几乎所有的期刊都要求作者在上传修改稿时，同时上传一个针对每位审稿人审稿意见的一封答复函。按要求书写答复函，一方面可以帮助更好地修改论文，另一方面可以建立与审稿人之间的良好关系，让审稿人在接下来的审稿中减轻负担，并提高做出正面评价的可能性。
我们先看一份真实审稿意见：
Comments to the Author
The paper deals with the effect of viscosity on the flow structure near the tripel point in the Mach reflection configuration. The authors investigate this problem by adapting a numerical approach developed by Ivanov et al. that solves the Navier–Stokes equation. The problem was solved in two Mach numbers (1.7 and 4). The numerical results were compared to the three waves solution (TWS). The authors found that the fluid parameters can't be calculated using the Rankine–Hugoniot relations near the intersection of the incident wave and Mach stem. Furthermore, in the limit of Re -> Inf. (when viscosity can be neglected) the solution is different from the TWS in some cases.
I find this paper suitable for publication after considering the following remarks and comments:
Major points
1. It is clear (to me) the TWS can not describe the actual physics in a tiny area in or near any shock waves. Therefore it is important to add a drawing where the boundaries of the region in it the TWS do not apply. On the other hand, I expect a viscous effect to appear near the SLdue to strong shear flow.
2. Since the typical length scale of the problem at hand is in the order of one to a hundred mean free paths, it is essential to present theKnudsen number and check the validity of the numerical solution for this case. Please note that according to Fig. 3, the grid size is in the order of the mean free path (Kn~1 in the cells). In this case, one should solve the expended hydrodynamics equations.
3. Following remark 2, when Kn is between 0.1 to 0.01, the flow is in the "Slip flow region," where the effect of viscosity is expressed differently with respect to its role in N-S equations.
Minor remarks
1. Fig. 11a please increase the font size inside the figure.
2. Figure 16, please emphasize better (a), (b), (c) , and (d) in the subplots.
To conclude, the contribution of the paper should be the quantification of the region where the TWS is not applicable; therefore, it is essential to present quantities, namely: quantify the borders of this region and relate it to the incident Mach number (maybe add some more cases not only M=1.7 and 4). Furthermore, in my opinion, in this high Kn number case (Transition region flow), the use of the N-S equation must be justified.
Other than that, the paper is written well, the structure of it is good (however, it is a bit too long, in my opinion), and the language is good too.
那么，如何回应呢？在我们最后给出答案之前，我们先看看回复审稿意见有何要求。我们起草的回应将在本文末尾给出。
我们收到的审稿意见一般有三个部分。首先是一个概述，末尾有一个推荐意见，中间是具体意见（具体意见可能分为Major points 和Minor points)。与此相对应，建议答复函分解成一般性答复（general reply）和具体答复（specific reply）两部分。
一般性答复部分
对应审稿意见中的概述和推荐意见，可在答复函中的第一段进行一般性答复。在一般性答复中，应对审稿人进行致谢，说明审稿意见有何帮助。指出是否按要求修改了论文。最后指出是否在上传的修改稿中对修改之处进行了标亮。
统一答复与具体答复分解举例
如果修改稿有重大修改，例如添加了图形、补充了实验、拓展了研究范围、得到了新的结果等，则一般性答复应写给所有审稿人，以便所有人都知晓你有什么大的修改。尤其对于不同审稿人的意见有冲突的情况，可以在这里说明一下你是如何权衡的。
具体答复部分
接下来的具体答复是写给其中一位审稿人看的（期刊一般要求给每位审稿人单独写一份答复函）。我们收到的每一位具体的审稿人的具体审稿意见，会以以下形式之一给出：
排列成条目， 如point 1, point 2，...。
包含主要意见（major points）和次要意见（minor points）两部分，各自给出条目。
分段给出意见，不列条目。
对于第1种和第2种情况，可以逐条答复。对于第3种情况，以及前两种中那些没有写成条目的段落，可以逐段答复，自己给各段的答复编号。
对于每一条或者每一段，也可以视情况将其分解成若干条或若干段，但标注序号时，应能让审稿人能区分原属于第几条或第几段。
对于原有或人为分解出来的每一条意见，建议按以下三段结构答复。这三段分别对应原有意见、你对意见的回应以及你是如何修改的。
答复每条评论的三段结构
意见n (Point n)
审稿人（Referee）：将第n条审稿意见拷在这里。字体可以使用意大利体。
回应（Reply）：申明你是否认同审稿人的这条意见或评论。如果认同，简要指出你将如何做（例如，将对其进行修改、补充、改正等等）。如果不认同，说明你的理由。字体可以用黑体。
修改（Change, How the paper is modified）：如果你认同审稿人的要求修改的意见，那么在这里指出你在论文中如何进行了修改，包括指出修改内容出现的位置，以及是否有其它相应的调整。如果添加、更正的内容较短，可以拷贝在这里。如果太长，则可摘录一些修改内容放在这里。字体可以使用正体，拷到这里的内容建议放在引号里。
需要特别强调的是，无论你是否认同审稿人的某条意见，在回复该条意见的第二段（回应）中，尽量以感谢开始。即使觉得审稿人毫无道理，也应该首先指出自己没有说清楚，让审稿人误解了。这是因为，审稿人是义务为你审稿的，也是编辑请来帮助给期刊把关的，不是请来和你斗争的，也不是请来说好话的。另外，审稿人也不一定明白你写的所有内容，因此可能产生误解。不管出现何种情况，你的目的是发表，因此，善待审稿人肯定比激怒他们更有利于审稿朝健康方向发展。
三段结构举例
补充阅读
以下给出的参考文献不仅涉及如何书写答复函，也涉及如何书写审稿意见。比较两种问题的介绍，可以帮助我们更好地写出答复函。
