(完整word版)一些英文审稿意见及回复的模板

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]。

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 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 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 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.。

回复审稿人意见模板sci编辑同学，我已经仔细阅读了您提交的审稿意见，并根据您的建议进行了相应的修改。

以下是我对每一条审稿意见的回复和相应的修改情况。

意见一：在文章的引言部分，需要更清晰地阐述研究的目的和意义。

回复：非常感谢您的指导意见。

在经过修改后，我在引言部分进一步明确了本研究的目的和意义，以便读者更好地理解研究的背景和重要性。

意见二：方法部分应该更详细地描述实验设计和数据处理。

回复：非常感谢您的建议。

我已经对方法部分进行了进一步的修改，增加了关于实验设计和数据处理的详细描述，以确保读者能够更好地理解研究的过程和数据的处理方法。

意见三：结果部分应提供更多的统计分析和图表，以更好地支持研究结果的可靠性。

回复：感谢您对结果部分的关注。

根据您的建议，我已经增加了更多的统计分析和图表，以更全面地展示研究结果的可靠性。

意见四：在讨论部分，需要进一步解释和解读研究结果，并与现有的文献进行比较和讨论。

回复：非常感谢您的指导意见。

我已经对讨论部分进行了修改，进一步解释和解读了研究结果，并与现有的文献进行了比较和讨论，以提供更深入的分析和解释。

意见五：在结论部分，需要对研究的局限性进行说明。

回复：感谢您对结论部分的指导。

在经过修改后，我已经在结论部分对研究的局限性进行了明确的说明，以确保读者了解到我们研究的限制和潜在的改进方向。

针对您给出的审稿意见，我认真对待并进行了相应的修改，以确保文章更加完善和准确。

再次感谢您花费时间仔细审阅我的稿件，并给予宝贵的指导意见。

我非常感激您对这项研究的关注和支持。

祝好，[您的名字]。

Dear Editors and Reviewers,Thank you for your letter and comments on our manuscript titled “Temporal variability in soil moisture after thinning in semi—arid Picea crassifolia plantations in northwestern China” (FORECO_2017_459)。

These comments helped us improve our manuscript, and provided important guidance for future research。

We have addressed the editor’s and the reviewers’comments to the best of our abilities, and revised text to meet the Forest Ecology and Management style requirements。

We hope this meets your requirements for a publication.We marked the revised portions in red and highlighted them yellow in the manuscript。

The main comments and our specific responses are detailed below:Editor：Please explain how the results in this paper are significantly different from those in Zhu, X., He， Z。

B。

sci审稿人回复模板尊敬的作者，感谢您将您的研究成果提交到我们的期刊。

我们认真评审了您的论文，并收到了两位匿名审稿人的审稿意见。

根据审稿人的意见，我们对您的论文做出了如下的回复和修改建议。

审稿人1认为您的研究具有一定的创新性和重要性，但同时也提出了一些需要改进的方面。

首先，审稿人1认为您的理论基础不够扎实，建议您在文献综述部分增加一些相关研究的引用，并进一步探讨和分析这些研究的结果。

此外，审稿人1还建议您在方法部分更加详细地描述您的实验设计，以便其他研究人员可以重复您的实验并验证您的结果。

最后，审稿人1提出了一些对实验结果的质疑，并认为您的数据分析方法可以进一步改进，以提高结果的可靠性和可重复性。

审稿人2对您的研究方法和结果表示了肯定，但也提出了一些需要改进的意见。

首先，审稿人2认为您的论文在讨论和结论部分的解释和推论过于主观，建议您进一步分析和解释实验结果，以便读者能够更好地理解您的研究成果。

此外，审稿人2还指出您的论文在语言表达和逻辑结构上存在一些问题，建议您重新组织论文结构，并在写作上进行一些修正和改进。

基于以上审稿人的意见，我们建议您对您的论文进行如下的修改和完善：1. 在文献综述部分增加一些相关研究的引用，并进一步讨论和分析这些研究的结果，以加强您的理论基础和研究创新性的论述。

