分类：论文发表指南 时间：2025-05-07 热度：713
在学术论文投稿流程中，针对审稿意见撰写答复函是修改阶段的关键环节。绝大多数期刊明确要求，作者在提交修改稿时，必须同步附上一份详细的答复函，逐条回应每位审稿人的意见与建议。规范撰写答复函具有双重重要意义：其一，通过系统梳理审稿意见，能够更精准地定位论文需完善之处，有效提升论文质量；其二，专业、诚恳的回复有助于与审稿人建立良好沟通，既减轻其二次审稿的工作负担，也能显著提高审稿人对修改后论文的认可度，从而增加论文录用的概率。
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.
在学术论文投稿过程中，高质量回复审稿意见是决定论文录用的关键环节。如何通过专业、细致的答复与审稿人建立有效沟通?本文将结合审稿意见的构成特点，从 整体框架搭建、分类型应答策略、单条意见回复模板 及 沟通技巧 等方面，为您提供全方位解答。
一、审稿意见的解构与答复函框架设计
1. 审稿意见的常见结构
审稿意见通常由三部分构成：
开篇概述：对论文整体质量的评价，包括创新性、学术价值等;
具体意见：分为 主要问题(Major points) 和 次要问题(Minor points)，涵盖逻辑漏洞、数据缺失、文献引用不足等;
结尾建议：明确提出 “接收”“小修”“大修” 或 “拒稿” 等结论。
2. 答复函的双层结构设计
(1)一般性答复(General Reply)
致谢与认可：
“衷心感谢三位审稿人对本文的细致审阅与专业建议，这些意见为论文质量提升提供了重要方向。”
修改总览：
若涉及重大修改(如新增实验、调整研究框架)，需在此说明：
“针对审稿人提出的 XX 问题，我们已补充 XX 实验，并在第 X 章新增图 X、表 X 展示结果;对 XX 理论部分进行了重新推导，具体修改内容已用黄色高亮标注。”
格式标注说明：
明确修改稿的标注方式，如 “所有修订内容均在 Word 文档中使用黄色高亮显示，并在页边批注中注明对应审稿意见编号”。
适用场景：适用于需同步告知所有审稿人的全局性修改，或协调矛盾意见(如审稿人 A 建议删减内容，审稿人 B 建议补充案例)。
(2)具体答复(Specific Reply)
分审独立回应：针对每位审稿人单独撰写，避免混淆不同意见。
结构化分类应答：根据意见呈现形式调整回复策略：
二、不同类型审稿意见的针对性回复策略
1. 条目式意见(Point 1, Point 2...)
处理方法：按原序号逐条回应，确保逻辑对应。
示例：
审稿人意见：
Point 1: 论文中实验数据缺乏误差分析，建议补充标准差或置信区间。
回复：
Reply: 感谢您指出这一重要问题!我们完全认同实验数据需强化严谨性，已在第 3 章 “实验结果” 部分补充所有数据的标准差(见第 X 页表 3-1)，并在图 3-2 中添加误差条直观展示。
Change: 具体修改内容已在第 X 页第 X 段标黄，相关分析已补充至讨论部分(第 X 页第 X 段)。
2. 主次分类式意见(Major/Minor points)
处理方法：优先回应主要问题(影响论文核心结论)，再处理次要问题(格式、表述优化)。
示例：
审稿人意见：
Major point 1: 模型假设部分未说明局限性，需补充讨论。
Minor point 1: 摘要中部分术语表述模糊，建议统一规范。
回复：
Reply (Major point 1): 感谢您对模型严谨性的关注!我们已在第 4 章 “模型讨论” 中新增 200 字内容，详细分析了模型假设的适用范围与潜在局限性(见第 X 页)。
Change: 相关修改已标黄，参考文献 [X] 中补充了类似研究的对比讨论。
Reply (Minor point 1): 采纳您的建议，我们已对摘要中的术语进行统一规范，具体修改见第 1 页第 1 段。
3. 段落式意见
处理方法：拆解段落核心观点，自行编号回复(如 1.1、1.2)。
示例：
审稿人意见：
论文在文献综述部分仅罗列前人研究，缺乏批判性分析。建议对比本文方法与已有技术的差异，突出创新性。
回复：
1.1 Reply: 感谢您指出文献综述的不足!我们已重新梳理第 2 章内容，新增 “2.3 与现有方法的对比分析” 小节，通过表格(表 2-1)系统对比了本文模型与其他方法在精度、效率上的差异。
1.1 Change: 新增内容位于第 X 页，已标黄，并补充 3 篇最新文献(参考文献 [X]-[X])支撑论述。
三、单条意见回复的三段式黄金模板
意见 n(Point n)
原文引用(斜体)：直接复制审稿意见，确保内容完整。
观点回应(加粗)：
认同型：明确说明采纳意见的具体行动，如 “已补充 XX 实验”“已修正公式推导错误”;
存异型：礼貌表达不同观点，如 “经团队讨论，我们认为 XX 方法更适用于本研究场景，主要基于以下三点原因…”，并提供文献或数据支撑。
修改说明(正体 + 引号)：标注修改位置(页码、段落)，关键内容可摘录，如 “在第 5 章结论部分新增‘5.3 研究局限性’小节，补充了 XX 方向的未来研究建议”。
四、高效沟通的核心原则
态度优先：以感谢开场，避免使用 “您可能误解”“该建议不合理” 等对抗性表述，可改为 “由于阐述不够清晰，导致理解偏差，我们已重新优化…”。
证据支撑：对存异意见提供文献、数据或专家观点佐证，增强说服力。
简洁明确：避免冗长解释，每条回复控制在 3-5 句话，关键信息加粗或标红。
通过系统化的回复框架、针对性的应答策略与规范的语言表达，既能高效解决审稿人关切，又能展现作者的学术素养与沟通诚意，显著提升论文录用概率。建议在实际回复中结合具体意见灵活调整，必要时可寻求导师或同行的反馈优化。
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:
1. Added a schematic delineating the TWS non-applicability region (Major Point 1).
2. Incorporated Knudsen number analysis and expanded hydrodynamic equations (Major Points 2–3).
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.
文章名称：收到论文修改意见别慌！三步教你专业应答
