| 查看: 5292 | 回复: 10 | ||||||
highhmily木虫 (正式写手)
|
[交流]
如何写response 已有9人参与
|
|||||
| 大家好。我初次投外文，然后专家提出了一些修改意见。因为第一次投外文稿件，所以没有写response的经验，不知道怎么恰当地运用语言和语气。请高手发给我几份response参考一下，不胜感激！另外，我是学心理学的，如果有类似专业的就更好了，谢谢~ |
回复此楼» 收录本帖的淘帖专辑推荐
 有用的资源 | 小凡的文写作收藏 | 科研内容 |
» 猜你喜欢
某些机构，以效率低为荣，以效率低作为存在感
已经有10人回复
-
今天务委会开完了，明天出结果吗
已经有11人回复
-
有没有大神帮我看看基金代码
已经有9人回复
-
2026国自然函评费到账
已经有23人回复
-
在坚冰还盖着北海的时候，我看到了怒放的梅花。
已经有8人回复
-
今日不放榜？网传国自然预计 8 月 27 日可查结果
已经有22人回复
-
放榜前的不淡定
已经有18人回复
-
什么时候开奖？
已经有13人回复
-
如果此刻你正在为国基感到焦虑，不妨来听听这首《基金之外》
已经有8人回复
-
没有任何消息-是不是就凉了
已经有10人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 请教修改语言的回复该怎么写啊？
已经有5人回复
- Elsevier投稿时comments怎么写？
已经有11人回复
- 求助Response to reviewers具体怎么写？
已经有9人回复
- comment 文章要不要写啊？
已经有6人回复
- CC投稿 要求写每个作者做了什么工作对文章贡献
已经有11人回复
- 如何撰写修改稿说明
已经有6人回复
- Response to Technical Check Results
已经有10人回复
- 编辑让重投的稿还需要写response和文章标红么
已经有8人回复
- 大修后，写Response的不解的几个问题
已经有5人回复
- 如何写一个好的Discussion ？？？
已经有12人回复
- CC投稿被仲裁，如何写response letter
已经有6人回复
- communication 如何写
已经有7人回复
- 如何写 response to review comments
已经有5人回复
- 修改说明怎么写
已经有7人回复
- 修改稿提交都要求写Response to Comment？
已经有12人回复
- Response to Technical Check Results 里面如果文章题目修改了是写新题目还是旧题目
已经有5人回复
- 谈谈第一次写Response to other's comments的体会
已经有11人回复
- 大家是怎么写introduction的？？
已经有9人回复
- 修改后的cover letter和Response to Referee
已经有15人回复
- 投稿时要求写comments,该写点什么呢
已经有4人回复
wzz525
木虫 (著名写手)
- SEPI: 1
- 应助: 23 (小学生)
- 金币: 12532.9
- 散金: 2936
- 红花: 66
- 帖子: 1526
- 在线: 851小时
- 虫号: 841717
- 注册: 2009-09-06
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 固体力学
highhmily(金币+2): 2010-06-14 21:08:02
|
……….., Ph.D. Professor Laboratory of Plant Nutrition and Ecological Environment Research, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, P.R.China E-mail: ..................... Jun 10, 2009 RE: HAZMAT-D-09-00655 Dear Editor， We would like to thank the editor for giving us a chance to resubmit the paper, and also thank the reviewers for giving us constructive suggestions which would help us both in English and in depth to improve the quality of the paper. Here we submit a new version of our manuscript with the title “………………………”, which has been modified according to the reviewers’ suggestions. Efforts were also made to correct the mistakes and improve the English of the manuscript. We mark all the changes in red in the revised manuscript. Sincerely yours, ……………….., Ph.D. Professor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is a point-to-point response to the two reviewers’ comments. Reviewer #1: General comments: Reviewer #1: The paper presents an interesting experimental investigation to assess the photocatalytic degradation of polyethylene plastic with goethite under UV irradiation. The research work is clearly presented but the conclusions, the introduction and other parts of the paper relate the results obtained with unjustified claims about the impact of the work. In addition, the background information provided in the introduction part needs significant enrichment. In particular: Answer: Thank you for the comments on the paper. We have revised the manuscript as suggested since we consider that some sentences or descriptions in the Conclusion part are not so accurate based on the results. Page 3, line 46: recycling is not available… Even though a large amount of agricultural plastic waste in burnt or buried in the fields, some quantities of specific categories of good quality agricultural plastic waste are recycled in several countries while research efforts and projects are in progress to improve the corresponding percentage. The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature. Answer:Yes. Your opinions inspired us and we revised the manuscript accordingly. In the revised paper, the sentence “Recycling is not available for economy,” was changed to “In order to reduce costs, the thickness of application agriculture films in some regions in China is less than 0.005 mm result in diffcult to recycle, And because the process of recycling is expensive and time-consuming, only a small percentage of the agricultural plastic waste is currently recycled at the end of cultivation in China [4]”(Page 3 line 49-52). Page 3, line 76: biodegradable and photodegradable…. There are developments in the area of biodegradable materials that indicate the opposite. Concerning photodegradable materials, they are not considered to represent a solution as they have not been proven to be biodegradable. The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature. Answer: Thank you for reminding us the improper description on the study. We have the improper parts revised accordingly and hope that this new manuscript will be convincing ( Page 3 line 52-55). Page 4, line 65: find an eco-friendly…. The best eco-friendly disposal for agricultural plastic waste is recycling and for non-recyclable materials, energy recovery. Degrading materials produced from fossil sources is not an eco-friendly disposal! The authors should refer to the corresponding recent literature. Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that some of the descriptions in the previous copy were really not so accurate and a little bit arbitrary due to our poor English level and the study on recent literature. After consulting more references, we therefore revised paper to be more reasonable and convincing. Page 4, line 66: to carbon dioxide and water…. Conversion of fossil oil based materials into carbon dioxide and water is much worse than converting renewable-based materials into carbon dioxide and water Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that this description in the previous copy were not accurate, due to our poor study on recent literature. The sentence “it is very important to find an eco-friendly disposal of plastic waste where they degrade to carbon dioxide and water under the sunlight irradiation without producing toxic byproducts.” has been deleted. Page 6, line 112: volatile products…. Define the products. Answer: We have defined the volatile products in Page 6 line 124-125. Page 9, line 185: eco-friendly disposal…. The claims of the authors that this technique is an eco-friendly one are not justified. The conclusions and other parts of the paper need to be rewritten and limit the scope of the presented research work to the technical objectives without deriving unjustified general conclusions and claims about the impact of this work. Answer: Thank the reviewer for the comments. We’ve recognized that this description in the previous copy were not accurate. The sentence “The development of this kind of composite polymer can lead to an eco-friendly disposal of polymer wastes.” was changed to “The present paper intends to study goethite as photocatalytst for degradating plastic. Further attention could be focused on the application of the technique.” (Page 9 line 192-194). Reviewer #3: 1. Title and abstract should indicate that the work has been done with PE-Goethite composite film. Answer: Your suggestion is greatly appreciated. We agree and therefore change the title to: Solid-phase photocatalytic degradation of polyethylene–goethite composite film under UV-light irradiation. 2. Please revise the first paragraph of 'Introduction'. It is difficult to understand. In general, the language of the paper should be revisited. Answer: The Introduction part has been rewritten both in contents and in English. We particularly revised some sentences since they are not correct or so confusing. 3. Materials and methods - Details of the chemicals to be furnished Answer: The reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the details of the chemicals has been shown in Page 4 line 79-83. 4. Characterization are required for PE (Molecular weight, grade) and Goethite prepared (particle size, BET surface area, SEM-EDS and XRD) Answer: The reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the characterization for PE has been shown in Page 4 line 79. The Goethite prepared (particle size, BET surface area, SEM and XRD) has been reported by Liao et al. (2007), We clarify that in the revised manuscript in Page 5 line 91-93. 5. A schematic diagram of the experimental set up to be given Answer: The reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and a schematic diagram of the experimental has been given in Fig. 1 in the present paper. The original Fig. 1. was changed to Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. 6. Results - A rate equation should be proposed from the time-weight data Answer: The reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the rate equation a schematic diagram of the experimental has been given in Table. 1in the present paper. 7. A few data are required to show the influence of process parameters such as goethite loading, intensity of UV radiation. Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the influence of goethite loading has been shown in Fig. 2 in the present paper. And the influence of intensity of UV radiation has been shown in Fig. 3 in the present paper. The original Fig. 2 was changed to Fig. 4 and The original Fig. 3 was changed to Fig. 5 in the present paper. 8. Until other intermediates are isolated, upto Eqn.(7) (line 162) is sufficient. Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and We changed the Eqns as recommended. Eqs. (8)-(12) are deleted and Eqn.(7) was change to “–(CH2CH2)– + .OH → degradationproducts” (Page 9 line 184). 9. Figure 3 and 4: 3 pairs are required, namely (i) Only PE film before and after irradiation, (ii) PE-Goethite film (0.4wt %) - before and after irradiation (iii) PE-Goethite film (1.0 wt %) - before and after irradiation. Answer: Reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the original Fig. 3 and 4 was changed to Fig .5 in the present paper. 10. Point 3 above is also applicable for SEM photographs. Please rearrange and clearly mark the difference between the films before and after irradiation for both SEM and FTIR results. Answer: Thank the reviewer and editor’s for the comments. During the revision of the paper, we did a supplementary experiment got some new SEM photographs, which has been shown in Fig. 4 in the present paper. And The FTIR results has been rearranged in Fig.5 in the present paper, respectively. 11. It should be clearly mentioned in the conclusion that the degradation was more when goethite loading and intensity of light both were more Answer: The reviewer and editor’s suggestions have been adopted and the conclusions has been changed in Page 9 line 192-198. |
3楼2010-06-10 21:50:54
jiaoxg
木虫之王 (文学泰斗)
- 应助: 165 (高中生)
- 金币: 152493
- 散金: 524
- 红花: 35
- 沙发: 4
- 帖子: 120209
- 在线: 8982.2小时
- 虫号: 256221
- 注册: 2006-06-03
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 昆虫学
给一例子！
highhmily(金币+5): 2010-06-14 21:07:41
highhmily(金币+2): 2010-07-09 08:30:48
highhmily(金币+2): 2010-07-09 08:30:48
|