2. 在方法部分更加详细地描述您的实验设计，包括实验步骤、材料和设备的详细信息，以便其他研究人员可以重复您的实验并验证您的结果。

3. 对于审稿人1对实验结果的质疑，您可以重新进行数据分析，采用更加可靠和精确的方法，以提高结果的可信度和可重复性。

4. 在讨论和结论部分，您可以进一步分析和解释实验结果，阐述您的研究成果对该领域的贡献，以及未来的研究方向和潜在的应用价值。

5. 在论文的写作上，您需要重新组织论文结构，提高语言表达的准确性和逻辑结构的清晰性。

您可以寻求专业的语言编辑服务来帮助您修正和改进论文的写作。

希望以上修改建议对您有所帮助。

1、目标和结果不清晰。

It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。

◆In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study.◆Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experimentsshould be provided.3、对于研究设计的rationale:Also, there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design.4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated. For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。

6、对某个概念或工具使用的rationale/定义概念：What was the rationale for the film/SBF volume ratio?7、对研究问题的定义：Try to set the problem discussed in this paper in more clear,write one section to define the problem8、如何凸现原创性以及如何充分地写literature review:The topic is novel but the application proposed is not so novel.9、对claim,如A＞B的证明，verification:There is no experimental comparison of the algorithm with previously known work, so it is impossible to judge whether the algorithm is an improvement on previous work.10、严谨度问题：MNQ is easier than the primitive PNQS, how to prove that.11、格式（重视程度）：◆In addition, the list of references is not in our style. It is close but not completely correct. I have attached a pdf file with "Instructions for Authors" which shows examples.◆Before submitting a revision be sure that your material is properly prepared and formatted. If you are unsure, please consult the formatting nstructions to authors that are given under the "Instructions and Forms" button in he upper right-hand corner of the screen.12、语言问题（出现最多的问题）：有关语言的审稿人意见：◆It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar, spelling, and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader.◆The authors must have their work reviewed by a proper translation/reviewing service before submission; only then can a proper review be performed. Most sentences contain grammatical and/or spelling mistakes or are not complete sentences.◆As presented, the writing is not acceptable for the journal. There areproblems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction.◆The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We strongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed in English or whose native language is English.◆Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matter of your paper go over the paper and correct it. ?◆the quality of English needs improving.来自编辑的鼓励：Encouragement from reviewers:◆I would be very glad to re-review the paper in greater depth once it has been edited because the subject is interesting.◆There is continued interest in your manuscript titled "……" which you submitted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - AppliedBiomaterials.◆The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication.•The paper is very annoying to read as it is riddled with grammatical errors and poorly constructed sentences. Furthermore, the novelty and motivation of the work is not well justified. Also, the experimental study is shallow. In fact, I cant figure out the legends as it is too small! How does your effort compares with state-of-the-art?•The experiment is the major problem in the paper. Not only the dataset is not published, but also the description is very rough. It is impossible to replicate the experiment and verify the claim of the author. Furthermore, almost no discussion for the experimental result is given. E.g. why the author would obtain this result? Which component is the most important? Any further improvement?•the author should concentrated on the new algorithm with your idea and explained its advantages clearly with a most simple words.•it is good concept, but need to polish layout, language.•The authors did a good job in motivating the problem studied in theintroduction. The mathematic explanation of the proposed solutions is also nice. Furthermore, the paper is accompanied by an adequate set of experiments for evaluating the effectiveness of the solutions the authors propose.•Apparently，Obviously ,Innovation ,refine ,In my humble opinion 如果仍然有需要修改的小毛病，一般你可以用you paper has been conditionally accepted. Please revise .....according to review comments.如果是接受，你可以用We are very pleased to inform you that your paper "xxxxx" has been accepted by [journal name]. Please prepare your paper by journal template...............At a first glance, this short manuscript seems an interesting piece of work, reporting on ×××. Fine, good quality, but all this has been done and published, and nearly become a well-known phenomenon. Therefore, there is insufficient novelty or significance to meet publication criteria. Also, I did not see any expermental evidence how the ** is related with **, except for the hand-waving qualitative discussion. Therefore, I cannot support its publication in JPD in its present form. It should be rejected.建议去小木虫问问，那里有一些资源。

