……...We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...It is really true as Reviewer suggested that……We have made correction according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion As Reviewer suggested that……Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have ……最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见：Special thanks to you for your good comments.Reviewer #2:同上述Reviewer #3:××××××Other changes:1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………”2. Line 107, “……” was added3. Line 129, “……” was deleted××××××We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions以下是审稿人意见和本人的回复。

Response to Reviewer 2 CommentsPoint 1: In the beginning of the paper it is mentioned that VSFs have high failure probability (e.g. lines 6, 49), but it is not specifically mentioned why is that until line 88, and I am not sure if this is the only explanation. I know that it is obvious to the authors and to some readers, but it would be good for the general clarity of the paper to shortly mention why.Response 1: Thank you for your careful review. NFV deploys VNFs on commodity (e.g., x86) servers, which improves the flexibility of resource allocation and enhances the scalability of networks. However, the vulnerability of VNF introduces significant challenges to the reliability of SFCs. The factors that lead to VNF failures are complex and diverse. For example, hardware failures associated with processor, memory, storage, and network interface, or software failures associated with host operating systems, hypervisor, virtual machines, and VNF software configuration will cause SFC failures. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 45-49, page 2).Point 2: For the same reasons please shortly define "end-to-end delay" (lines 10, 53, 63, etc)Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. As suggested by reviewer, we have added the suggested content to the manuscript(Lines 59-61, page 2). The end-to-end delay of an SSC defined in this paper includes the VSF processing delay on the substrate node and the transmission delay on the substrate link.Point 3: The use of english in the whole paper should be improved. Specifically. please clarify-modify: a) "we measure the importance of the physical nodes carrying the VSF instance and back up VSF according to it."b) "came into being"c) line 43 delete "and"?d) line 54 "loss" of what?e) "Its efficiency Depends on neighbor production and temperature management, etc."f) "Dedicated backup is to allocate dedicated physical resources for the VNF to be backed up,"g) "Then, link the backup node into the SSCs."Response 3: We apologize for the language problems in the original manuscript. The language presentation was improved with assistance from MDPI for English editing.a)“we measure the importance of the physical nodes carrying the VSF instance and back up VSF according to it.”-->“we measure the importance of the physical nodes carrying the VSF instance and backup VSF according to node importance of VSF.”b)"came into being"--> ”were created”1c) ”and there is very little work to embed security services ...”--> “and very little work is required to embed security services ... ”d) “It speeds up the security service response by reducing the end -to-end delay of SSC.”--> “This speeds up the security service response by reducing the end -to-end delay of the SSC.” e) “Its efficiency Depends on neighbor production and temperature management, etc.”--> “This efficiency of this method depends on neighbor production, temperature management, etc.” f) “Dedicated backup is to allocate dedicated physical resources for the VNF to be backed up,”--> “Dedicated backup is used to allocate dedicated physical resources for the VNF to be backed up,” g) “Then, link the backup node into the SSCs.”--> “Then, the backup node is linked to the SSCs.”Point 4: Throughout the paper the authors do not always insert a space after punctuation marks.Response 4: We apologize for the format problems in the original manuscript. We have examined it carefully and insert a space after each punctuation mark.Point 5: The notation is overall acceptable, but should be improved. E.g. section 2.2.1 what is "s" in G_s?, what is X in n_x?. In Table 1 and Eq. 1 please change "Delay" to a symbol. Also in Eq. 1 please change Maxobj to formal mathematical notation. The same in Eq. 3 (Minbackup - cost). Also consider changing ωSSC and MoN_fk.Response 5: We are extremely grateful to reviewer for pointing out this problem. In section 2.2.1, “s ” in G_s denotes substrate and “X ” in n_X denotes the total number of substrate nodes. In Table 1 and Eq. 1, we have changed “Delay ” to “D_sum ”. We also have changed Maxobj and Minback-cost to formal mathematical notation. As forSSC ω and c k f MoN , the notation c ω denotes the reliability requirement of c S so we use SSC ωdenotes the set of SSCs that do not meet reliability requirement. c kf MoN denotes the node importance of VSF c k f .Point 6: It would be good to provide some details about the procedure of VSF backup (section 3.3.2) and not just give the algorithm 3.Response 6: We deeply appreciate the reviewer ’s suggestion. According to the reviewer ’s comment, we have added more details about the procedure of VSF backup.Step1: calculate the reliability of all SSCs in the result set},...,,{21c O O O O =. If SSC c O does not