《SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全.doc（11页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全修改稿回答審稿人意見（最重要部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿號). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the
2、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 reviewers comments are as flowing:Responds to the
3、reviewers comments:Reviewer #1: 1. Response to comment: (簡要列出意見)Response: 2. Response to comment: (簡要列出意見)Response: 。逐條意見回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏針對不同問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用：We are very sorry for our negligence of .We are very sorry for our incorrect writing .It is really true as Reviewer suggested thatWe have made cor
4、rection according to the Reviewers comments.We have re-written this part according to the Reviewers suggestionAs Reviewer suggested thatConsidering the Reviewers suggestion, we have 最後特意感謝一下這個審稿人意見：Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2: 同上述Reviewer #3: Other changes: 1. Line 60-6
5、1, 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 mar
6、ked 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以下是審稿人意見和本人回複。與大家分享。從中可以看出，這位審稿人認真讀了文章，提出很多寶貴意見。這些意見分布在文章各個地方。我很詫異有人真正讀了我文章。看到這些意見，我覺得很感激，不是因為接收文
7、章原因，而是這些意見能真正有助於提高文章質量。從中還看出，回答審稿人問題“技巧”。對於回答問題，有人就是一味反駁，卻不加改進。記得ACS Style Guide裏面說，當審稿人問到問題，哪怕是他理解錯誤，這也說明作者這麼寫，其他讀者也會理解錯誤，引起歧義。因此，作者就是要修改句子，使表達不引起歧義。因此：有時間一味反駁，還不如指出具體改進在第幾頁、第幾段。=Reviewers comments:Reviewer #3: While revising the script, it is to be suggested that author should clearly indicate the
8、 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 ambi
9、guous 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 RAI
10、RS 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
11、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, 2
12、nd 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 didnt appear, only figure 7 appeared. I feel it refers for figure 7, portion A an
13、d 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 oth
14、er 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 moieti
15、es, 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 cri