Responses-to-comments-(英文期刊-审稿意见回复)Dear Editor-in-Chief in XXXXXXX:Thank you very much for your help in processing the review of our manuscript (Manuscript ID XXXXX). We have carefully read the thoughtful comments from you and reviewers and found that these suggestions are helpful for us to improve our manuscript. On the basis of the enlightening questions and helpful advices, we have now completed the revision of our manuscript. The itemized responses to the reviewers’ comments are listed in the su cceeding sheets. We hope that all these corrections and revisions would be satisfactory. Thanks a lot, again.1.Title: XXX2.Manuscript type: Article3.Corresponding author: XXX4.Full author names: XXXSincerely,Prof. XXXSchool of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,XX Key Laboratory of Controllable ChemistryReaction & Material Chemical Engineering,XX University,Wuhan, Hubei, 430072 , P R China.2015-03-05Responses to comments of EditorThank you for your serious and constructive comments on our manuscript. According to your suggestion, the manuscript has been revised as a letter to editor. The revisions we have made are as follows:➢ 1 Subtitles "5. Conclusions", "6. Acknowledgments", and "7. References" should be revised into "4. Conclusions", "Acknowledgments", and "References", respectively.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.The relevant subtitles have been revised in the revision.➢2 In the section of the References, title of cited paper should be removed, and in ref.35 the superfluous comma should be deleted.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.All the titles have been removed as you required and the superfluous comma in ref.35 has also been deleted.➢ 3 Numerous relevant papers have been published in recent years especially in 2014 and 2015. Some key, important or/and latest research results in this field, should be mentioned and cited in the section of introduction instead of outdated or earlier papers so that we can provide a solid background and progress to the readers regarding the current state-of-knowledge on this topic. Therefore, I strongly require you to rewrite this part and then update your citations.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.We have rewritten the section of introduction and updated corresponding citations as you required. In detail, some recent and excellent researches have been cited in the revision to replace those ofearlier papers which are no longer novel.➢4 Any changes or revisions in the text should be highlighted by different color in the revised manuscript compared with that of the previous version.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.All the changes and revisions have been highlighted by cyan.We have revised our manuscript againWe have made further modifications on the manuscript, especially the introduction section. The latest revisions are highlighted by green, while previous changes are highlighted by cyan.To be specific: a) Some adjustments about sentence structures have been made to increase the diversity of expression.b) The second example about N-doped carbon materials is relatively early research result published in 2009. Thus we have replaced it with a lasted and outstanding paper.c) The unique effects of S-doping have been expounded in the revision to correspond to the effects of N-doping introduced above.d) In addition to rewriting the part of introduction as you required, we have also polished and revised the chapters of experimental, results and discussion, conclusions and updated the section of references.The initial examples about N-S-codoped carbon materials (references16 and 17) are earlier results published in 2012 and 2013. Thus we have replaced them with some lasted and outstanding papers.。

一些英文审稿意见的模板最近在审一篇英文稿，第一次做这个工作，还有点不知如何表达。

幸亏遇上我的处女审稿，我想不会枪毙它的，给他一个major revision后接收吧。

呵呵网上找来一些零碎的资料参考参考。

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1、目标和结果不清晰。

It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar， spelling，and sentence structure so that the goals and results of the study are clear to the reader。

2、未解释研究方法或解释不充分。

In general, there is a lack of explanation of replicates and statistical methods used in the study。

Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided。

3、对于研究设计的rationale：Also， there are few explanations of the rationale for the study design。

4、夸张地陈述结论/夸大成果/不严谨：The conclusions are overstated。

For example, the study did not showif the side effects from initial copper burst can be avoid with the polymer formulation.5、对hypothesis的清晰界定：A hypothesis needs to be presented。