meet reliability requirementc ω, we will put c O in set SSC ωand put all the VSF c kf that makes up SSC c O into set VSF ω.Step2: calculate the node importance of all VSFs in set VSF ω and backup VSF with the largest c kf MoN value.Step3: After backup VSF c k f , we recalculate the reliability of all SSCs in setVSF ω.If SSC c O meets reliability requirement c ω, we will delete the SSC c O and all the VSF that makes up SSC cO from set SSC ω and VSF ω rsespectively.Step4: judge whether set SSC ω an empty set. If ∅=SSC ω, return to step2, otherwise it means that the reliability of all SSCs is met and the algorithm ends.Point 7: I believe that the results and the graphs are adequately explained. However it would be good to include some details on the Reinforcement Learning algorithm: how much training time is required to achieve the performance that is presented at the results?Response 7: Thank you for your comment, and our reply is as follows:According to the method described in section 3.2.2, we initialize the model, and the parameter settings are shown in Table 2. After each 60 learning rounds of the agent, the greedy coefficient e decreases by 0.1. After 300 learning rounds, the agent will completely adopt the greedy strategy. The overall training process takes 38.49s, and the convergence process is shown in the figure4. In the figure, the horizontal axis represents the number of learning rounds of the agent, and the vertical axis represents the average time steps when each learning round reaches the minimum end-to-end delay of SSCs.。

英文文章回复审稿意见信AMR‐09‐0402.R2 Comments to editors and reviewersI have now received and considered the reviews of your revised manuscript submitted to Academy of Management Review “HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEMS AND HELPING IN ORGANIZATIONS: A RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE” (Manuscript AMR‐09‐0402.R1). All three of your reviewers agree that your manuscript has made good progress and you’ve made a good effort to respond to their earlier concerns. We all appreciate the clearer focus on the linkages between HR systems and helping and recognize the time and energies you put into this revision.Your reviewers also agree that at this stage, several issues remain. I share the opinion that your revised manuscript is much improved and that you undertook great effort to be responsive to the earlier feedback. And, while I agree there are still some issues to address, I believe these issues can be addressed with relatively moderate additional effort and thus, I am pleased to conditionally accept your manuscript for publication in AMR subject to the changes below. Congratulations! I will not be returning your revised manuscript to the reviewers, but instead will be ensuring the remaining changes are made on their behalf.In terms of the remaining changes I’d like you to make, it is important that you consider all the comments made by the reviewers but I would like to highlight the primary factors that I believe are necessary to move forward. I would like you to focus your energies on the points I note below.Dear Professor Lepak:Thank you for the positive feedback and conditionally accepting our paper. In this round of revision, we focused ourefforts strongly on the points made in your letter. Below, we grouped actions taken in response to your comments, organized under the major headings supplied. As before, we attempted to be succinct while fully explaining our actions.Although we replied directly to you and focused our explanations on points raised in your letter, we took seriously and addressed in some way each of the reviewer comments.Given your request for an August 1 deadline and your patience waiting for our firstrevision, we wanted to make every effort to return this revision as promptly as possible.Since your email inquiring about our returning the revision early, my colleagues’ and my schedules aligned such that we were able to make this revision our top priority. We have devoted most of our working (and nonworking) days to the revision. As a result, we are able to return the paper earlier than we estimated.Your and the reviewers’ comments have again stimulated changes we feel furtherimproved the paper. Should you find the paper requires further clarification or revision,we most certainly stand ready to do so.Best regards,Kevin MossholderPropositions. One of the more significant concerns that remain for the reviewers and myself relates to the propositions in your manuscript. For example, reviewer 1 (Comment 2) writes, “The way inwhich all the propositions are currently stated is clumsy, convoluted, and would benefit from simplification. In each case you might remove the intermediary climate information, as thisis contained in the preceding paragraphs. Please see the following examples: … P1a: In a compl iance HR system, helping behavior is motivated by self‐interest and instrumentality. (remove the “will lead to a market pricing climate in which”) … P2a: In a collaboration HR system, helping behavior is motivated by in‐kind reciprocity and maintained by b alanced exchanges (remove “will lead to an equality matching climate”) … P1e is incomplete. Constrained by what or to what?”Reviewer 3 (Comments 4‐6) raises similar concerns and writes, “The very first proposition regarding helping indicates that helping