sci审稿意见回复范文
论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B （一种病毒）所投杂志：Life Sciences
投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表
编辑信内容（注：有删节）：
Dear Mr. XXX,
Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below.
If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper.
A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures.
A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission.
…
You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file in the Attach Files area.
We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript.
To submit a revision, go to and log in as an Author.
You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.
Yours sincerely,
Joseph J. Bahl, PhD
Editor
Life Sciences
，
Format Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check the format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style.
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1:
XXXXX （略）
Reviewer #2:
XXXXX （略）
Editors note and suggestions: （注：编辑的建议）
Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English>>>
》
Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies of the antiviral effects of A against virus B.
Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.
A, an alkaloid isolated from C (注：一种中草药), was tested for antiviral activity against virus B. Both in vitro and in vivo assays along with serum pharmacological experiments showed A to have potent antiviral activity. The pharmacokinetic profile of A in Sprague/Dawley rat plasma after oral administration was measured by HPLC. Blood samples taken at selected time points were analyzed to study potential changes in antiviral pharmacodynamics as measured by infectivity of viruses. From the similarity of the serum concentration profiles and antiviral activity profiles it is concluded that A it self, rather than a metabolite, exerted the effect against the virus prior to bioinactivation. The need for effective clinical agents against virus B and these results suggest the possibility of benefit from further experiments with A.
The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.
Introduction: some sentences can be made less passive. example 1st paragraph
>>>> A appears to be the most important alkaloid isolated from the plant, its structural formula is shown in Fig 1. ... While it produced a general inhibition of antibody production lymphocyte proliferation was stimulated (Xia and Wang, 1997). These pharmacological properties suggest a potential use in the treatment of viral myocarditis against virus B that could be studied in experiments in cell culture and animals.
>>>The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors
(example given: in your text alkaloid is incorrectly spelled alkaloid) >>>The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003)and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)。
>>>>>The authors instead of directly answering the first complex question of reviewer #1 may include the three questions as future research aim in the discussion section.
>>>>>>Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.
>>>>> reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.
Because I think that you can deal with all of the points raised I am hoping to see a revised manuscript that you have carefully checked for errors. If you have questions or do not know how to respond to any of the points raised please contact me at Joseph Bahl, PhD Editor 2 Life Sciences 作者回复信原稿：
Dear Dr. Bahl,
I’m （注：正式信函不要简写）very appreciate （注：不适合作为给编辑回信的开始，同时有语法错误）for your comments and suggestions.
I （注：实际上是学生做的）have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments again （注：要表明是应审稿人或编辑建议而作）. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection. Death rate, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic slices （注：用词错误）were calculated（注：用词不当）. Production of mRNA of IL-10, IFN-γand TNF-αwere （注：语法错误）measured by RT-PCR.
|
I have revised this manuscript and especially paid much attention to your comments and suggestions. I would like to re-submit it to LIFE SCIENCE. Title of manuscript has been changed to “The antivirus effects of A
against virus B and its phar macokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth.
Answers to Reviewers’ questions were as follows: （注：可附在给编辑的回复信后）
Reviewer #1:
XXXXX
Reviewer #2:
XXXXX
Editors note and suggestions:
Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contemporary English
(
Answer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of A against virus B and its pharmacokinetic behaviour in SD rats serum” to make it more clear and smooth（注：多处语法错误）.
Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.
Answer: I have revise the abstract carefully to make it more smooth and informative（注：语法错误）.
The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.
Answer: I have paid attention to this question and it is clearer （注：不具体）.
Introduction:
some sentences can be made less passive.
Answer: I have revise the whole paper to make sentences less passive and obtained help of my colleague proficient in English （注：语法错误，句子不通顺）.
…
The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors Answer: I’m very sorry to give you so much trouble for those spelling errors （注：不必道歉，按建议修改即可）. I have carefully corrected them.
The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline
to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)
Answer: I changed the style of references.
Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to amend the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables are means +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.
Answer: （注：作者请编辑公司帮回答）
reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satisfied by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.
Answer: Thank you for your suggestions. I have supplemented pictures of cardiac pathologic slices in the paper (Fig2).
&
I have to apologize for giving you so much trouble because of those misspelling and confusing statements （注：一般不是延误或人为失误，不必轻易道歉，按建议修改即可）. Your comments and suggestions really helped me a lot. I have put great efforts to this review. I wish it can be satisfactory.
If there’s （注：正式信函不要简写）any information I can provide, please don’t hesitate to contact me.
Thank you again for your time and patience. Look forward to hear （注：语法错误）from you.