回复审稿意见,模板篇一：SCI 审稿意见回复范文论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B （一种病毒）所投杂志：Life Sciences投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表编辑信内容（注：有删节）：Dear Mr. XXX,Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below.If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures.A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission.You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file in the Attach Files area.We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript.To submit a revision, go to and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.Yours sincerely,Joseph J. Bahl, PhDEditorLife SciencesFormat Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check the format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style.Reviewers' comments:Reviewer #1:XXXXX （略）Reviewer #2:XXXXX （略）Editors note and suggestions: （注：编辑的建议）Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English>>>Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the antiviral effects of A against virus B.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.A, an alkaloid isolated from C (注：一种中草药), was tested for antiviral activity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays along with serum pharmacological experiments showed A to have potent antiviral activity. The pharmacokinetic profile of A in Sprague/Dawley rat plasma after oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to study potential changes in antiviral pharmacodynamics as measured by infectivity of viruses. From the similarity of theserum concentration profiles and antiviral activity profiles it is concluded that A it self, rather than a metabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1st paragraph >>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the plant, its structural formula is shown in Fig 1. ... While it produced a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggest a potential use in the treatment of viral myocarditis against virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and animals.>>>The authors should check the entire manuscriptfor spelling errors (example given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloid)>>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., XX)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., XX)>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex question of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future research aim in the discussion section.>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend thewording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.>>>>> reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE.Remember most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Because I think that you can deal with all of the points raised I am hoping to see a revised manuscript that you have carefully checked for errors. If you have questions or do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please contact me at bahl@ Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences作者回复信原稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,I’m （注：正式信函不要简写）very appreciate （注：不适合作为给编辑回信的开始，同时有语法错误）for your comments and suggestions.I （注：实际上是学生做的）have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments again （注：要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作）. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic slices （注：用词错误）were calculated（注：用词不当）. Production of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-γand TNF-αwere （注：语法错误）measured by RT-PCR.I have revised this manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comments and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE. Title of manuscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth.Answers to Reviewers’ questions were as follows: （注：可附在给编辑的回复信后）Reviewer #1:XXXXXReviewer #2:XXXXXEditors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth（注：多处语法错误）.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.Answer: I have revise the abstract carefully to make it more smooth and informative（注：语法错误）.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Answer: I have paid attention to this question and it is clearer （注：不具体）. Introduction:some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I have revise the whole paper to make sentences less passive and obtained help of my colleague proficient in English （注：语法错误，句子不通顺）.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: I’m very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spelling errors （注：不必道歉，按建议修改即可）. I have carefully corrected them.The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in theguideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., XX) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., XX)Answer: I changed the style of references.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.Answer: （注：作者请编辑公司帮回答）reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardiac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those misspelling and confusing statements （注：一般不是延误或人为失误，不必轻易道歉，按建议修改即可）. Your comments and suggestions really helpedme a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can be satisfactory.If there’s （注：正式信函不要简写）any information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to contact me.Thank you again for your time and patience. Look forward to hear （注：语法错误）from you.Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)建议修改稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,Thanks you very much for your comments and suggestions.As suggested, we have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. Mortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.We have revised the manuscript, according to thecomments and suggestions of reviewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the comments as listed below. Since the paper has been revised significantly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlight the amendments in the revised manuscript （正常情况最好表明修改处）.The revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by a medical editing company in Hong Kong.I would like to re-submit this revised manuscript to Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal.Looking forward to hearing from you soon.With kindest regards,Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)Replies to Reviewers and EditorFirst of all, we thank both reviewers and editor for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions.Replies to Reviewer #1:Xxxxx （略）Replies to Reviewer #2:Xxxxx （略）Replies to the Editors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contmeporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine against Coxsackievirus B3 and its pharmacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.篇二：教你审稿意见回复信怎么写教你审稿意见回复信怎么写来源：医学论文——达晋医学编译达晋医学编译小编知道大多数的稿件在被期刊接受前需要经历至少一次修稿，作者在收到大修或小修的决定后，必须根据审稿意见修改论文，然后将修改稿重新递交给期刊，同时附上逐点回复，在返还修改稿的时候，还需要递交cover letter，这封信通常称为 response letter(回复信)或 rebuttal letter(反驳信)。