will be “constrained.” This is not testable as stated. Constrained relative to what? … All of the propositions regarding risk were worded in a way that I believe renders them impossible to test (1c, 2c, and 3c). I understand risk to be one of the dimensions of relational climate, so you cannot simply delete these propositions. Perhaps they could be reworded to indicate that perceived risk will be greater for X than for Y?... The causal model of hr systems ‐> relational climates ‐> helping is never presented, and the abstract even hints that you are not proposing mediation. I would think that at least partial mediation is expected here, and that logic should permeate the manuscript (abstract, introduction to big picture model, propositions, and perhaps even a figure). Is there a reason that you are shying away from proposing mediation?”I’m not exactly certain as to what the best course of action is and I do not want to impose specific wording on how you structure your propositions. Having said that, I think it is imperative that you do address these concerns regarding the structure of your propositions. I believe this is doable with some effort to get to the essence of each proposition and to presentclear and testable propositions.Following R1’s suggestion, we reworded the “a” through “d” propositions to eliminatethe phrase containing intermediary climate information. We think this refinementimproves their clarity. We also improved the wording of the “e” and “f” propositions as well.We also altered all “c” propositions (i.e., those dealing with risk) in response to R3’scomment 5. Whereas the previous wording of these propositions simply described risksassociated with helping in each climate, the revised wording indicates employees willperceive helping as risky to the extent certain conditions exist.As requested by R1 (comment 2) and R3 (comment 4), we reworded proposition 1e, tomake it consistent with propositions 2e and 3e. It now reads: “In a compliance HR system and market pricing climate, helping behavior will occur less frequently than incollaborative or commitment HR systems.” We believe this revision works because thecollaborative and commitment systems are now introduced in greater detail at an earlier point in the paper (see our response in the Structure section below).Finally, we agree with R3 (comment 6) that there is an undercurrent of mediation in thepaper. However, given that relational climate is a new construct and researchunderpinning relations between HR systems and helpingbehavior has been undertaken in earnest only recently (e.g., Chuang & Liao, 2010), we felt it premature to make causal relations among the constructs a focus of the paper. We emphasized developing atheoretical foundation that might stimulate researchers to investigate both the relationalclimate construct as well as relations among major components of the paper (i.e., HRsystems, relational climate, and helping behavior). Addressing mediational issues would require incorporating an additional layer into a crowded substantive landscape. Another reviewer (R2) stated the opinion (see Clarification and additional considerationsbelow) that we were “really trying to cover a lot of literatures and concepts (as I noted in the prior version of the manuscript).” Finally, R3 asked why we were shying away from mediational issues. In short, at this point in the research life cycle of the constructspresented, this was the more conservative and appropriate stance to take.Clarification and additional considerations. The reviewers pointed out several instances where some additional clarification would be very helpful for the reader. For example, reviewer 2 (Co mment 1) writes, “I believe the distinction between a “collaborative” system needs to be more clearly distinguished from collective system in the intro. In particular, if employees/org have “collective commitment” (p. 4) doesn’t this also suggest “collaboration” between them? The distinction becomes clearer later when discussing the climates and the specific systems, but I believe this distinctions needs to be made veryclear when first defining each HR system (p. 4).” This reviewer goes on to note (Comment 2), [“I found the discussion of the “dimensions” (now bottom of p.8/top of p. 9) a bit difficult to follow as you are really trying to cover a lot of literatures and concepts (as I noted in the prior version of the manuscript). Perhaps most importantly, this discussion seems more focused on emphasizing that it’s important to incorporate these constructs (and why), what “substantive areas “ were reviewed (is it really necessary to state the specific literature, e.g., “social capital… interpersonal helping”), and the “grounding principle” for inclusion. I would suggest it would be more valuable to focus on how these constructs link to your framework (i.e., the link between HR systems, climate, and helping).”] Reviewer 2 also raises several useful points about your discussion section. [In comment 6 s/he highlights a need for clarifying the relationship with flexibility. I agree with this reviewer that this focus in the discussion section does seem to be disconnected from the rest of the model. Moving forward, you need to be sure to somehow better incorporate this discussion with the major thrust of your contribution or more clearly articulate your arguments