Yours Sincerely
Xxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)
建议修改稿：
Dear Dr. Bahl,
Thanks you very much for your comments and suggestions.
—
As suggested, we have conducted in vivo antivirus experiments. Mice were sacrificed on 15 days and 30 days after infection with virus B. Mortality, heart weight to body weight ratio (HW/BW), virus titers and pathologic scores were determined. In addition, mRNA expression of IL-10, IFN-γ and TNF-α were measured by RT-PCR.
We have revised the manuscript, according to the comments and
suggestions of reviewers and editor, and responded, point by point to, the comments as listed below. Since the paper has been revised significantly throughout the text, we feel it is better not to highlight the amendments in the revised manuscript （正常情况最好表明修改处）.
The revised manuscript has been edited and proofread by a medical editing company in Hong Kong.
I would like to re-submit this revised manuscript to Life Sciences, and hope it is acceptable for publication in the journal.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
With kindest regards,
Yours Sincerely
Xxxx Xxxx (通讯作者名)
?
Replies to Reviewers and Editor
First of all, we thank both reviewers and editor for their positive and constructive comments and suggestions.
Replies to Reviewer #1:
Xxxxx （略）
Replies to Reviewer #2:
Xxxxx （略）
Replies to the Editors note and suggestions:
Title: Re-write the title to read more smoothly in contmeporary English
、
Answer: I have rewrite the title to “The antivirus effects of Soph oridine against Coxsackievirus B3 and its pharmacokinetics in rats” to make it more clear and read more smoothly.
Abstract: Re-write the abstract to read more smoothly.
Answer: I have rewritten the abstract to make it more informative and read more smoothly.
The authors should check to be sure that the terms blood samples, plasma and serum are always used appropriately throughout the abstract and text.
Answer: I have paid attention to this issue, and they are now used appropriately throughout the abstract and text in the revised manuscript.
Introduction:
some sentences can be made less passive.
Answer: I have revised the whole paper to make sentences less passive with the help of the editing company.
~
The authors should check the entire manuscript for spelling errors Answer: This has been done by us as well as the editing company.
The authors should read the guidelines to the authors and not include the first name of the authors being cited in the text. In the reference section the first name should be abbreviated as shown in the guideline to authors (thus the earlier text reference should be (Liu et al., 2003) and the remaining one should be (Chen et al., 2002)
Answer: I have changed the style of references according to the journal.
Rather than redrawing figure the authors may choose to ament the wording of the statistical analysis section to state that the result of tables aremeans +-SEM and for figures are +- SD.
Answer: SD has been used throughout the text, and shown in the Figs.
3 and
4 in the revised manuscript.
reviewer #1 comment number 8 and reviewer # 2 comment 3 might be satified by inclusion of a representative photo of cells and heart showing CPE. Remember: most readers of the journal have never seen what you are trying to describe.
Answer: Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have added pictures of cardiac pathologic changes in the revised manuscript (Fig. 2). 论文题目： Clinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancer %
所投杂志：BMC Cancer.
结果：这次大修后被接受发表（同时编辑在接受信中提出课题是否得到伦理委员会同意的问题。作者在论文适当地方加上了有关陈述）
审稿人内容（有删节）：
Reviewer's report
Clinical implications of XXXX (一种病理指标) in X cancer
Version: 1 Date: 12 June 200X
Reviewer: XXXX XXXX (A Japanese Reviewer)
Reviewer's report:
。
General
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Compulsory Revisions (that the author must respond to before
a decision on publication can be reached)
1. XXXXX.
2. XXXXX.
3. XXXXX.
4) The clinico pathological parameters examined are reported in Table 1. Among the primary tumor characteristics, the Authors consider the diameter, but ignore T stage. Consequently the T parameter is not considered in the multivariate analysis. In other studies, T stage has emerged as an independent factor. The Authors should therefore state the reason for their unusual choice. Nor is the number of metastatic nodes reported in this table. Moreover, for tumor differentiation, the Authors distinguish between two groups (differentiated vs undifferentiated), instead of between the usual 3 categories (G1, G2 and G3). I have never heard of the histological classification used by the Authors (massive, next and diffuse). They might therefore state their reasons for choosing it, providing a reference, if available.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
}
Minor Essential Revisions (such as missing labels on figures, or the wrong use of a term, which the author can be trusted to correct) XXXXX.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary Revisions (which the author can choose to ignore)
(None)
What next: Reject because too small an advance to publish
Level of interest: An article of limited interest
Quality of written English: Needs some language corrections before
being published
>
[b]Statistical review: Yes, but I do not feel adequately qualified to assess the statistics.
作者原答: T stage is considered in the multivariate analysis, and some modification has been made in tumor differentiation and histological classification.