回复sci审稿意见模板
在回复SCI审稿意见时，以下是一个模板，可以帮助您组织和回应审稿人的意见：
回复审稿意见模板
标题: 对审稿意见的回应
引言:
简要感谢审稿人提供的宝贵意见，并表达对审稿人付出的时间和努力的感激之情。

审稿意见概述:
简要总结审稿人的主要意见和建议。

回应审稿意见:
1. 审稿意见1:
* 描述审稿人的意见。

* 回应和解释您的观点、改进或调整。

* 提供证据或数据支持您的回应（如果适用）。

2. 审稿意见2:
* 描述审稿人的意见。

* 回应和解释您的观点、改进或调整。

* 针对审稿人的建议，说明您如何修改或完善相关内容。

3. 审稿意见3:
* (依此类推，回应所有审稿人的意见)
结论:
感谢审稿人的意见和建议对提升稿件质量的重要贡献。

总结您的回应，并强调您如何根据审稿人的意见改进和完善了稿件。

如果还有其他遗留问题或需要进一步讨论的内容，请在此处进行说明。

致谢:
再次表达对审稿人工作的感谢，并感谢编辑部给予的机会和考虑。

请注意，以上模板是一个基本的指导，您可以根据具体情况进行适当的调整和修改。

回应审稿人时，保持礼貌、尊重和专业的态度非常重
要。

确保充分理解并认真对待审稿人的意见，提供清晰、有逻辑和准确的回应。

mdpi回复审稿人模板尊敬的审稿人：非常感谢您对我们论文的审稿工作，并提供了宝贵的意见和建议。

根据您的要求，我们特别为您准备了回复审稿人的模板，以便更好地回应您的意见。

首先，我们对您的审稿意见表示衷心的感谢。

您的建议对我们的研究工作具有重要的指导意义。

在此，我们将逐一回复您提出的问题和建议。

1. 关于问题一：您提到我们在方法部分的描述不够清晰。

我们对此深表歉意，并已对论文进行了修改。

我们重新组织了方法部分的内容，以更加清晰和详细的方式描述我们所采用的方法。

我们相信这样的修改能够更好地展示我们的研究方法。

2. 关于问题二：您对我们的实验结果提出了一些疑问。

我们非常感谢您的关注，并已仔细检查了我们的实验数据和结果。

经过进一步的分析，我们发现在实验过程中确实存在一些误差。

我们已经对实验进行了重新验证，并对结果进行了修正。

现在，我们的实验结果更加准确和可靠。

3. 关于问题三：您对我们的讨论部分提出了一些建议。

我们非常感谢您的建议，并已对讨论部分进行了修改。

我们重新组织了讨论的结构，并加入了更多的分析和解释，以更好地回答研究问题。

我们相信这样的修改能够使我们的讨论更加深入和有说服力。

4. 关于问题四：您对我们的引用格式提出了一些要求。

我们非常重视您的意见，并已对引用格式进行了仔细检查和修改。

我们确保所有的引用都符合学术规范，并在文中提供了正确的引用信息。

我们对此前的疏忽表示歉意，并感谢您的指正。

最后，再次感谢您对我们论文的审稿工作，并提供了宝贵的意见和建议。

我们非常重视您的意见，并已根据您的建议对论文进行了修改。

我们相信这样的修改能够使我们的论文更加完善和优秀。

如果您还有其他问题或建议，我们将非常乐意听取并进行相应的修改。

再次感谢您的辛勤工作和宝贵意见！祝好！作者。

审稿意见回复信英文模板和语料总结[Your Name][Your Address][City, State, ZIP Code][Email Address][Phone Number][Date][Reviewer's Name][Journal Name][Journal Address][City, State, ZIP Code]Dear [Reviewer's Name],2. Abstract: Thank you for pointing out the need to providea brief summary of the main findings in the abstract. I have revised the abstract accordingly, ensuring that it concisely summarizes the key results and implications of the study.4. Methodology: I appreciate your suggestion of including more details on the specific methods and protocols used in the study. In response to this suggestion, I have added a subsection in the methodology section that provides a detailed descriptionof the materials, procedures, and statistical analyses employed in the research.5. Results and Discussion: I am grateful for your constructive feedback on the organization and interpretation of the results. I have carefully restructured the results and discussion sections to ensure a logical flow and to present the findings in a more coherent manner. Additionally, I have revised the discussion section to provide a more in-depth analysis and interpretation of the results, addressing the limitations and potential areas for future research.6. Conclusion: Thank you for pointing out the need for a more concise and focused conclusion. I have revised the conclusion section accordingly, summarizing the main findings and their implications succinctly.7. Language and Style: I appreciate your input regarding the clarity and language usage in the manuscript. I have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript, addressing grammar and sentence structure issues, and ensuring that the writing style is concise and coherent.Once again, I would like to thank you for your valuable feedback, which has significantly contributed to enhancing the quality of my research. I am confident that the revisions I have made have addressed the concerns raised in your reviewadequately. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further clarifications or have additional suggestions.Sincerely,。

