完成了response的开头部分，接下来就是要对评审员的意见进行点对点的回复了。
首先，如果评审员给的建议是没有标序号的，你需要先将它们标上序号
在回复时用第一人称或第三人称都是可以的，但是要保持全篇人称一致。并且，如果你不知道评审员的性别，就用“they”/“their”来称呼，不要默认就用“he”。
第一人称: “Thank you very much for your detailed and useful comments. We have addressed each of them as follows.”
第二人称: “We thank Reviewer 1 for their detailed and useful comments. We have addressed each of them as follows.”
如果你同意返修建议并要做修改，就需要说明你同意评审员的建议，并且阐明你是如何根据意见进行修改的。
1. Standard deviation is large in Fig. 3 data. ANOVA should be used after confirming normal distribution.
Response: We thank Reviewer 1 for this valuable suggestion and we agree. Accordingly, we modified our statistical analyses. We performed ANOVA after first performing a logarithmic transformation of all variables. We have described this change in Statistical Analysis in the Methods section (p.4, lines 15–20). We also modified our Results (p. 7, lines 2–6) and Discussion sections (p. 9, lines 11–13) in line with this change, and modified Figure 3 based on the revised data.
如上所示，这里用的是第三人称。首先，将评审员的建议用编号“1”标好；对于自己的回复，用斜体进行区分，并且用粗体标记出“Response”。
在回复中写明页码及行数，就能够清楚地看出是哪里做了修改。但是最好是完成修改之后再加页码及行数，以免发生变动。并且在重新投稿前也要再次检查这些位点有没有变。
2. Subjective well-being needs more background in the lit review. Include mention of how it intersects with happiness studies, health psychology, I/O psychology, and overall QOL.
Response: We thank Reviewer 2 for this suggestion. We regret that our literature review was somewhat inadequate. Accordingly, we have added relevant studies in the Introduction (p. 3, lines 5–6 and 19–21). We hope there is now a more accurate portrait of the significance of subjective well-being.
相对于第一个回复，这一条更简短。这条回复在开头表示了感谢及认同修改建议，然后写明了进行的修改的具体位置。这样不需要在回复中过多说明，评审员定位到指明的点也能看到修改情况。
要是你不认同评审员的建议，你是有权拒绝修改的。但是如果评审员的意见不是完全错误的，你至少还是配合修改一部分为好。
比如：评审员说你应该要加上三个参考资料，但是你发现这三个参考资料跟你的研究几乎是不相关的，你最好还是至少加上一个。因为这样能体现出你乐意接受评判的态度，科研最看重的就是这点。
如果你真的完全无法接受某条建议，就需要给出能令人信服的反驳——通过引用来支持你的观点，提供实质证据。
1. Standard deviation is large in Fig. 3 data. ANOVA should be used after confirming normal distribution.
Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Although we acknowledge that the use of ANOVA would enable us to better compare our findings with those of other studies, our data did not follow a normal distribution; thus, we could not perform this analysis. We therefore re-analyzed our data based on the Leverhaus model (Leverhaus et al., 1978) and modified the Methods section to describe this analysis (p. 4, line 8). We also revised Figure 3 and added two sentences to the Discussion to explain this model (p. 10, lines 1–3).
2. Subjective well-being needs more background in the lit review. Include mention of how it intersects with happiness studies, health psychology, I/O psychology, and overall QOL.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We acknowledge the significance of subjective well-being and we felt our literature review put it in adequate context by mentioning its growing association with a number of fields since the seminal work by Diener (1984). We must note that subjective well-being is not a central theme in our study. Additionally, the journal’s word limitations only permit us to add a small number of words to the manuscript. For these reasons, we felt it was not feasible to accommodate the suggestion in full. Accordingly, however, we see the importance of the relation with happiness studies and have added reference to that (p. 3, lines 5–6). We hope this satisfies your request. Again, we do sincerely appreciate your guidance.
在这两个例子中可以看到，虽然是反驳，但是作者都先表示了感谢，并且对评审员的观点表示认可。在解释时通过引用来支撑自己的论点。而最后都依照评审员建议做了部分修改以表示妥协。
按修改意见完成修改后，要重新检查一遍修改的地方页码或行数是否有变动，以及千万不要出现语法或拼写错误！在确定无误后就可以重新投稿~
转自学术助航微信公众号，仅作学习交流，如有侵权，请联系本站删除！