建议改答： We accept Dr. XXX comment (表明你对审稿人的欣赏和赞同). In the revised version of the manuscript, T stage has been added in the multivariate analysis, and description of tumor differentiation and histological classification has been modified; the histological classification in the original manuscript has been replaced by the generally accepted classification (Page 6, line 15; Table 4) (同意审稿人的建议，并根据其建议进行修改。同时指出在何处做了修改。).
加注：作者原回答与修改后的回答并无本质差别，正文中的修改也是一样的。但作者原回答会给审稿人“不太乐意”或“轻描淡写”的印象。因为审稿人花了122个单词来就此问题发表建议，而作者只用了20个。
修改后的回答，相信一开始就赢得审稿人的好感。你的回答不光是给审稿人看的，杂志编辑也会看（至少审稿人会这么认为），所以，审稿人会有种满足感（国外审稿人没有酬劳，得到作者和编辑的认可是他们审稿最主要的目的）。建议得到认可（当然，这里审稿人的确是正确合理的），而且作者还按其建议对文章进行修改，相信绝大多数审稿人是不会（不好意思）再拒绝修改稿的（所谓伸手不打笑面人）。当然，这篇文章起死回生、二审通过审稿关，关键是杂志编辑手下留情，给了作者再投(Re-submission)的机会。
有时，审稿人的建议得到作者认可，但作者无法按建议修改，尤其补做试验。这种情况将在以后举例说明。论文题目：Misdiagnosis of A (一种先天性疾病) as 某某 tumor: a case report
所投杂志：Neuro-Ophthalmology
投稿结果：大修，结果未知（前途未卜，因为该审稿人建议拒稿，但审稿人给作者机会）
。
审稿人审稿内容及作者原答和建议改答（有删节）：
Reviewer 2's report
审稿人问题1
The authors try to caution eye specialists and neurosurgeons not to
do major orbital surgery on children without doing a dilated fundus examination with an indirect ophthalmoscope. In their case, once the correct diagnosis was made, by properly examining the eye, surgery was not necessary. A thorough pre-operative examination of the eye should be a automatic prerequisite to orbital surgery for poor vision, so I do not think their paper presents a unique idea.
作者原答
Answer: Although correct diagnosis can be made by thorough examinations, doctors are often misleaded by a “wrong” chief complaint （wrong可能表示主诉症状本身误导，也可能表示病人说错，也可能是收诊医生记录错误）. In our case, the retinal specialist who made a misdiagnosis at first （at first用词不当）, was misleaded by “blurred vision in the left eye over a month” and did not pay enough attention to differentiate a congenital disease from “tumor”（需说明两者关联）. In （On） the other hand, it is also the result of too many patients we have to manage per working day (most large hospital （hospitals）in China is (are) on this occasion) and doctors in outpatient clinic have not much time to perform thorough ophthalmic examination (不应太绝对). So, the clinical misdiagnosis is not complete occasional event. We could learn a lot from this case.
建议改答
Answer: We agree with the referee that correct diagnosis can be made by proper and thorough examinations （首先肯定审稿人的观点to make him/her happy）. However, doctors are often misled by an “atypical”（比wrong要具体且客观）chief complaint, especially when there are too many patients in an outpatients department such as in a Chinese ophthalmic hospital （这句点出误诊原因，下面再逐一解释）. In our case, both the retinal specialist and orbital specialist who made the initial misdiagnosis, were misled by the symptom of “blurred vision in the left eye over a month”, which is characteristic of an “acquired disease”, and thus he did not pay enough attention to differentiate a congenital disease from a “tumor”（指出没有想到先天性疾病的原因1）. On the other hand, like most large hospitals in China, doctors in the Outpatient Department have to manage up to X (number) patients we per working day and thus some may have little time to follow the “good clinical practice”
and perform thorough ophthalmic examinations （误诊原因2）. Consequently, the misdiagnosis inevitably occurred. This case report presents the lesion and reiterate the importance of thorough ophthalmic examinations prior to any surgery （这句表明为什么该病例报告值得发表）.
&
审稿人问题2
They have an interesting case, and a case report reviewing the subject might be of value, but I think they may have to be satisfied that they practiced good medicine and saved a child from an unnecessary operation, but that it did not merit publication.
作者原答
Answer: The initially misdiagnosis was made by our two specialists (one is a retinal specialist and the other orbital) （词句的意义不明）. Moreover, the reasons for the misdiagnosis have been discussed in our case report, which would be useful for other doctors, especially for residents to avoid the same mistake (说服力比较弱). And （正规书信和论文不宜用And开句）we believe our radiology images in our case will contribute to a better understanding of this condition(说服力比较弱).