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 our efforts 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 this is contained in the preceding paragraphs. Please see the following examples: … P1a: In a compliance 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 balanced 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 present clear 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 helping behavior has been undertaken in earnest only recently (e.g., Chuang & Liao, 2010), we felt it premature to make causalrelations 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 (Comment 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 very clear 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 individual identities 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 about 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 (comment 2) 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 duerespect 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. Webelieve 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 themore 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 after the “Implications and Future Research” heading (p. 24). Because HR researchdesign 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 toadjust 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, wediscuss 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 are emphasizing 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 add specific 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 be configured 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 could probably 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.” Reviewer 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 notethat 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 regarding R3’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 the references 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.” To 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.。

sci审稿意见模板尊敬的审稿专家：首先，我要感谢您抽出宝贵的时间对我的论文进行审阅，并提出宝贵的意见和建议。

在您的指导下，我对自己的研究工作有了更清晰的认识，也更加明确了未来的改进方向。

在此，我将针对您提出的审稿意见逐一进行回复和说明。

1. 对研究方法的建议。

您提出了对我的研究方法进行进一步的论证和解释的建议，我深表赞同。

在我的研究中，我确实可能存在了一些理论假设和方法选择上的盲点，这也导致了一些研究结论的不够准确和可信。

在接下来的工作中，我会对研究方法进行进一步的完善和论证，确保研究的可靠性和科学性。

2. 对数据分析的建议。

您对我的数据分析部分提出了一些宝贵的建议，我会认真考虑并采纳。

在我的研究中，可能存在了一些数据处理上的不足和不够严谨的地方，导致了一些数据分析结果的不够可信。

在今后的工作中，我会对数据分析部分进行重新检查和修正，确保研究结论的准确性和可信度。

3. 对结论和讨论部分的建议。

您对我的结论和讨论部分提出了一些深刻的见解和建议，我会认真思考并加以改进。

在我的研究中，可能存在了一些结论和讨论上的不够充分和深入的地方，导致了一些研究结论的不够严谨和可信。

在今后的工作中，我会对结论和讨论部分进行重新梳理和完善，确保研究结论的科学性和可信度。

总而言之，您的审稿意见对我的研究工作有着非常重要的指导意义，我会认真对待并加以改进。

在今后的工作中，我会对您提出的意见进行认真的分析和思考，并加以改进和完善。

再次感谢您对我的研究工作所给予的宝贵意见和建议，希望在不久的将来能够得到您的再次审阅和指导。

谢谢！此致。

敬礼。

一、最初投稿Cover letterDear Editors：We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”，which we wish to be considered for publication in “Journal Name”。

