拒绝审稿人要求模板

拒绝审稿人要求 篇一:SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板 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 Responses Dear 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: ×××××× 1 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 “…………” 2. Line 107, “……” wa(来自:WWw.xlTkwj.com 小龙文 档网:拒绝审稿人要求模板)s added 3. 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。与大家分享。 从中可以看出，这位审稿人认真读了文章，提出很多宝 贵的意见。这些意见 分布在文章的各个地方。我很诧异有 人真正读了我的文章。看到这些意见， 我觉得很感激，不 是因为接收文章的原因，而是这些意见能真正有助于提高 文章的质量。 从中还看出，回答审稿人问题的“技巧”。 3 对于回答问题，有的人就是一味反驳，却不加改进。 记得ACS Style Guide里面说，当审稿人问到问题的，哪 怕是他理解错误，这 也说明作者这么写，其他读者也会理解错误，引起歧义。 因此，作者就是要 修改句子，使达不引起歧义。 因此:有时间一味反驳，还不如指出具体改进在第几页、 第几段。 ============================================ 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 4 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 (page 4) 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 5 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 follow the 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........., also appeared on page 21 first para. 10. Captions of the figures are too long, the detailed description already given in the text, hence would not be included here. Captions should be short and crispy. ============================================= == 6 Dear Editor, I quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the reviewer’s insightful comments. Now I have revised the JCIS-06-247 exactly according to the reviewer’s comments, and found these comments are very helpful. I hope this revision can make my paper more acceptable. The revisions were addressed point by point below. [general] The objective of this research was added at the beginning of the third paragraph of Introduction. How the study is useful for practical purposes was added at the end of Conclusion as one paragraph. [1] Ambiguous statement i.e., “much work is still ahead” was deleted. 篇二:审稿意见模板 论文审稿Ms. Ref. No.: JSV-D-06-01203 Title: Fault diagnosis research based on time-frequency analysis method in rotor systems Journal of Sound and Vibration Dear student ××××, We have now received comments on your manuscript from the reviewers (reports included below). Please revise your manuscript according to the referee's suggestions 7 and detail all the changes which you have made. I hope you will be prepared to undertake this, and I will then be pleased to reconsider the manuscript for publication. Please note that due to the extensive revisions necessay on your manuscript, it will need to be sent out for re-review. If you do decide to revise the paper, we need to receive your new manuscript within the next six months. You are asked to submit the following items along with the manuscript: (1) A point-by-point reply that we can send to each reviewer; (2) A separate list of the revisions made to the manuscript. It is important that you address all the issues raised by the referees, either by revision or reasoned rebuttal, before we make a decision on publication. When submitting your revised manuscript, please ensure that you upload the source files (e.g. Word). Uploading only a PDF file at this stage will create delays should your manuscript be finally accepted for publication. If your revised submission does not include the source files, we will contact you to request them. To submit a revision, please go to and login as an Author. 8 Your username is: ******** Your password is: ************** On your Main Menu page is a folder entitled Submissions Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there. Yours sincerely, Richard Berryman Editorial Office (Australasia) Journal of Sound and Vibration Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1: Comments on JSV-D-06-01203 Title: Fault diagnosis research based on time-frequency method in rotor systems By: ××, ××and ×××××× _______________________________________ The paper presents an application of reassigned wavelet scalogram for rotor system fault diagnosis. It is a topic of interest to the researchers in the related areas but the paper needs very significant improvement before acceptance for publication. My detailed comments are as follows: 1. The wavelet method (reassigned wavelet scalogram) used in the paper works very well for the underlying fault 9 diagnosis problem. On the other hand, this wavelet method is a well-established method, and the present research is a direct application of this method without new contribution in methodological research. 2. For the above reason, the presentation should be focused on the results. Unfortunately, the presentation is far from acceptable for publication. The material was not properly organized and it is strongly suggested that the authors check carefully the English writing and use standard terminologies in the technical area. 3. The title of the paper should be more specific since numerous studies have been done on the fault diagnosis of rotor systems using wavelets and time-frequency methods. Also, remove the word research. 4. On Section 1: ? This section listed many references that are mainly related to rotor dynamics and are not directly related to rotor system diagnosis. If the authors would like to keep these references, some discussions on the relevance of these refs to the present research are needed. ? Review on the directly relevant refs will be more helpful 10 for the reader. Also, time-frequency and wavelets are mainly for non-stationary and transient analysis. The author may discuss in more detail what types of transients and non-stationary components would appear in rotor system vibration. ? A few sentences on the organization of the paper will be helpful. 