建议改答
Answer: We did feel relieved and satisfied when the unnecessary surgery was avoided （正面回应审稿人的肯定意见）. However, the fact that initial misdiagnosis was made by two experienced but busy specialists (one is a retinal specialist and the other orbital), cannot be ignored in our clinical practice （表明我们不能因为我们避免了不必要的手术而自满）. We feel that it would be beneficial to report the case and share our experience or lesion with other doctors, in order to avoid or minimize the same mistake （因此，我们希望发表该病例报告已警示同行）. In addition, we believe that the radiology images from our unique case will contribute to a better understanding of this congenital disease （虽不重要，但也许编辑喜欢）.
加注：
1.该文的特色是一审稿人觉得本病例报告不值得发表，但编辑愿意给作者rebuttal的机会。其实，该审稿人的评语总体来讲是不错的。但令人不解的是，每条评语最后一句得出跟前面截然不同的结论。可能他/她并不是“大牛”，不太能掌握病例报告发表的标准。
、
2.作者的回答总体还是非常好的，只是语气稍欠委婉，理据说服力需更进一步加强。论文题目：Prophylactic NSAIDs use in post-ERCP pancreatitis 所投杂志：Gut
结果：编辑直接拒稿，作者重新修改并申诉，申诉成功，直接接受。
编辑信内容（有删节）：
GUT/2008/156323
Prophylactic NSAIDs use in post-ERCP pancreatitis
Authors’ names （略）
Dear XXX,
*
Thank you for submitting this manuscript to Gut, which was discussed at the last Editorial Committee meeting. We are sorry to say that we are unable to accept it for publication, as it did not achieve a high enough priority score to enable it to be published in Gut. We favour letters which add new data and did not feel that you letter did this sufficiently.
Please remember that Gut receives about eight times as many manuscripts as we are able to publish, therefore regrettably it follows that many perfectly adequate papers must be rejected. This decision must be based not only on quality, but also timeliness and priority against other subject areas.
For more details, please go to:
you Author Area and click on the 'Manuscripts with decisions' queue.
We are sorry to disappoint you on this occasion.
With kind regards.
Professor Robin Spiller
Handling Editor
|
Professor Robin Spiller
Editor
作者申诉信原文：
Dear editors,
Thanks for your kindly help in our previous manuscripts (GUT/2008/156323 and GUT/2008/156711).
The decision of the editorial board was a little disappointed to me. We had discussed the topic again and rewrite the manuscript according to
the suggestions of the editorial board. We also invited our friend Harry Hua-Xiang Xia for insightful editing the paper.
Although Elmunzer et al. concluded that rectal administration of NSAIDs is effective in preventing PEP (these results are of significant clinical implications), several issues remain unsolved. For example, do risk factors influence the prophylactic effect So, we performed a complimentary meta-analysis based on the methodology and the source articles identical to those used by Elmunzer et al. Also, it must emphasized that there were several limitations of the both meta-analyses including small sample sizes (for both subjects and studies), inconsistent definition of PEP, and less representative populations.
We believe the issues raised will improve the quality of the meta-analysis. Thanks for your re-consideration.
/
On behalf of my co-authors, I am submitting the enclosed material “Rectal Administration of NSAIDs in the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: a Complimentary Meta-analysis” for possible publication in GUT. I have read most of the papers that the journal had published and I believe our research to be in accordance with the style of the JOURNAL.
We have reviewed the final version of the manuscript and approved it for publication. To the best of our knowledge and belief, this manuscript neither has been published in whole or in part nor is it being considered for publication elsewhere.
We state that there is no conflict of interest and ethical adherence in this study.
Best Regards,
Authors’ names and affiliations （略）
作者申诉信建议修改文：
Dear Professor Spiller （在已知编辑姓氏和职称时请不要再泛称editor, 以示尊重）
Thanks for your letter in response to our previous submission of Letter to Editor (GUT/2008/156323) （事实上，编辑并没有帮助，而是回复）.