No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript，and manuscript is approved by all authors for publication. I would like to declare on behalf of my co—authors that the work described was original research that has not been published previously, and not under consideration for publication elsewhere，in whole or in part。

All the authors listed have approved the manuscript that is enclosed.In this work, we evaluated …… （简要介绍一下论文的创新性）。

I hope this paper is suitable for “Journal Name".The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration：1) Name A E—mail: ××××＠××××2) Name B E—mail: ××××@××××We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments from the reviewers. If you have any queries，please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below.Thank you and best regards.Yours sincerely,××××××Corresponding author:Name: ×××E—mail: ××××@××××二、催稿信Dear Prof. ×××:Sorry for disturbing you。

审稿人意见及回复,模板篇一：SCI 审稿意见回复范文论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B （一种病毒）所投杂志：Life Sciences投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表编辑信内容（注：有删节）：Dear Mr. XXX,Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below.If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures.A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission.You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file in the Attach Files area.We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript.To submit a revision, go to and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.Yours sincerely,Joseph J. Bahl, PhDEditorLife SciencesFormat Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check the format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style.Reviewers' comments:Reviewer #1:XXXXX （略）Reviewer #2:XXXXX （略）Editors note and suggestions: （注：编辑的建议）Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English>>>Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the antiviral effects of A against virus B.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.A, an alkaloid isolated from C (注：一种中草药), was tested for antiviral activity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays along with serum pharmacological experiments showed A to have potent antiviral activity. The pharmacokinetic profile of A in Sprague/Dawley rat plasma after oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to study potential changes in antiviral pharmacodynamics as measured by infectivity of viruses. From the similarity of theserum concentration profiles and antiviral activity profiles it is concluded that A it self, rather than a metabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1st paragraph >>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the plant, its structural formula is shown in Fig 1. ... While it produced a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggest a potential use in the treatment of viral myocarditis against virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and animals.>>>The authors should check the entire manuscriptfor spelling errors (example given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloid)>>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., XX)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., XX)>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex question of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future research aim in the discussion section.>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend thewording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.>>>>> reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE.Remember most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Because I think that you can deal with all of the points raised I am hoping to see a revised manuscript that you have carefully checked for errors. If you have questions or do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please contact me at bahl@ Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences作者回复信原稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,I’m （注：正式信函不要简写）very appreciate （注：不适合作为给编辑回信的开始，同时有语法错误）for your comments and suggestions.I （注：实际上是学生做的）have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments again （注：要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作）. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic slices （注：用词错误）were calculated（注：用词不当）. Production of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-γand TNF-αwere （注：语法错误）measured by RT-PCR.I have revised this manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comments and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE. Title of manuscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth.Answers to Reviewers’ questions were as follows: （注：可附在给编辑的回复信后）Reviewer #1:XXXXXReviewer #2:XXXXXEditors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth（注：多处语法错误）.Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.Answer: I have revise the abstract carefully to make it more smooth and informative（注：语法错误）.The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.Answer: I have paid attention to this question and it is clearer （注：不具体）. Introduction:some sentences can be made less passive.Answer: I have revise the whole paper to make sentences less passive and obtained help of my colleague proficient in English （注：语法错误，句子不通顺）.The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errorsAnswer: I’m very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spelling errors （注：不必道歉，按建议修改即可）. I have carefully corrected them.The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in theguideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., XX) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., XX)Answer: I changed the style of references.Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.Answer: （注：作者请编辑公司帮回答）reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardiac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those misspelling and confusing statements （注：一般不是延误或人为失误，不必轻易道歉，按建议修改即可）. Your comments and suggestions really helpedme a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can be satisfactory.If there’s （注：正式信函不要简写）any information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to contact me.Thank you again for your time and patience. Look forward to hear （注：语法错误）from you.Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)建议修改稿：Dear Dr. Bahl,Thanks you very much for your comments and suggestions.As suggested, we have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. Mortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.We have revised the manuscript, according to thecomments and suggestions of reviewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the comments as listed below. Since the paper has been revised significantly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlight the amendments in the revised manuscript （正常情况最好表明修改处）.The revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by a medical editing company in Hong Kong.I would like to re-submit this revised manuscript to Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal.Looking forward to hearing from you soon.With kindest regards,Yours SincerelyXxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)Replies to Reviewers and EditorFirst of all, we thank both reviewers and editor for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions.Replies to Reviewer #1:Xxxxx （略）Replies to Reviewer #2:Xxxxx （略）Replies to the Editors note and suggestions:Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contmeporary EnglishAnswer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Sophoridine against Coxsackievirus B3 and its pharmacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.篇二：教你审稿意见回复信怎么写教你审稿意见回复信怎么写来源：医学论文——达晋医学编译达晋医学编译小编知道大多数的稿件在被期刊接受前需要经历至少一次修稿，作者在收到大修或小修的决定后，必须根据审稿意见修改论文，然后将修改稿重新递交给期刊，同时附上逐点回复，在返还修改稿的时候，还需要递交cover letter，这封信通常称为 response letter(回复信)或 rebuttal letter(反驳信)。

