| ²é¿´: 472 | »Ø¸´: 2 | ||||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | ||||
mishar½ð³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
|
[½»Á÷]
Tips on response letter writing ÒÑÓÐ1È˲ÎÓë
|
|||
|
Here is a good doc of some tips on how to rationally deal with the comments. For your reference. |
» ±¾Ìû¸½¼þ×ÊÔ´Áбí
-
»¶Ó¼à¶½ºÍ·´À¡£ºÐ¡Ä¾³æ½öÌṩ½»Á÷ƽ̨£¬²»¶Ô¸ÃÄÚÈݸºÔð¡£
±¾ÄÚÈÝÓÉÓû§×ÔÖ÷·¢²¼£¬Èç¹ûÆäÄÚÈÝÉæ¼°µ½ÖªÊ¶²úȨÎÊÌ⣬ÆäÔðÈÎÔÚÓÚÓû§±¾ÈË£¬Èç¶Ô°æÈ¨ÓÐÒìÒ飬ÇëÁªÏµÓÊÏ䣺xiaomuchong@tal.com - ¸½¼þ 1 : @@@551.full.pdf
2014-05-14 10:47:59, 72.4 K
» ÊÕ¼±¾ÌûµÄÌÔÌûר¼ÍƼö
¾Ñé |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
22408 312Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
ͨÐŹ¤³ÌÇóµ÷¼Á£¡£¡£¡
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
²ÄÁÏ299ר˶Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ16È˻ظ´
ҩѧÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ10È˻ظ´
²ÄÁÏÏà¹Ø×¨Òµ344Çóµ÷¼ÁË«·Ç¹¤¿ÆÑ§Ð£»ò¿ÎÌâ×é
ÒѾÓÐ21È˻ظ´
085404 22408 309·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
302·ÖÇóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ11È˻ظ´
271Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ29È˻ظ´
297¹¤¿Æµ÷¼Á?
ÒѾÓÐ13È˻ظ´
274Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
» ±¾Ö÷ÌâÏà¹Ø¼ÛÖµÌùÍÆ¼ö£¬¶ÔÄúͬÑùÓаïÖú:
¹ØÓÚ response letter
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
Ͷ¸åʱ response to decision letter £¬Éó¸åÈËÊÇ·ñ¿ÉÒÔ¿´µÃµ½
ÒѾÓÐ8È˻ظ´
response letter µÄÎÊÌâ
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
ÇóÖúһƪResponse to comments and Decision LetterµÄ»ØÐÅÄ£°å...
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
Response to Decision Letter ºÍResponse to RefereesµÄÇø±ð
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
¶ÔÓÚeditorÒâ¼ûµÄ»Ø¸´ÊÇ·ÅÔÚcover letter»¹ÊÇ·ÅÔÚresponse to reviewer°¡£¿
ÒѾÓÐ28È˻ظ´
ÇóÏêϸµÄResponse LetterÄ£°å
ÒѾÓÐ13È˻ظ´
response letterµÄÎÊÌâ
ÒѾÓÐ7È˻ظ´
ACS IECRÆÚ¿¯ µÄ Response to Decision Letter
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
CCͶ¸å±»Öٲã¬ÈçºÎдresponse letter
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
ÈçºÎдresponse to decision letter
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
ÇóJAP¿¯Îïresponse letterµÄÄ£°å
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
Ð޸ĺóµÄcover letterºÍResponse to Referee
ÒѾÓÐ15È˻ظ´
tzzzju
ľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 9 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 3474.5
- É¢½ð: 1246
- ºì»¨: 2
- Ìû×Ó: 1240
- ÔÚÏß: 490.2Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 734179
- ×¢²á: 2009-03-29
- רҵ: ͨÐÅÀíÂÛÓëϵͳ
¡ï
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
|
ºÜ²»´í£¡ But even if a reviewer appears wrong, that does not mean you are right. You, the author, could be the source of the reviewer¡¯s misdirected comment. If the reviewer is confused or misjudges something in the paper, they might have unintentionally identified something you did not explain with the proper clarity, forgot to include, or failed to emphasize sufficiently. So, look first at what you can do to improve the paper and satisfy the reviewer, not explain to the reviewer how he or she is wrong. |
3Â¥2014-07-26 09:27:37
0.8
| ¶¥Ò»Ï£¬¸Ðл·ÖÏí£¡ |
2Â¥2014-05-14 13:03:45














»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥
20