The decision of the Editorial Board might be because that we did not make it clear that the letter supports the overall conclusion of the Elmunzer et al., but provides additional analysis and points out the
weaknesses of the meta-analysis. We further discussed the topic again and have modified the Letter according to your letters. In addition, we also invited Dr. Harry Hua-Xiang Xia, who is an internationally recognized gastroenterologist, to join the authorship team and make comments and edit the manuscript. （这一段非常重要。陈述失望心情于事无补。相反，应说明由作者引起的可能导致论文被拒的原因（很多作者论文被拒后归咎于审稿人或编辑不理解论文的价值），并再次强调论文的价值所在。加上本人为作者也许对论文被接收有一定作用，但关键还是在于强调论文本身的价值。）
We believe the Letter is publishable for the following reasons. First, although Elmunzer et al. concluded that rectal administration of NSAIDs is effective in preventing PEP, which is of significant clinical implications, several issues remain unsolved. For example, do risk factors influence the prophylactic effect So, we performed a complimentary meta-analysis based on the methodology and the source articles identical to those used by Elmunzer et al. We further revealed that administration of NSAIDs was associated with decreased incidence of PEP in patients with low (RR = , 95% CI: P = and high risks (RR = , 95% CI: ~, P = . Second, there were several limitations of the meta-analyses originated from the source articles. These include small sample sizes (for both subjects and studies), inconsistent definition of PEP, and less representative populations. These limitations should be more clearly acknowledged in the paper by Elmunzer et al. （这一段是核心。能否说服编辑在此一博。原信缺乏数据，而且稍欠层次和说服力）。
Therefore, we wish to re-submit the further revised version for your re-consideration. （原信有三段与本申诉无关，建议删掉）。
With best regards,
Yours sincerely,
Authors’ names and affiliations （略）
加注：
1.该文的特色是编辑委员会觉得本信稿(Letter to Editor)不值得发表，并说明原因，即稿源太多（8倍），本文无新意。但作者坚持认为该信稿有新意，故决定申诉(Appeal)。
2.在看了该信稿并与作者交流后，本人认为值得申诉。并一起讨论修改原文及申诉信。该信稿很快被接受（并成为作者特殊的结婚礼物）。
3.论文写作与发表只有一般规则，没有绝对定律。只要你坚信是有价值的东
西（试验结果或心灵火花）都有发表的潜力，关键在于如何准确将价值的东西表达出来。
4. 对待拒稿，要有良好心态。多多检讨课题设计和论文写作中的问题，而不是抱怨审稿人或编辑没有认真阅读你的论文。遇到审稿人对论文有误解时，我常用的一句话是“We are sorry that we did not make it clear”, 或“We are sorry for the misunderstanding due to unclear descriptions in our previous manuscript”而不是“The reviewer doesn’t understand…”或“The reviewer is wrong….”.等等。在我的回复信中，审稿人从没有“错”。
SCI 回复整理
暑假中了2篇SCI文章，影响因子都在IF=1.5-2.0之间。其实，在此之前，本人已经发表了若干SCI，而且已经是两个期刊的Reviewer。但尽管如此，随着文章积累越多，对SCI写作的认识也有所熟悉和深入。下面谈谈一些体会，与大家分享。 第一篇：去年12月份投稿，7月份返回意见。结论是：“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”实际上，这个结论已经非常好了。我看了以下审稿意见，然后就逐条的进行了Response。其中Response letter的格式我是参考了我审稿过的一篇德国学者的回复模式（我认为非常好）。但是，在审稿意见中，有一条意见要我对实验过程做一描述。我认为完全没有必要，所以没有改此项。很快，R1版文件被主编审回。我认为应该“Complete Accept”了，但意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”不出所料，主编的意见就是R1中没有改的那条，而且比较客气，认为“Probably the authors did not notice this requirement. Howev er, this issue is critical: to judge the value of the reported methodological development;”没有办法，我又认真对意见进行了修改。R2版文件我认为没有问题了，就等Accept了。 可是R2返回后，主编的意见还是意见还是“I am pleased to inform you that your paper has been accepted for publication provided that you amend it according to the concerns raised in the review report given below.”这次一看，原来意见是“The paper requires careful editing for use of English.”我想应该不会啊。我又仔细审查了Text，结果还是发现了几个不应该的拼写错误。我的Word的拼写可能出问题了，前几次竟然没有发现。这次，我不敢大意了，俗话云：事不过三。如果再有问题，主编的大斧可能就来了。于是，我认真的检查了全文，写了Resonse letter: Dear the Editors and reviewers: We appreciate again your valuable comments very much, which are helpful to improve the quality of our present study. According to the comments, we have revised our paper as follows: 1）Comment s: "…….. ." According to the reviewer’s suggestions, we have checked again our spelling and rewriten or modified a number of expressions in the abstract, text, figures, and tables. Thanks ***, a reviewer of International Journal of ****, for his kind help on the text modifications(这是我表示诚意，特意加上去的). Especially, in the Acknowledgement, we added our thanks for anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on the quality improvement of our present paper. 