建议如此回复：Reviewer #1:
[Reviewer]1. Is this an engineering contribution?
A. Partially yes.
[Author] I am sorry for not being able to highlight the engineering background and the contribution of this manuscript in the early version. In the revised version, I have added more explanations/descriptions to the engineering impact of this work.
[Reviewer]2. Is it significant enough to warrant publication in FED?
A. Partially yes.
[Author] Thanks again to the reviewer on suggesting to properly address the significance of the work. As you'll see, in the revised version, I added ... and .. to better emphasize the importance of this work
[Reviewer]3. Does it adequately acknowledge earlier work in the field?
A. No. The advanced points are not clear compared with the ref 1 and 2 in this paper
[Author] Again,thanks for pointing out the insufficiency of the interptetation. Now I have .... in the revised version.
总之，你不能拗他，要顺毛驴。他说的东西，如非原则性的结论，你都自我归罪于语言表达有待改进，并且在修改稿中都做了相应提高。改多少是你的事，不改的话就等于对他说：你的话都是屁话。他能高兴吗，

赞一个

逐个回复

这个是编辑部让审稿人对你文章的新颖性等方面给予的评价，编辑参考拒稿或者修稿部分依据，不需要你回复

这个是审稿人的评价，不用回复的！只要礼貌的感谢一下！