5. On Section 2: ? Since the major method used in the application is reassigned wavelet scalogram, it is not needed to give the details of three other methods (only give a few words and give the refs). Instead, the authors may discuss more on the relationship between traditional wavelet scalogram and the reassigned wavelet scalogram, and explain why the latter is better than the former. ? Eq (2): the right-hand-side is wrong and 2 is missed. ? The description after Eq (2) is not clear. See Cohen's book for details about the cross-terms. 6. On Sections 3 and 4: The description needs to be improved. The material in Section 3 should be organized in several paragraphs. 7. On Section 5: 11 ? The authors did a good experiment and some of the phenomena presented in the time-frequency planes are also very interesting. However, the observations should be described concisely, and the authors should focus more on: 1) whether these phenomena are general characteristics, and 2) if possible, explain the reason of the phenomena and the advantages of reassigned wavelet scalogram over other time-frequency methods. ? In fact, it is possible to interpret most of the phenomena in the time-frequency planes using rotor dynamics. For example, shaft rub causes broadband vibration and will result in nearly horizontal lines in the phase planes. ? Some of the paragraphs are too long. 8. The conclusion should be concise and only summarize the most important contribution of the research. Reviewer #2: This paper presents the results of time-frequency analysis applied to a table top rotating machinery test rig under a set of fault conditions. The title of the paper is very misleading because no automated methods for either fault detection or diagnosis/isolation are discussed in the paper. 12 Rather, under different fault scenarios, several time-frequency methods available in the literature are evaluated for their ability to generate visually discriminating features associated with the fault conditions. Hence, this paper provides a characterization of time-frequency features associated with rotating machinery faults as opposed to the development of any type of fault diagnosis methodology. Hence, the paper must be judged solely on the quality of the experimentation, the presentation of the results, and how the time-frequency features identified in the various fault cases relates to the dynamical operating conditions of the rig. The main problem with the paper is that it is very poorly written, and this makes the evaluation and interpretation of the main contributions of the paper obscure. The paper requires a complete rewrite to improve the grammar, style and readability. Also consider: In equation (1) on page 2, what does it mean that h(t) is centered at t=0 and f=0? h(t) is a windowing function in the time domain! What is the point of the simulation experiments, what do they add to what is already known about the time-frequency 13 techniques from the literature? Since the only contribution of the paper is the time-frequency analysis, the results of these computations need to be explained in detail in the text and the graphical results need to be properly annotated so that readers can comprehend and understand which distinguishing features are associated with the faults. Currently, the graphical results are poorly displayed and it is difficult to correlate the figures with the text.以下是从一个朋友转载来的，关于英文 投稿过程中编辑给出的意见。与大家一起分享。 以下12点无轻重主次之分。每一点内容由总结性标题和 代表性审稿人意见构成。 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 me thods used in the study. 14 ? Furthermore, an explanation of why the authors did these various experiments should be provided. 3、对于研究的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 show if 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 problem 8、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: 15 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 16 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 are pro blems with sentence structure, verb tense, and clause construction. ? The English of your manuscript must be improved before resubmission. We str ongly suggest that you obtain assistance from a colleague who is well-versed i n English or whose native language is English. ? Please have someone competent in the English language and the subject matte r 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 be en edited because the subject is interesting. 17 ? There is continued interest in your manuscript titled …… which you subm itted to the Journal of Biomedical Materials Research: Part B - Applied Biomat erials. ? The Submission has been greatly improved and is worthy of publication. 篇三:SCI审稿意见回复模板 List of Responses Dear 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……) 18 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: 19 1. Line 60-61, the statements of “……” were corrected as “…………” 2. Line 107, “……” was added 3. 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. 相关热词搜索:审稿人 拒绝 模板 审稿人意见模板 推荐 审稿人模板 20