果然，R3版文件当天就被主编接受了。意见：“It gives me great pleasure to inform you that the reviewers have accepted your paper for publication.The proofs will be sent to you within three months of receipt of this email.” 通过上面的来回反复，我发现SCI回复意见一定要态度认真，逐条回复。对于中国作者，及时主编不说，也要对English进行认真核对，认真决定一切！ 这次，我真的学了很多经验教训。就在我改动之间，我又准备了另外一篇，而且把这篇Accept 的文章也引用上了。 第二篇：这次准备的非常充分，尤其是语法方面画了大量功夫，内容也比较新。就是把实验数据反过来了。不是直接报数据，而是先给了模型，而后用实验去验证。我感到满意的是Introduction。这里，我充分参考了木虫上Fudanmazhen的经验，尽量在“讲故事，而不是讲历史”。结果，7月29日投出，8月5日主编返回意见：直接接受，而且说无需任何进一步改动。目前，此篇文章已经上网了。与此同时，主编还发给我一篇西班牙作者的文章，让我当Reviewer。我肯定欣然接受了。因此，我本来就是这个期刊的审稿人。当然，这是我SCI运气最好的一次，估计也是最后一次了，因为直接接受的情形确实很少，我也不奢望每篇文章都这样，除非自己当主编。但是，通过这个假期的SCI较量，
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见规范文本材料模板全集
SCI修改稿回答審稿人意見範文模板大全 修改稿回答審稿人の意見（最重要の部分） List of Responses Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Paper Title”(ID: 文章稿號). 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 corr ections 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: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 2. Response to comment: (……簡要列出意見……) Response: ×××××× 。。。。。。 逐條意見回答，切忌一定不能有遺漏 針對不同の問題有下列幾個禮貌術語可適當用用： We are very sorry for our negligence of ……... We are very sorry for our incorrect writing ……...
回答SCI审稿人的方法
如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。 首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。 第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？ 第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。 第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。 上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。 写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不同字体分别标出，比如“意见”用italic，“argue”正常字体，“修改”用bold。下面
SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧
SCI答复审稿人的回信技巧 一篇稿子从酝酿到成型历经艰辛，投出去之后又是漫长的等待，好容易收到编辑的回信，得到的往往又是审稿人不留情面的一顿狂批。这时候，如何有策略有技巧的回复审稿人就显得尤为重要。好的回复是文章被接收的重要砝码，而不恰当的回复轻则导致再次修改从而拖延发稿时间，重则导致文章被拒，前功尽弃。下面把我平时总结的一些答复审稿人的策略和写回复信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。 首先，绝对服从编辑的意见。在审稿人给出各自的意见之后，编辑一般不会再提出自己的意见。但是，编辑一旦提出某些意见，就意味着他认为这是文章里的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。这时，我们唯一能够做的只能是服从。因为毕竟是人家掌握着生杀予夺的大权。第二，永远不要跟审稿人争执。跟审稿人起争执是非常不明智的一件事情。审稿人意见如果正确那就不用说了，直接照办就是。如果不正确的话，也大可不必在回复中冷嘲热讽，心平气和的说明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血气方刚，被人拍了当然不爽，被人错拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名门正派里的弟子，看到一审结果是major而不是minor本来就已经很不爽了，难得抓住审稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出来打死。有次审稿，一个审稿人给的意见是增加两篇参考文献（估计也就是审稿人自己的文章啦），结果作者在回复中写到，making a reference is not charity！看到之后我当时就笑喷了，可以想象审稿人得被噎成什么样。正如大家所想的那样，这篇稿子理所当然的被拒了，虽然后来经编辑调解改成了major revision，但毕竟耽误的是作者自己的时间不是？ 第三，合理掌握修改和argue的分寸。所谓修改就是对文章内容进行的修改和补充，所谓argue 就是在回复信中对审稿人的答复。这其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟审稿人argue。对于语法、拼写错误、某些词汇的更换、对某些公式和图表做进一步解释等相对容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根据审稿意见照做。而对于新意不足、创新性不够这类根本没法改的，还有诸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比较，补充大量实验等短时间内根本没法完成的任务，我们则要有理有据的argue。在Argue的时候首先要肯定审稿人说的很对，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重点是blablabla，跟他说的不是一回事。然后为了表示对审稿人的尊重，象征性的在文中加上一段这方面的discussion，这样既照顾到了审稿人的面子，编辑那也能交待的过去。 第四，聪明的掌握修改时间。拿到审稿意见，如果是minor，意见只有寥寥数行，那当然会情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至几小时搞定修改稿。这时候，问题在于要不要马上投回去了？我的意见是放一放，多看一看，两个星期之后再投出去。这样首先避免了由于大喜过望而没能及时检查出的小毛病，还不会让编辑觉得你是在敷衍他。如果结果是major，建议至少放一个月再投出去，显得比较郑重。 上面是一些一般性的答复审稿人的策略，在实际中的应用还需要大家见仁见智。下面谈谈答复信的写法。 写答复信的唯一目的是让编辑和审稿人一目了然的知道我们做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和写法都要围绕这一目的。一般来说可以把答复信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是简明扼要的列出所有修改的条目，让编辑和审稿人在第一时间对修改量有个概念，同时它还充当着修改目录的作用，详见下面的例子。剩下的两部分是分别对编辑和审稿人所做的答复，格式可以一样，按照“意见”－“argue”（如果有的话）－“修改”这样逐条进行。清楚醒目起见，可以用不
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板大全 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 corr ections 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: ×××××× 。。。。。。 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 ……...
