给一个答复审稿人意见的coverletter

astm e18
给一个答复审稿人意见的coverletter,希望对大家有帮助
Cover letter
Manuscript number: BXXXXXK
MS Type: Article
Title: "XXXX"
Correspondence Author: XXX
Dear Dr. Fay Riordan:
Thank you very much for your attention and the referee’s evaluation and comments on our paper BXXXXK. We have revised the manuscript according to your kind advices and referee’s detailed suggestions. Enclosed please find the responses to the referees. We sincerely hope this manuscript will be finally acceptable to be published on XXX.
Thank you very much for all your help and looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Best regards
Sincerely yours
Dr. XXX
Please find the following Response to the comments of referees:
Response to the referee’s comments
Referee A
Comment 1: The titania material formed after calcining at 450 oC is not characterized. XRD of these calcined materials should be provided to understand the crystallinity and phase.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind suggestion. According to his/her advices, X-ray diffractometry spectroscopy (XRD) of the calcined TiO2 film was given in Supporting Information (Figure S1) in this revised version. It illustrated that the hydrothermal synthesized TiO2 materials after calcining at 450 oC is entire anatase, which was confirmed by the X-ray diffractometer with Cu Kα radiation (Rigaku D/ max-2500).
Comment 2: The authors must state the mechanical strength of these materials after the removal of PS by calcinations.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. By a scotch tape peel test, the TiO2 film can’t be stripped from the conducting glass substrate, which indicates that the mechanical strength of as-prepared composite film is strong enough for the fabrication of solar cell devices. The revised details can be found in Line 165-168, page 2.
Referee B
Comment 1: The microtube structure with the size of 500-800 nm cannot only scatter the visible light in the region of 500-800 nm, but also can scatter more efficiently the visible light in the region below 500 nm, and can scatter near infrared light. This point should be clarified in the main text.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s kind advice. Just like what the referee said, the microtube network structure can scatter not only visible light but also near infrared light. We added this point in revised manuscript and the detailed revision can be found in Line 194-205, Page 2-3.
Comment 2: They described the simulated sunlight as "one-simulating-sunlight condition (AM1.5, 100 mW cm-2)". But in my opinion, it would be better to use the phrase like "AM 1.5 simulated solar light (100 mW cm-2)".
Response: Thanks for the referee’s suggestion. "one-simulating-sunlight condition (AM1.5, 100 mW cm-2)" has been changed to "AM 1.5 simulated solar light (100 mW cm-2)" in our revised manuscript. (Line 217, Page 3)
Comment 3: They correctly pointed out that the increased ratio of solar energy conversion efficiency by the microtube-network structure was smaller than that estimated from the absorption spectra. It is understandable, considering that a TiO2 porous film was filled with solvent in a device, while that for spectroscopic measurements is filled with air.
Response: Thanks for the referee’s good evaluation and kind suggestion. The referee’s explanation is very correct. Light absorptions of TiO2 photoelectrodes are different when they are filled with electrolytes and air, respectively. It is ascribed to that a part of solar light will be absorbed by the electrolytes and also different medium in the porous film will induce the different refractive indices. This is one reason that increased ratio of conversion efficiency by the microtube-network structure was smaller than that estimated from the absorption spectra. We added this point into our revised manuscript and the details can be found in Line 325-330, Page 4.
【论坛浏览】 【我来说两句】 【打印】 【大】 【中】 【小】 【关闭】
 相关评论
作者: hxszhy 发布日期: 2007-11-28
这里还给一个在某论坛上看到的一个帖子,关于答复审稿人,只是供大家参考:褫夺公权
很多人都遇到过回复审稿人意见的时候。本人曾经因为回复审稿意见不合适而导致拒稿,相当的惨哪!!后来发现回复审稿意见时,除了写清修改内容外,还有一些话是必须要写的。对审稿人的意见提出不同的看法也应该讲究一定的技巧。由于这些话的英文都不难写,所以我直接写成中文表述,觉得有用的虫友自己翻译吧。
首先,不论审稿人提了什么意见,你在回复的时候,第一句话一定要说:“谢谢您的建议,您的所有建议都非常的重要,它们对我的论文写作和科研工作都具有重要的指导意义!!”
其次,在回复信的结尾最好写上“再次谢谢您的建议,希望能够从您哪里学到更多的知识。”这句话最好用黑体,要显眼。
再次,如果审稿人提的意见你暂时无法做到(比如,要你增加实验或改进实验等)。那么,为了论文尽快发表,你必须拒绝这样的要求。但是,你不要摆出一大堆理由来证明这个意见是不好实现的。你应该说:“谢谢您的建议,它非常的重要,由于您的建议,我发现了我目前工作中的不足之处,我会在以后的工作中按照您的建议提高科研水平,取得更多成绩!”这样就委婉的拒绝了评审意见,又让评审人觉得你很看重他的意见。
第四,如果审稿人的意见明显有问题。那么没办法了,你必须据理力争。但是,你一定不能说:“审稿人先生,我认为你的意见是错的!”你不必对他的意见发表任何的评论,只需要列出你的理由和证据就可以了,结尾也不要强调你的观点是正确的。简单说就是“既不说你对,也不说我对,证据说话”。
第五,如果审稿人的评价比较傲慢,而且有失公平。那么,不用客气,直接写信给编辑,痛批审稿人。(我就遇到过这样的情况,痛批后反而被录用。)
作者: bluebirddl 发布日期: 2007-11-29
巴尔特不错的模板
作者: gentlewind 发布日期: 2007-11-29
不错, 好帖子!
作者: xzhlsyl 发布日期: 2007-11-29
好东东啊!!!!!
作者: sl961102 发布日期: 2007-11-30
好东东.
作者: mazhanhua 发布日期: 2007-12-01
谢谢楼主,好东西大家一起分享,学习了!
作者: hxszhy 发布日期: 2007-12-03
希望大家多发啊!
作者: christina_wang 发布日期: 2008-3-11
谢谢,非常不错!我正需要回复审稿人的意见,又无从下手,没想到在你这里到这么好的东东,谢谢楼主!
作者: baoyangdr 发布日期: 2008-3-23
非常不错的东西,谢谢
乐山师范学院学报经历
共有评论数 9/每页显示数 10

本文发布于:2024-09-21 20:27:13,感谢您对本站的认可!

本文链接:https://www.17tex.com/xueshu/516554.html

版权声明:本站内容均来自互联网,仅供演示用,请勿用于商业和其他非法用途。如果侵犯了您的权益请与我们联系,我们将在24小时内删除。

标签:意见   审稿人   回复
留言与评论(共有 0 条评论)
   
验证码:
Copyright ©2019-2024 Comsenz Inc.Powered by © 易纺专利技术学习网 豫ICP备2022007602号 豫公网安备41160202000603 站长QQ:729038198 关于我们 投诉建议