Dear Editor, Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions on the language and structure of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and detailed corrections are listed below point by point: 1) In its current state, the level of English throughout your manuscript does not meet the journal's required standard. Authors have the responsibility to present their papers in good English which can be understood by the journal's readership without difficulty. We have revised the WHOLE manuscript carefully and tried to avoid any grammar or syntax error. In addition, we have asked several colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English. We believe that the language is now acceptable for the review process. 2) Please note that your abstract (250 words) has exceeded the maximum length of 150 words for research articles in this journal. The abstract has been revised and its word count is now 149. 3) Figures should be cited in sequential order in the main text. In your manuscript, Fig. 6 is provided but not cited. Please check and revise accordingly. Now all figures are provided and cited in sequence in the main text. 4) A cover letter should include the following statement: the manuscript has not been previously published, is not currently submitted for review to any other journal, and will not be submitted elsewhere before a decision is made by this journal. This is not seen in your cover letter. The required information is now included in the cover letter. 5) The manuscript, including references, figure captions and tables, should be typewritten in uniform lettering and sizing, and with double spacing throughout. We now have used uniform lettering and sizing throughout the manuscript, with double spacing. 6) Please note that the reference style must conform strictly to the journal’s Guide for Authors. To specify one problem in the reference list provided, journal names are not abbreviated and page span not provided. We have checked all the references and formatted them strictly according to the Guide for Authors. Especially, journal names have been abbreviated and page span provided. The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive response. |
4楼2010-06-10 21:52:44
2楼2010-06-10 21:32:33
zhiyongwang
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 269 (大学生)
- 金币: 48212.2
- 散金: 4812
- 红花: 26
- 沙发: 3
- 帖子: 25665
- 在线: 1151.4小时
- 虫号: 897198
- 注册: 2009-11-08
- 专业: 分离化学
5楼2010-06-10 21:53:29
zhiyongwang
至尊木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 269 (大学生)
- 金币: 48212.2
- 散金: 4812
- 红花: 26
- 沙发: 3
- 帖子: 25665
- 在线: 1151.4小时
- 虫号: 897198
- 注册: 2009-11-08
- 专业: 分离化学
6楼2010-06-10 21:54:37
tj800920
铁杆木虫 (正式写手)
专业杀手
- 应助: 18 (小学生)
- 金币: 7491.8
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 903
- 在线: 116小时
- 虫号: 442346
- 注册: 2007-10-27
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 无机非金属基复合材料
7楼2010-06-10 21:56:59
 |
8楼2010-06-10 22:06:54
highhmily(金币+5): 2010-06-14 21:07:52
highhmily(金币+2): 2010-07-09 08:31:12
highhmily(金币+2): 2010-07-09 08:31:12
|
< Journal of Materials Processing Technology > < A novel aqueous co-precipitation process for preparing ITO nanopowders > Dear editor, Thank you for your useful comments and suggestions on the language and the structure of our manuscript. We have modified the manuscript accordingly, and the detailed corrections are listed below point by point: 1) In its current state, the level of English throughout your manuscript does not meet the journal's desired standard. There are a number of grammatical errors and instances of badly worded/constructed sentences. Please check the manuscript and refine the language carefully. We revised the whole manuscript carefully to avoid language errors. In addition, the revised and reformulated manuscript has been polished by senior scientist and English teacher. We believe that the language is now acceptable for the review process. 2) Reference style should be as per journal style given in the Guide for Authors. Citations of references in the text should be indicated by the author name together with the year of publication. References should be listed alphabetically by author's name in the references list. Please submit each individual reference separately. JMPT no longer accepts the use of references cited in lists. Each one of the cited sources must be discussed individually and explicitly to demonstrate their significance to your study. You are required to use the referenced authors' surnames, and then state in one or two sentences what they claim, what evidence they provide to support their claim, and how you evaluate their work. Reference style has been revised according to the Guide for Authors. We believe that the reference style is now acceptable for the review process 3) All figures put at the end of the manuscript should be labeled with their names (e.g., Figure 1, Figure 2 etc). This has been revised in the manuscript. The figures have been put in the paper. 4) Number the pages consecutively. This has been revised correctly. The manuscript has been resubmitted to your journal. We look forward to your positive response. Name 每个期刊要求不太一样的，有些期刊要按照他的格式来写，但最好按照编辑或审稿人的问题一条一条的回答。 |
9楼2010-06-10 22:11:20
cherryjing1786
铁虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 13 (小学生)
- 金币: 271.7
- 散金: 7
- 红花: 1
- 帖子: 813
- 在线: 197.9小时
- 虫号: 692456
- 注册: 2009-01-14
- 专业: 信息安全
10楼2010-06-10 23:12:35
28