SCI论文全攻略之审稿回复实例
SCI论文全攻略之审稿回复实例.txt精神失常的疯子不可怕，可怕的是精神正常的疯子！附1：SCI扩展版和SCI核心版收录期刊的区别 SCI扩展版（以下简称SCIE）和SCI核心版（以下简称SCI）收录期刊还是有区别的，SCI期刊论文全部被SCI收录，SCIE期刊论文只是部分被SCI收录，这就是有的SCIE期刊一年有几百篇论文，却只有几十篇甚至十几篇论文被SCI收录的原因。具体到SCIE期刊上的一篇论文能否被SCI收录，还是要看美国ISI发布的报告，现在科技部信息研究所也公布这一报告，很多图书馆的SCI检索机构也可以查。 不过在国内，很多单位都把SCI期刊论文和SCIE期刊论文一视同仁，只要发表在SCI期刊或SCIE期刊上，该论文都当作SCI收录，这是管理者的无能抑或无为就不得而知了。但就我们单位而言（国内TOP10高校），这两者还是区别对待的，论文是否SCI收录还是看CISI的报告或SCI检索机构的证 附2：[精华]如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见(1) 1.所有问题必须逐条回答。 2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。 3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。 4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。 以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。 续两点经验： 1，最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事； 2，绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想该投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story”了。 以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。 我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。
(完整版)SCI审稿意见回复模板
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: ×××××× ...... 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: 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.
sci 投稿回复
SCI 投稿全过程信件模板一览2013-10-31 10:39阅读(12)转载自~~ ?赞(21) ?评论 ?转载(43) ?分享(32) ?复制地址 ?收藏夹按钮收藏 ?更多 已经是第一篇 | 下一篇：一步一步教你使用... 一、最初投稿Cover letter Dear Editors: We would like to submit the enclosed manuscript entitled “Paper Title”, which we wish to be consider Name”. No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript, and manuscript is approved I would like to declare on behalf of my co-authors that the work described was original research that has and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. All the authors listed have enclosed. In this work, we evaluated …… (简要介绍一下论文的创新性). I hope this paper is suitable for “Journa The following is a list of possible reviewers for your consideration: 1) Name A E-mail: ××××@×××× 2) Name B E-mail: ××××@×××× We deeply appreciate your consideration of our manuscript, and we look forward to receiving comments fro queries, please don’t hesitate to contact me at the address below. Thank you and best regards. Yours sincerely, ×××××× Corresponding author: Name: ××× E-mail: ××××@×××× 二、催稿信 Dear Prof. ×××: Sorry for disturbing you. I am not sure if it is the right time to contact you to inquire about the st titled “Paper Title”. (ID: 文章稿号), although the status of “With Editor” has been lasting for more t to journal three months ago. I am just wondering that my manuscript has been sent to reviewers or not? I would be greatly appreciated if you could spend some of your time check the status for us. I am very rev iewer’s comments. Thank you very much for your consideration. Best regards! Yours sincerely, ×××××× Corresponding author: Name: ××× E-mail: ××××@×××× 三、修改稿Cover letter
SCI 审稿意见回复范文
创作编号：BG7531400019813488897SX 创作者：别如克* 论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B （一种病毒）所投杂志：Life Sciences 投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表 编辑信内容（注：有删节）： Dear Mr. XXX, Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below. If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures. A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission. You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file in the Attach Files area. We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript. To submit a revision, go to https://www.wendangku.net/doc/3a14495222.html,/lfs/ and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there. Yours sincerely, Joseph J. Bahl, PhD Editor
sci审稿意见回复范文
