SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板模板意见范文SCI回答审稿人.doc

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 ourmanuscript entitled “paper title” id: 文章稿号. those comments are all valuableand very helpful for revising and improving our paper as well as the importantguiding significance to our researches. we have studied comments carefully and havemade correction which we hope meet with approval. revised portion are marked inred in the paper. the main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewerscomments are as flowing: responds to the reviewers 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 reviewers comments. we have re-written this part according to the reviewers suggestion as reviewer suggested that considering the reviewers 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 added 3. line 129 “” was deleted we tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in themanuscript. these changes will not influence the content and framework of thepaper. 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 thecorrection 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”。 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，使表达不引起歧义。 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 shouldclearly indicate the aim scope of the study and while making conclusion it is to bementioned how the study is useful for the practical purposes. in addition the followingare the few suggestions/comments which may be included while revision. 1. introduction part first para last line author must avoid to write ambiguousstatement i.e. much work is still ahead may indicate properly. 2. author could not demonstrate the reason why to select the organic compoundsuch as ethyl pyruvate for this study 3. experimental part: it is difficult to understand the in-situ rairs experimentswith homemade liquid-solid rairs cell. more detailed information may be useful forthe others those who are working in the area. photograph of the assembled cell maybe included. 4. the description given for the experimental set up page 4 can be presented byflow diagram instead as an ease to understand the set up. 5. resluts part page 6: co adlayers with identical monolayer coverages themonolayer coverage is it been performed with some adsorption model further itwas suggested that co-saturated pt surface but not mentioned about the saturationexperiments. is it obtained after 60 min of co bubbling 6. page 12 2nd para: the displacement of etpy by ccl4 flushing is it confirmedby the etpy peaks if so it has to be mentioned clearly in the para. also in the samepara author referred for fig. 7a and 7b but in the figures it didnt appear only figure7 appeared. i feel it refers for figure 7 portion a and b to be corrected. similarly inthe text referred the fig 2a 2b. etc but on the figure sheet it is mentioned as 2a2b .etc. to be corrected. 7. page 14 1st para: contamination of the pt surface by corrosion of o-rings inhigh concentration etpy but the statement has not been supported by otherevidence/literature. 8. pages 14 through 17: the observed reactivity of various solvents for adsorbedco on the pt surface figs 3 4 has to be discussed more precisely. this reviewer isunable to follow the reason why they showed different reactivity is it principally dueto the organic moieties or due to the impurities of commercially available chemicalsor a mixed effect. it has to be clearly demonstrated however the only experimentperformed 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 para1: it was generalized that. also appeared on page 21 first para. 10. captions of the figures are too long the detailed description already given inthe text hence would not be included here. captions should be short and crispy. dear editor i quite appreciate your favorite consideration and the reviewers insightfulcomments. now i have revised the jcis-06-247 exactly according to the reviewerscomments and found these comments are very helpful. i hope this revision can makemy paper more acceptable. the revisions were addressed point by point below. general the objective of this research was added at the beginning of the thirdparagraph of introduction. how the study is useful for practical purposes was added atthe end of conclusion as one paragraph. 1 ambiguous statement i.e. “much work is still ahead” was deleted. 2 ethyl pyruvate was used here as a typical compound containing twocarbonyl groups to demonstrate the feasibility of using our diagnosing tool to detectlow-coverage co coming from decarbonylation of etpy at the liquid-solid interface.etpy is a reactant used in liquid-phase chiral catalysis and slight decomposition ofetpy to adsorbed co was reported to influence the catalytic performance. in additionby studying that we can directly compare our results with previous studies. moredetails in the first paragraph of section 3.2. 3 the ir cell was designed according to the ir cells used by manyelectrochemical workers. references were added. a photo was given in thesupporting information. 4 a flow diagram of the experimental setup was given in the new fig. 1. 5 the co adsorption experiments were performed in the same adsorption modeby bubbling co through a clean pt surface in different days to achieve the samesaturation coverage of co. initial experiments indicated that given the co bubblingrate was 0.85 cm3/min co can saturate on pt after 30-45 min. we bubble co for 60min to guarantee the same co coverage. if we bubble co for more time or if weincrease the co flowing rate several times the co saturation coverage doesntchange indicating 60 min is already enough. a figure showing the co uptake as afunction of bubbling time was given in the supporting information. 6 the displacement of etpy by ccl4 was confirmed by the removing of etpypeaks. the mention of fig. 7a and 7b etc. throughout the text were all corrected. 7 it is known that some solvents such as acetone can corrode the viton o-ring.we saw the damage of o-ring after using high-concentration etpy. a reference to theviton o-ring information was given. 8 the observed reactivity trend is due to a combination of both effects with theaccumulation of organic moieties on pt surface during numerous flushing cycles themore important reason. a few proper sentences were added to clarity this point. 9 the repeated arguments in the first paragraph in section 4.3 were deleted. 10 the too-long captions were significantly shortened. in all i found the reviewers comments are quite helpful and i revised my paperpoint-by-point. thank you and the review again for your help 结果：/10.1016/j.jcis.2006.09.005欢迎浏览： organic chemistry on solid surfaces review z. ma f. zaera surface scence reports 61 2006 229-281. sciencedirect top25 hottest articles in chemistry /10.1016/j.surfrep.2006.03.001 ci 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 ourmanuscript entitled “paper title” id: 文章稿号. those comments are all valuableand very helpful for revising and improving our paper as well as the importantguiding significance to our researches. we have studied comments carefully and havemade correction which we hope meet with approval. revised portion are marked inred in the paper. the main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewerscomments are as flowing: responds to the reviewers 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 a