review 1

Review of units 1-63a, 3bConversation 1Doctor：Hello, Tina! How are you?你好，蒂娜！你怎么了？Tina：I feel terrible, doctor!医生，我不太舒服。

Doctor：What’s the matter? Do you have a cold?怎么了？你感冒了？Tina：No, I don’t have a cold, but I have a really bad headache.不，我没感冒，但是头真的很疼。

Doctor：I see. How about your throat? Does it feel sore?我知道了。

嗓子怎么样？疼吗？Tina：No, it doesn’t. But my back and neck are sore.没有，但是背和脖子酸疼。

Doctor：Do you have a stomachache?胃疼吗？Tina：No, my stomach’s okay. But I don’t feel hungry.不，胃没事，但是我感觉不到饿。

Doctor：Well, I think you’re stressed out. You should go home and relax.我想你是压力太大了。

你应该回家休息一下。

Conversation 2Phil：Can you come to my party tomorrow, Ed?埃德，你明天能来我的派对吗？Ed：Yes, I can. Thanks! How do I get to your house?可以。

谢谢邀请！我怎么去你家？Phil：That’s easy. First you take the number 52 bus to Green Park. That’s about half an hour.简单，你先坐52路公交到格林公园，大概半小时。

文章review回来意见篇一：1.审稿意见分类a.分类式回复：如果意见很多，可以试着将它们进行分类，例如将方法相关的意见分在一起、语言相关的一组等等，如果将意见进行分组，记得在信里提及“I have separated my responses to the reviewers’ comments according to several categories in order to achieve an integrated approach in my responses.”。

b.点列式回复:如果评审员的意见是长长的段落，可以将意见分离成点各别回应，如果不确定某项意见的意思，可以先解释自己对该意见的理解，然后再进行回复。

2.与审稿意见的分歧处理同行评审的老师通常是领域内的专家，如果作者认为审稿人误解了论文里的任何段落，有时候很有可能是因为表达不够清楚。

这种情况下，可以礼貌性的指出误解然后提供必要的说明。

可以这么写“I am sorry that this part was not clear in the original manuscript.I should have explained that (……详细说明). I have revised the contents of this part”。

3.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 corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the response to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:Response 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 corrections according to the Reviewer’s comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestionAs 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 them in red in the 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.实例修稿意见：Reviewers' comments:Reviewer #3: While revising the script, it is to be suggested that author should clearly indicate the aim & scope of the study and while making conclusion, it is to be mentioned how the study is useful for the practical purposes. In addition the following are the few suggestions/comments, which may be included while revision.1. Introduction part first para last line, author must avoid to write ambiguous statement i.e., much work is still ahead, may indicate properly.2. Author could not demonstrate the reason why, to select the organic compound such as ethyl pyruvate for this study?3. Experimental part: It is difficult to understand the in-situ RAIRS experiments with homemade liquid-solid RAIRS cell. More detailed information may be useful for the others those who are working in the area. Photograph of the assembled cell may be included.4. The description given for the experimental set up (page4) can be presented by flow diagram instead, as an ease to understand the set up.5. Resluts Part (Page 6): "CO adlayers with identical monolayer coverages", the monolayer coverage, is it been performed with some adsorption model? Further, it was suggested that CO-saturated Pt surface, but not mentioned about the saturation experiments. Is it obtained after 60 min of CO bubbling?6. Page 12, 2nd para: The displacement of EtPy by CCl4 flushing, is it confirmed by the EtPy peaks? If so, it has to be mentioned clearly in the para. Also in the same para, author referred for Fig. 7a and 7b but in the figures, it didn't appear, only figure 7 appeared. I feel it refers for figure 7, portion A and B, to be corrected. Similarly, in the text referred the fig 2a, 2b. etc but on the figure sheet it is mentioned as 2A, 2B .etc. to be corrected.7. Page 14, 1st para: 'contamination of the Pt surface by corrosion of o-rings in high concentration EtPy', but the statement has not been supported by other evidence/literature.8. Pages 14 through 17: the observed reactivity of various solvents for adsorbed CO on the Pt surface (figs 3 & 4) has to be discussed more precisely. This reviewer is unable to followthe reason why they showed different reactivity, is it principally due to the organic moieties, or due to the impurities of commercially available chemicals or a mixed effect. It has to be clearly demonstrated, however, the only experiment performed with CO/water? CCl4 would difficult to describe it in detail.9. The author try to restrain with repeated arguments in the text e.g., page 3 para 1: It was generalized that.......篇二科研论文投稿到期刊以后，都要经历一个同行评审（peer review）的过程。