论文题目：Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies on the antivirus effects of A (一种中草药) against virus B （一种病毒）所投杂志：Life Sciences 投稿结果：这次大修后又经过一次小修，被接受发表 编辑信内容（注：有删节）： Dear Mr. XXX, Your manuscript has been examined by the editors and qualified referee . We think the manuscript has merit but requires revision before we can accept it for publication in the Journal. Careful consideration must be given to the points raised in the reviewer comments, which are enclosed below. If you choose to submit a revision of your manuscript, please incorporate responses to the reviewer comments into the revised paper. A complete rebuttal with no manuscript alterations is usually considered inadequate and may result in lengthy re-review procedures. A letter detailing your revisions point-by-point must accompany the resubmission. … You will be requested to upload this Response to Reviewers as a separate file in the Attach Files area. We ask that you resubmit your manuscript within 45 days. After this time, your file will be placed on inactive status and a further submission will be considered a new manuscript. To submit a revision, go to and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item called Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there. Yours sincerely, Joseph J. Bahl, PhD Editor Life Sciences ， Format Suggestion: Please access the Guide to Authors at our website to check the format of your article. Pay particular attention to our References style. Reviewers' comments:
如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见
如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见（精典语句整理） 如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见 1.所有问题必须逐条回答。 2.尽量满足意见中需要补充的实验。 3.满足不了的也不要回避，说明不能做的合理理由。 4.审稿人推荐的文献一定要引用，并讨论透彻。 以下是本人对审稿人意见的回复一例，仅供参考。 续两点经验： 1. 最重要的是逐条回答，即使你答不了，也要老实交代；不要太狡猾，以至于耽误事； 2. 绝大部分实验是不要真追加的，除非你受到启发，而想改投另外高档杂志----因为你既然已经写成文章，从逻辑上肯定是一个完整的“story” 了。 以上指国际杂志修稿。国内杂志太多，以至于稿源吃紧，基本没有退稿，所以你怎么修都是接受。 我的文章水平都不高，主要是没有明显的创新性，也很苦恼。但是除了开始几篇投在国内杂志外，其他都在国际杂志（也都是SCI）发表。以我了解的情况，我单位其他同志给国内杂志投稿，退稿的极少，只有一次被《某某科学进展》拒绝。究其原因，除了我上面说的，另外可能是我单位写稿子还是比较严肃，导师把关也比较严的缘故。 自我感觉总结（不一定对）： 1）国内杂志审稿极慢（少数除外），但现在也有加快趋势； 2）国内杂志编辑人员认真负责的人不多，稿子寄去后，少则几个月，多则一年多没有任何消息； 3）国内杂志要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最后也给你发； 4）国外杂志要求补充实验的，我均以解释而过关，原因见少帖）。还因为：很少杂志编辑把你的修改稿再寄给当初审稿人的，除非审稿人特别请求。编辑不一定懂你的东西，他只是看到你认真修改，回答疑问了，也就接受了（当然高档杂志可能不是这样，我的经验只限定一般杂志（影响因子1-5）。 欢迎大家批评指正。 我常用的回复格式: Dear reviewer: I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advic e, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were ans wered below. 1） 2） .... 引用审稿人推荐的文献的确是很重要的，要想办法和自己的文章有机地结合起来。 至于实验大部分都可以不用补做，关键是你要让审稿人明白你的文章的重点是什么，这个实验对你要强调的重点内容不是很必要，或者你现在所用的方法已经可以达到目的就行了。最后要注意，审稿人也会犯错误，不仅仅是笔误也有专业知识上的错误，因为编辑找的审稿人未必是你这个领域的专家。只要自己是正确的就要坚持。在回复中委婉地表达一下你的意见，不过要注意商讨语气哦！ 我得回复格式是这样的：
SCI修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板
Dear Editors and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Realtime Monitoring of Xylitol Fermentation by Micro-Raman Spectroscopy”(LANL-2014-0001). 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 ma in corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing: Responds to the reviewer’s comments: 1. Response to comment (Reviewer 1): (The proposed method was established with the lack of the process of the optimization. The curve was adopted to illustrate the changes of absorption peak in the process of fermentation, but the absorption peak couldn’t be confirmed the identical to the reference peak of xylitol. It needs more data to prove the reliability of the method) Response: C onsidering the Reviewer’s suggestion, the experiment of high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is added to verify the reliability of the Raman data. Raman paek is a kind of inelastic scattering paek（not absorption peak）, Raman spectrum of the standard xylitol and xylose solutions was uesd to selecte the most appropriate characteristic bands of xylitol and xylose for our experiment based on their comparative strength without overlap with other bands. 2. Response to comment(Reviewer 1): (The literature data(table 1) was used in
SCI审稿意见回复模板
精品文档 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 t o 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: ×××××× ...... 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 v ery 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 su ggestion 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: 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. .