科学网

 找回密码
  注册

tag 标签: 回复审稿意见

相关帖子

版块 作者 回复/查看 最后发表

没有相关内容

相关日志

回复“大修意见”(Major Revision)的模板
lanhan8103 2019-11-30 03:11
模板1:精简版本 下面这个是小编自己以前写的一个模板,拿出来分享给大家。 Dear Editor XX and Reviewers, Thanks very much for taking your time to review this manuscript. I really appreciate all your comments and suggestions! Please find my itemized responses in below and my revisions/corrections in the re-submitted files. (这一段基本上是套话) Thanks again! 下面就开始回复文章的审稿意见了,一般首先是回复期刊编辑的整体意见: SUGGESTIONS FROM EDITOR(注意这一段要把编辑原始的建议粘贴在这里,不能只有回应) Your response to the general comments from the editor 接下来是逐条回应审稿人的建议: COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR: Reviewer #1: Response to the questions one by one Reviewer #2: Response to the questions one by one 模板2: 完整版本 这个模板是我在网上找到的,经发布者授权,转载到这里。这个模板保留了很多逐条回答审稿人的常用短语和句式,值得收藏和学习! Dear Editor, Dear reviewers Thank you for your letter dated February 22. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in Journal, subject to adequate revision. We thank the reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Accordingly, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all the changes highlighted by using the track changes mode in MS Word. Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red). We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript. We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in the Journal of Mountain Science. Sincerely, XXXXXXX (同样是套话,这个模板写了这么长。。。虽然小编不是很喜欢,但是适合拿来逐句学习,为己所用) Reviewer 1: Comments to the Author 这个审稿人的意见分为两部分: 第一部分是一般性的评论和修改建议(多为比较大的问题)。 Here are the general comments from the reviewer... We thank the reviewer for the very interesting comment. In fact… Regarding the suggestion about the methods, we changed this part… Another issue on the methodological section is that... We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clear and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we have added a brief description as follows: “ 接下来是第二部分“小的建议”,也就是需要逐条回复的那种,一般是用词用句的修改。 Minor comments: The title is too long, I suggest shortening. Modified throughout the text according to the comment (Line 20, page 1). Thank you for the title suggested. The precedent version of the title has been replaced, becoming... Line 25, page 1… Modified throughout the text according to the comment (Line 20, page 1). Line 18, page 2… We have modified the sentence according to the previous comment (Line 30, page 2). Line 33, page 3… Thank you for underlining this deficiency. This section was revised and modified according to the information showed in the work suggested by the reviewer (Line 41, page 3). Line 59, page 5… This phrase was modified according to the comment (Line 30, page 5). Lines 9-24, page 6… Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 6-28, page 6). Line 11, page 6… This sentence was rephrased according to the comment (Line 8, page 6). Line 35, page 13: “exit section”-”outlet” (please check also throughout the text, e.g. at line 54, page 13) We have modified this expression throughout the text according to the comment.
个人分类: 论文写作|21116 次阅读|0 个评论
致作者——如何回复审稿人的意见?
热度 4 WileyChina 2016-7-8 14:23
当一篇稿件投向一本同行评审的期刊时,如果没有被直接拒稿,那么作者会收到修改稿件再重新提交的要求。作者们很可能需要付出额外的精力或工作去应对这些修改意见。总的来说,那些已多次发表文章、有经验的作者和缺乏经验的作者相比,能够更好地应对这些问题。 然而,每位作者都应该尽量采纳审稿人提出的修改意见,并将其视为提升自我的机会。 我的同事在收到审稿意见后通常会问我,他们是应该修改并重新提交还是将原稿转投其他期刊。这时候,我总会建议他们修改并重新提交。原因很简单,因为稿子没有被拒,而且还获得了免费的建议,要做的仅仅是进一步修改。 修改程度 一些期刊仍在使用“大修”和“小修”的方式提出修改意见,但有些期刊只要求“进行修改”。然而,定义大修和小修的区别很可能是随意的,因此往往意义不大。有一些审稿人,他们会写好几页的修改意见,但注明的是“小修”;而另一些只会写一行评论意见,但注明的是“大修”。当然,传达给作者的意见应该是审稿人和编辑意见的结合。我认为,无论问题是大是小,需要解决的地方都应该被注明。 一些作者看到复杂而详细的意见列表会退缩,但还有一些作者已经学会了接受。因为他们发现这些意见通常都很精准,令人醍醐灌顶。 更重要的是,您能确信根据这些意见修改后的文章才能达到期刊的标准。没有什么比含糊不清的审稿意见更令您的稿件雪上加霜。 第一步 通常情况下,审稿人会将审稿意见分点列出,但有些审稿人只会给出一段文字性的意见。对于这两类审稿意见,其中要解决的问题要点都会包含其中,但没有按照顺序列出。因此, 您第一步要做的是:阅读修改意见,获得整体印象, 并确定修改程度。您需要将意见逐条列出,并设计包含以下四方面内容的表格:1)意见总数;2)意见的详细信息;3)针对每一条意见的回复;4)页码(即该意见针对问题在文章中的页码)。首先,应当先处理所有的次要问题:拼写错误,语法错误,表述前后矛盾,文字风格,和那些不准确的意见。我们都会犯这些错误,但它们必须被改正。 这样,您可能就会发现其实大部分的意见都已经被解决。接下来,您需要解决内容性(文章长度)和实质性(分析方面和参数)的问题。 如何应对和处理修改意见 这里最好的建议是遵循Williams(2004年)提出的流程: • 礼貌回应 • 逐条回应 • 有理有据 礼貌回应 指不要侮辱审稿人、编辑,或者期刊出版商。言语不礼貌绝对不可能推动文章的发表进程。作为编辑,我们会尽可能地阻止和减少审稿人的不当评论。如果仍有漏网之鱼,请尽量不要“上钩”进行答复,取而代之的是,您应该重点解决真正的问题。 逐条回应 指两个方面:对所有意见都进行回复,以及对每一条意见都尽可能充分地回复。您“默认”应该愿意做出所有必要的修改。即使不同审稿人的意见存在矛盾或存在误解或明显错误时,您仍然应该对这些问题加以说明。回应审稿意见时最忌讳的就是忽略。而且,在指出错误或误解时应注意礼貌。 有理有据 是指当您不同意审稿人的意见时,您必须提供证据。要做到这一点的最好方式是:提供正确的证据——引用其他发表的文献来支持您的观点。 最后,保持乐观并充满信心。如果您对每条意见都进行了仔细的修改和回应,那么文章是很容易被接收和发表的。 作者信息: Roger Watson —— Editor, Nursing Open and Journal ofAdvanced Nursing 点击查看原文: http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2015/07/30/how-to-deal-with-reviewer-comments/
个人分类: 同行评审|14835 次阅读|5 个评论

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备07017567号-12 )

GMT+8, 2024-5-29 18:41

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部