to address these concerns by reviewer 2.]Regarding R2’s comment 1 about distinguishing the collaborative and commitmentsystems in the introduction, we now explicitly highlight key differences between thesesystems when first presenting them on pp. 4-5. In particular, the characteristic mutuality and psychological links forged between the organization and employees in commitment systems create situations in which employees become focused on groups, teams, and the organization, thus blurring individualidentities in favor of collective identity. Incollaborative systems, employees maintain their own identities while working towardcommon goals, which when attained reward the parties involved. Although both systems entail degrees of interdependence, the ties in a commitment system are analogous to afamily or clan, whereas those in a collaborative system are analogous to a partnership or alliance.We believe the general changes made in the introductory part of the paper also aid infurther clarifying differences between commitment and collaborative systems.Specifically, we moved forward to pp. 4-5 the broad descriptions of the three archetypal HR systems, which in the first revision had been located at the beginning of therespectively headed sections—Compliance HR Systems: Effecting Helping ThroughA Market Pricing Climate, Collaborative HR Systems: Effecting Helping ThroughAn Equality Matching Climate,and Commitment HR Systems: Effecting HelpingThrough A Communal Sharing Climate.(See also responses about moving thesedescriptions in the Structure section below.)We were a little puzzled by R2’s comment 2 ab out focusing on how the relational climate dimensions link to the proposed framework. Describing why and from where thedimensions were derived demonstrates linkages between them and the core substance of relational climate. R3 (comment2) had noted that our initial introduction of thedimensions got lost in excess verbiage added during the first revision. We worked tostreamline this section in the current revision (bottom p. 8-top p. 9). Specifically, wedeleted three unnecessary sentences (including the one containing “grounding principle”), and now cite no more than two references for each substantive area reviewed. With due respect to R2, we feel it is important to let readers (especially ones not familiar withrelational constructs) know the underpinnings of relational climate.We also rearranged the flow of material as requested by R3 (comment 2) to make therelational dimensions more visible. They now are listed and numbered in the first fullparagraph, top p. 9. By sharpening the focus of the entire section labeled “RelationalClimates: Schema and Dimensions” (beginning at bottom p.6) and the key paragraphwhere the relational climate dimensions are introduced (top p. 9), we hope to havesufficiently addressed R2’s (and R3’s) concerns.In regard to the organizational flexibility material (R2, comment 6), we view one of thepaper’s contributions as highlighting helping behavior’s connection with organizationalflexibility. Perhaps more importantly, we suggest that certain HR systems (and associated climates) promote helping appropriate for meeting more circumscribed or moreexpansive flexibility needs. We had added extra material on flexibility in the first revision in responding to reviewer comments. In hindsight, this gave organizational flexibilitymore emphasis in the paper than we really intended. Therefore, in response to your andreviewer requests, we have pared back the amount of material devoted to flexibility (from two paragraphs to one, pp. 23-24) and linked it more clearly with helping behavior. We believe this reduction is consistent with its respective importance in the paper.In a small point, R2 (comment 2) also asked if “factors” or “elements” could be used todescribe relational climate components rather than “dimensions.” We had used the term “dimensions” as the descriptor for the climate components because we felt it was the more frequently used term in the climate literature. To double-check this, we examinedtwo recent organizational climate reviews by leading scholars (James et al., 2008;Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2011) and other climate articles we referenced in thepaper. From this examination, we determined that “dimensions” is the most commonlabel, and therefore prefer to retain “dimensions” in describing components of relational climate.Reviewer 3 suggests that you consider several additional points for your discussion section. Specifically, in comment 8 s/he writes, “There are two interesting issues raised by reviewers (one mine, one from another reviewer) that I think could be mentioned as future research. The first is negativeeffects of competitive HR practices on helping; that is, HR practices that stimulatecounter‐productive work behaviors. The second is reverse causality, where certain relational climates alter the HR systems adopted, or at least how they are enacted/interpreted by certain managers.”We addressed R3’s comment 8 by including material concerning both topics s/he raised.Keeping length considerations in mind, we first deleted material pertaining to HRresearch design issues that we had inserted during the first revision. (This deletionaddresses R3’s comment 7 question about an HR design/measurement issue, as theunclear material