Ushma S. Neill，2009 How to write an effective referee report, The Journal of Clinical Investigation，Volume 119, Number 5，pp1058-1060, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673849/
Alan Meier, 1992 How to review a technical paper，Technical Note，March 27, 1992)， http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~cs656/alan-meier.pdf
Elisabeth Pain, How to review apaper,Science,Sep. 22, 2016
John Greco，2019 How to write a referee report， In The Philosophers' Cocoon。Posted by Helen De Cruz on 07/12/2019 at12:40 PM in Guest post, How to write philosophy, Profession, Publishing https://philosopherscocoon.typepad.com/blog/2019/07/how-to-write-a-referee-report-john-greco.html
W.S. Noble WS, 2017 Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers. PLoS Comput Biol 13(10) e1005730
Proof Reading Service （PRS），How To Reply to Peer Review Comments when Submitting Journal Papers，Proof-Reading-Service.co
以下是依据上面的要求，起草的回应。
Response to Referee #1
General Reply
We sincerely thank the referee for their thorough review and constructive comments, which have significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all major and minor points raised, and the revised manuscript highlights all changes in blue font. Key modifications include:
Added a schematic delineating the TWS non-applicability region (Major Point 1).
Incorporated Knudsen number analysis and expanded hydrodynamic equations (Major Points 2–3).
Extended the study to include additional Mach numbers (M=2.5, 3.0) to strengthen our conclusions.
Specific Reply
Major Points
Point 1
Referee:
"It is clear (to me) the TWS can not describe the actual physics in a tiny area in or near any shock waves. Therefore it is important to add a drawing where the boundaries of the region in it the TWS do not apply. On the other hand, I expect a viscous effect to appear near the SL due to strong shear flow."
Reply:
We fully agree with the referee’s insight. The TWS’s limitations near shock wave intersections are indeed central to our study.
Change:
We added Figure 5 (Section 3.2) to quantify the TWS non-applicability region’s boundaries, with explicit labels for viscous shear zones. The caption now links these findings to Mach number variations (new Section 4.3).
Point 2
Referee:
"Since the typical length scale of the problem at hand is in the order of one to a hundred mean free paths, it is essential to present the Knudsen number and check the validity of the numerical solution for this case... one should solve the expended hydrodynamics equations."
Reply:
We appreciate this critical observation. We have now rigorously evaluated Knudsen effects.
Change:
Added Equation (12) (Section 2.4) defining Knudsen ranges.
Validated results using Burnett equations (new Appendix A) where Kn>0.1, confirming N-S solutions hold for Kn<0.01 (Section 2.5).
Point 3
Referee:
"When Kn is between 0.1 to 0.01, the flow is in the 'Slip flow region,' where the effect of viscosity is expressed differently with respect to its role in N-S equations."
Reply:
We thank the referee for highlighting this nuance. Our revised analysis explicitly addresses slip-flow regimes.
Change:
Added Table 2 comparing viscous effects across Kn ranges.
Modified Section 3.1 to discuss slip-flow adjustments (lines 120–135).
Minor Remarks
Remark 1
Referee:
"Fig. 11a please increase the font size inside the figure."
Reply:
We apologize for the oversight.
Change:
All figure fonts are now standardized to 10pt (updated Figures 11a, 14c).
Remark 2
Referee:
"Figure 16, please emphasize better (a), (b), (c), and (d) in the subplots."
Reply:
We appreciate this suggestion for clarity.
Change:
Subplot labels are now bolded with borders (see revised Figure 16).
Conclusion
We again thank the referee for their time and expertise. All modifications have strengthened the paper’s rigor and clarity, particularly in quantifying TWS limitations and justifying N-S applicability. We hope the revised manuscript meets the journal’s standards.
转自学位与写作微信公众号，仅作学习交流，如有侵权，请联系本站删除！
