一篇稿子從醞釀到成型歷經艱辛，投出去之後又是漫長的等待，好容易收到編輯的回信，得到的往往又是審稿人不留情面的一頓狂批。這時候，如何有策略有技巧的回覆審稿人就顯得尤為重要。好的回覆是文章被接收的重要砝碼，而不恰當的回覆輕則導致再次修改從而拖延發稿時間，重則導致文章被拒，前功盡棄。下面把我平時總結的一些答覆審稿人的策略和寫回覆信的格式和技巧跟大家交流一下。
在審稿人給出各自的意見之後，編輯一般不會再提出自己的意見。但是，編輯一旦提出某些意見，就意味著他認為這是文章裡的重大缺陷，至少是不合他的口味。這時，我們唯一能夠做的只能是服從。因為畢竟是人家掌握著生殺予奪的大權。
第二永遠不要跟審稿人爭執
跟審稿人起爭執是非常不明智的一件事情。審稿人意見如果正確那就不用說了，直接照辦就是。如果不正確的話，也大可不必在回覆中冷嘲熱諷，心平氣和的說明白就是了。大家都是青年人，血氣方剛，被人拍了當然不爽，被人錯拍了就更不爽了。尤其是一些名門正派裡的弟子，看到一審結果是major而不是minor本來就已經很不爽了，難得抓住審稿人的尾巴，恨不得拖出來打死。
有次審稿，一個審稿人給的意見是增加兩篇參考文獻（估計也就是審稿人自己的文章啦），結果作者在回覆中寫到，making a reference is not charity！看到之後我當時就笑噴了，可以想象審稿人得被噎成什麼樣。正如大家所想的那樣，這篇稿子理所當然的被拒了，雖然後來經編輯調解改成了major revision，但畢竟耽誤的是作者自己的時間不是？
第三合理掌握修改和argue的分寸
所謂修改就是對文章內容進行的修改和補充，所謂argue就是在回覆信中對審稿人的答覆。這其中大有文章可做，中心思想就是容易改的照改，不容易改的或者不想改的跟審稿人argue。對於語法、拼寫錯誤、某些詞彙的更換、對某些公式和圖表做進一步解釋等相對容易做到的修改，一定要一毫不差的根據審稿意見照做。而對於新意不足、創新性不夠這類根本沒法改的，還有諸如跟算法A，B，C，D做比較，補充大量實驗等短時間內根本沒法完成的任務，我們則要有理有據的argue。
在Argue的時候首先要肯定審稿人說的很對，他提出的方法也很好，但本文的重點是blablabla，跟他說的不是一回事。然後為了表示對審稿人的尊重，象徵性的在文中加上一段這方面的discussion，這樣既照顧到了審稿人的面子，編輯那也能交待的過去。
第四聰明的掌握修改時間
拿到審稿意見，如果是minor，意見只有寥寥數行，那當然會情不自禁的一蹴而就，一天甚至幾小時搞定修改稿。這時候，問題在於要不要馬上投回去了？
我的意見是放一放，多看一看，兩個星期之後再投出去。這樣首先避免了由於大喜過望而沒能及時檢查出的小毛病，還不會讓編輯覺得你是在敷衍他。如果結果是major，建議至少放一個月再投出去，顯得比較鄭重。
上面是一些一般性的答覆審稿人的策略，在實際中的應用還需要大家見仁見智。下面談談答覆信的寫法。
寫答覆信的唯一目的是讓編輯和審稿人一目瞭然的知道我們做了哪些修改。因此，所有的格式和寫法都要圍繞這一目的。一般來說可以把答覆信分成三部分，即List of Actions, Responses to Editor, Responses to Reviewers。第一部分List of Actions的作用是簡明扼要的列出所有修改的條目，讓編輯和審稿人在第一時間對修改量有個概念，同時它還充當著修改目錄的作用，詳見下面的例子。剩下的兩部分是分別對編輯和審稿人所做的答覆，格式可以一樣，按照“意見”－“argue”（如果有的話）－“修改”這樣逐條進行。清楚醒目起見，可以用不同字體分別標出，比如“意見”用italic，“argue”正常字體，“修改”用bold。
下面舉例說明各部分的寫法和格式。
審稿人1：
意見1：置疑文章的創新性，提出相似的工作已經被A和B做過。
意見2：算法表述不明確。
意見3：對圖3的圖例應做出解釋。
審稿人2：
意見1：圖2太小。
意見2：第3頁有個錯別字。
很顯然，根據上面的答覆策略，我們準備對除1號審稿人意見1之外的所有意見進行相應改動，而對1.1採取argue為主的策略。
答覆如下：
List of Actions
LOA1: The revised manuscript is double spaced.
LOA2: A discussion on novelty of this work and a comparison with A and B have been added in page 3.
LOA3: A paragraph has been added in page 5 to further explain the algorithm ***.
