(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

(完整版)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: ××××××

2. Response to comment: (……简要列出意见……）

(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

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.

(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

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 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

(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

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：

(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

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 ，

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 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

(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

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 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.

===============================================

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

(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

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 ， “much work is still ahead" was deleted.

［2］ Ethyl pyruvate was used here as a typical compound (containing two carbonyl groups) to

demonstrate the feasibility of using our diagnosing tool to detect low-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 of EtPy to adsorbed CO was reported to influence the catalytic

performance. In addition, by studying that， we can directly compare our results with previous

studies。 More details in the first paragraph of Section 3。2.

[3］ The IR cell was designed according to the IR cells used by many electrochemical workers.

References were added. A photo was given in the Supporting 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 mode， by bubbling

CO through a clean Pt surface in different days to achieve the same saturation coverage of CO。 Initial

experiments indicated that given the CO bubbling rate was 0。85 cm3/min, CO can saturate on Pt after

30—45 min。 We bubble CO for 60 min to guarantee the same CO coverage。 If we bubble CO for

(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

more time， or if we increase the CO flowing rate several times， the CO saturation coverage doesn’t

change， indicating 60 min is already enough。 A figure showing the CO uptake as a function of

bubbling time was given in the Supporting Information。

［6］ The displacement of EtPy by CCl4 was confirmed by the removing of EtPy peaks。 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 the Viton o-ring information

was given。

［8］ The observed reactivity trend is due to a combination of both effects， with the

accumulation of organic moieties on Pt surface during numerous flushing cycles the more 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 reviewer’s comments are quite helpful, and I revised my paper

point—by-point. Thank you and the review again for your help！

==============================================

结果:

(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

。org/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

http：//。org/10.1016/j。surfrep。2006.03。001

(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

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 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： ××××××

(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

。。。.。。

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：

(完整版)SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板

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 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.