Dear Editor-in-Chief in XXXXXXX:Thank you very much for your help in processing the review of our manuscript (Manuscript ID XXXXX). We have carefully read the thoughtful comments from you and reviewers and found that these suggestions are helpful for us to improve our manuscript. On the basis of the enlightening questions and helpful advices, we have now completed the revision of our manuscript. The itemized responses to the reviewers’ comments are listed in the succeeding sheets. We hope that all these corrections and revisions would be satisfactory. Thanks a lot, again.1.Title: XXX2.Manuscript type: Article3.Corresponding author: XXX4.Full author names:XXXSincerely,Prof. XXXSchool of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering,XX Key Laboratory of Controllable ChemistryReaction & Material Chemical Engineering,XX University,Wuhan, Hubei, 430072 , P R China.2015-03-05Responses to comments of EditorThank you for your serious and constructive comments on our manuscript. According to your suggestion, the manuscript has been revised as a letter to editor. The revisions we have made are as follows:➢ 1 Subtitles "5. Conclusions", "6. Acknowledgments", and "7. References" should be revised into "4. Conclusions", "Acknowledgments", and "References", respectively.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.The relevant subtitles have been revised in the revision.➢ 2 In the section of the References, title of cited paper should be removed, and in ref.35 the superfluous comma should be deleted. Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.All the titles have been removed as you required and the superfluous comma in ref.35 has also been deleted.➢ 3 Numerous relevant papers have been published in recent years especially in 2014 and 2015. Some key, important or/and latest research results in this field, should be mentioned and cited in the section of introduction instead of outdated or earlier papers so that we can provide a solid background and progress to the readers regarding the current state-of-knowledge on this topic. Therefore, I strongly require you to rewrite this part and then update your citations.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.We have rewritten the section of introduction and updated corresponding citations as you required. In detail, some recent and excellent researches have been cited in the revision to replace those of earlier papers which are no longernovel.➢ 4 Any changes or revisions in the text should be highlighted by different color in the revised manuscript compared with that of the previous version.Reply:Thank you for your constructive and helpful suggestion.All the changes and revisions have been highlighted by cyan.We have revised our manuscript againWe have made further modifications on the manuscript, especially the introduction section. The latest revisions are highlighted by green, while previous changes are highlighted by cyan.To be specific: a) Some adjustments about sentence structures have been made to increase the diversity of expression.b) The second example about N-doped carbon materials is relatively early research result published in 2009. Thus we have replaced it with a lasted and outstanding paper.c) The unique effects of S-doping have been expounded in the revision to correspond to the effects of N-doping introduced above.d) In addition to rewriting the part of introduction as you required, we have also polished and revised the chapters of experimental, results and discussion, conclusions and updated the section of references.The initial examples about N-S-codoped carbon materials (references16 and 17) are earlier results published in 2012 and 2013. Thus we have replaced them with some lasted and outstanding papers.。