is no longer in the paper.) The deleted material was located immediately afte r the “Implications and Future Research” heading (p. 24). Because HR research design and measurement issues have been more fully addressed in the broader HRliterature (e.g., Gerhart, Wright, McMahan, & Snell, 2000), we felt it better to considerfuture research issues more directly connected with the focus of our paper.Next, we inserted material concerning the idea of reverse causality where we discussbottom up influences on helping (p. 28). Relying on structuration theory (Giddens, 1984), we suggest how emergent social interactions conceivably could influence managers to adjust HR practices. Although there is little empirical evidence suggesting relationalclimates and helping could influence an entire HR system, there is evidence that (a)patterns of helping affect certain HR practices and (b) informal social processes caninfluence which HR practices an organization adopts. To balance the added length to the paragraph in which bottom up influences are discussed, we added two more sentences (and accompanying references) to the top down paragraph preceding the bottom upparagraph (p. 27).Regarding the counterproductive work behavior issue, we agree with R3 that outcome-and efficiency-oriented HR practices might decrease the likelihood of helping behavior.We noted this issue is particularly salient in compliance HR systems, which are morelikely to use practices such as individual incentives and lead to more constrained helping exchanges than are found in the other two HR systems. To address R3’s concern, we discuss that when practices constrain employee helping behavior, employees maywithhold help or in extreme cases engage in counterproductive behavior. We have added this material to the paragraph in which we mention helping obstacles and toxic managers (pp. 26-27).From my own reading of your manuscript, I would like to make a minor suggestion and encourage you to simply refer to “hr systems’ rather than ‘strategic HR systems’. I think they convey the same thing and the reality is that any HR system could be used in a strategic manner. The key point that you areemphasizing is that you are focusing on the system.Throughout the paper, we now refer to the three systems as “HR systems” only.Structure. Reviewer 3 raised several points regarding the structure of your paper. For example, in comment 1, this reviewer writes, “I’d prefer to see the definition of helping (along with some illustrations to make the definition more concrete and compelling) in the introduction.] Then, in the HR systems section, I’d like to learn more detail about the three archetypes. This wouldmean shifting Table 2 to become Table 1, and walking the reader through at least some of Table 1 at this juncture. I think the reason to do this is simple – not every reader will understand the archetypes as described. You will want to offer an explanation of each grounded in the details of how employment relationship and employment mode play out with specific HR practices. This will help an AMR reader who is not a specialist in SHRM. [Please note that I am not asking for a complete revision of structure here, I am suggesting shifting some material around to be more consistent with the structure you are now using.” I am not suggesting that you must conform with this recommendation but I do agree with this reviewer that there are some parts of your paper in which some earlier definitions could help the reader. I agree that it would be helpful to make sure that constructs are defined before you make reference to them.Following the recommendation of R3 (comment 1), we moved the definition of helpingto the introduction of the paper (p. 2). We appreciate this suggestion and believe thedefinition fits better in its new location. We did not addspecific examples, feeling theycould fixate readers on the illustrations as opposed to the entire gamut of helpingbehaviors possible in organizations. Additionally, this change addresses R3’s (comment1) concern regarding the heading “Human Resource Systems and Relational Climates” onp. 3. Because the definition of helping is no longer in this section, the heading nowaccurately represents the content of the text that follows it.We also appreciate R3’s recommendation to provide more description of the threearchetypal HR systems in the “Human Resource Systems and Relational Climates”section. To implement this suggestion, we moved forward (to pp. 4-5) the broaddescriptions of the HR systems that had been located at the beginning of the respectively headed sections—Compliance HR Systems: Effecting Helping Through A MarketPricing Climate, Collaborative HR Systems: Effecting Helping Through AnEquality Matching Climate,and Commitment HR Systems: Effecting HelpingThrough A Communal Sharing Climate.For readers less familiar with the SHRMliterature, these descriptions should provide an initial understanding of the conceptualobjectives underlying each system, and foreshadow how the employment relationship,employment mode, and specific practices might beconfigured in operationalizing thesystems.Please note that we left explicit discussion of each HR system’s employment relationship and mode in their original locations in the paper, however. Our thinking is that discussion of employment relationship and mode should immediately precede the motivation andsustenance propositions for each HR system/relational climate section, because these HR system components are most directly relevant to relational climates. Further, were we to move detailed descriptions of employee relationship and mode to earlier in the paper, itmight overwhelm the general links between HR systems, climates, and helpingoverviewed at that point in the paper.Finally, we also note that at R2’s urging in the first round of revision, we had switchedthe order of the tables so that relational climate dimensions were contained in Table 1 and the HR systems and practices contained in Table 2. We had also revised the textaccordingly. Switching the tables again would require major adjustments in the body ofthe paper. For these reasons, we would prefer retaining the content of Tables 1 and 2 ascurrently set.Editing. I would like to also request a good amount of effort in this final revision to focus on editing. Your paper is relatively long (probably because we asked you to do so much!), and now we need to pare it back. I’m not suggesting a hard page number to cut but I do believe with some careful editing you couldprobably reduce 4‐5 pages of text by sharpening and tightening your message. Some specific suggestions to consider are:a) Tighten the discussion. I realize that I have asked you to add to the discussion section. And, I realize that the discussion section is much improved over the first submission. However, what is currently there could be edited and more precise. Some of the points are speculative and might be reduced in length or eliminated.b) General Editing. Within the body there are some areas in which transitions between sections are excessive. At other points, you note what you are about to discuss, then you state it, and then you state what you did state. This can be reduced. As noted by reviewer 1 (Comment 1), “The paper contains a fair bit of repetition. In some instances this is called for; in others, it is overkill. Please go through the paper to reduce the repetition.” Revi ewer 2 (Comment 7) adds, “…throughout the paper, I believe the writing could be made more direct and less complicated.”In thoroughly addressing concerns raised in the first review, our wording in the priorrevision became pedestrian and repetitious in some places. We took several steps torectify this situation.First as you requested, we tightened the discussion. In particular, we reduced the material on flexibility and the section entitled “Implications and Future Research.” Please note that in reducing the latter, we also addressed R2’s (comment 7) specific concern that this section was repetitive. Additional information about the changes made to the discussion can be found above in our responses to you regardingR3’s comment 8 and R2’scomment 6.Second, we attempted to carefully edit the paper to eliminate repetition and increaseclarity. In addition to general editing, we explicitly addressed each of the specific editing, wording, and repetition points raised by the reviewers. For example, a concern noted by you and all three reviewers was that our transitional paragraphs (i.e., those that introducea section and provide an overview of what we do in it) were repetitive. We agree withthis assessment, but believe such paragraphs serve a useful purpose in guiding the reader through the paper. Examining other AMR papers, we noticed that most used suchtransitional paragraphs for the same purpose. Thus, our approach was to substantiallyreduce the material in each of these transition paragraphs (in most instances by 50% ormore), but not eliminate them. This was accomplished primarily by deleting sentenceswhere we reiterated previously stated ideas using different wording (e.g., as noted by R2, comment 7).Additionally, moving part of the archetype descriptions forward to pp. 4-5 (R3, comment1) allowed us to reduce the introductions of each archetype section (R3, comment 3). Inthe process, we further streamlined the initial and subsequent archetype descriptions. Finally, we also specifically reworded or deleted each of the sentences or sections noted by R2 in his/her comments 5 and 7, and carefully proofed thereferences as requested by R1 in his/her comment 3. Overall, we reduced the paper by approximately 5 pages.Finally, only two reviewer comments were not explicitly noted in your above comments. These were R2’s comment 3 objecting to referring to Lepak and Snell (1999) as recent, and comment 4 requesting we use “collaborative HR system” rather than “collaboration HR system.” T o satisfy R2’s comment 3, we deleted the word “recent.” To satisfy R2’s comment 4, we use “collaborative” to describe that HR system throughout the paper.References not included in the paperGerhart, B., Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & Snell, S. A. 2000. Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size estimates? Personnel Psychology, 53: 803-834.James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C-H. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., & Kim, K. 2008. Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17: 5-32. Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. 2011. Perspectives on organizational climate and culture. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 1: 373-414. Washington: American Psychological Association.。