LOA4: Explanations of the legend of Figure 3 have been added in page 7.
LOA5: Figure 2 has been enlarged.
LOA6: All typos have been removed.
Responses to Editor
請在修改稿中用雙倍行距。
We have double spaced the text throughout the revised manuscript, see LOA1.
Responses to Reviewers
To Reviewer 1:
意見1：置疑文章的創新性，提出相似的工作已經被A和B做過。
Thank you for pointing this out. A and B’s research groups have done blablablabla. However, the focus of our work is on blablablabla, which is very different from A and B’s work, and this is also the major contribution of our work. We have added the following discussion on this issue in our revised manuscript, see LOA2.
“blablablabla(此處把A和B的工作做一個review，並提出自己工作和他們的區別之處)”
意見2：算法表述不明確。
We have added the following discussion to further explain algorithm ***, see LOA3.
“blablablabla（此處進一步解釋該算法）”
意見3：對圖3的圖例應做出解釋。
We have added the following explanations of the legend of Figure 3, see LOA3.
“blablablabla（圖3圖例的解釋）”
To Reviewer 2:
意見1：圖2太小。
We have enlarged Figure 2, see LOA 4.
意見2：第3頁有個錯別字。
We have removed all typos, see LOA5.
1.所有問題必須逐條回答。
2.儘量滿足意見中需要補充的實驗。
3.滿足不了的也不要回避，說明不能做的合理理由。
4.審稿人推薦的文獻一定要引用，並討論透徹。
以下是本人對審稿人意見的回覆一例，僅供參考。
續兩點經驗：
1，最重要的是逐條回答，即使你答不了，也要老實交代；不要太狡猾，以至於耽誤事；
2，絕大部分實驗是不要真追加的，除非你受到啟發，而想該投另外高檔雜誌----因為你既然已經寫成文章，從邏輯上肯定是一個完整的 “story” 了。
以上指國際雜誌修稿。國內雜誌太多，以至於稿源吃緊，基本沒有退稿，所以你怎麼修都是接受。
我的文章水平都不高，主要是沒有明顯的創新性，也很苦惱。但是除了開始幾篇投在國內雜誌外，其他都在國際雜誌（也都是SCI）發表。以我瞭解的情況，我單位其他同志給國內雜誌投稿，退稿的極少，只有一次被《某某科學進展》拒絕。究其原因，除了我上面說的，另外可能是我單位寫稿子還是比較嚴肅，導師把關也比較嚴的緣故。
自我感覺總結（不一定對）：
1）國內雜誌審稿極慢（少數除外），但現在也有加快趨勢；
2）國內雜誌編輯人員認真負責的人不多，稿子寄去後，少則幾個月，多則一年多沒有任何消息；
3）國內雜誌要求修改的稿子，如果你自己不修，他最後也給你發；
4）國外雜誌要求補充實驗的，我均以解釋而過關，原因見少帖）。還因為：很少雜誌編輯把你的修改稿再寄給當初審稿人的，除非審稿人特別請求。編輯不一定懂你的東西，他只是看到你認真修改，回答疑問了，也就接受了（當然高檔雜誌可能不是這樣，我的經驗只限定一般雜誌（影響因子1-5）。
歡迎大家批評指正。
我常用的回覆格式，呵呵。
Dear reviewer:
I am very grateful to your comments for the manuscript. According with your advice, we amended the relevant part in manuscript. Some of your questions were answered below.
1）
2）
....
引用審稿人推薦的文獻的確是很重要的，要想辦法和自己的文章有機地結合起來。至於實驗大部分都可以不用補做，關鍵是你要讓審稿人明白你的文章的重點是什麼，這個實驗對你要強調的重點內容不是很必要，或者你現在所用的方法已經可以達到目的就行了。
最後要注意，審稿人也會犯錯誤，不僅僅是筆誤也有專業知識上的錯誤，因為編輯找的審稿人未必是你這個領域的專家。只要自己是正確的就要堅持。在回覆中委婉地表達一下你的意見，不過要注意商討語氣哦！
我得回覆格式是這樣的：
Dear Professor xx:
Thank you very much for your letter dated xxx xx xxxx, and the referees’ reports. Based on your comment and request, we have made extensive modification on the original manuscript. Here, we attached revised manuscript. in the formats of both PDF and MS word, for your approval. A document answering every question from the referees was also summarized and enclosed. A revised manuscript. with the correction sections red marked was attached as the supplemental material and for easy check/editing purpose. Should you have any questions, please contact us without hesitate.
然後再附上Q/A，基本上囑條回答，寫的越多越好（老師語）。結果修改一次就接收了：）
我的回覆，請老外幫忙修改了
Dear Editor:
Thank you for your kind letter of “......” on November **, 2005. We revised the manuscript. in accordance with the reviewers’ comments, and carefully proof-read the manuscript. to minimize typographical, grammatical, and bibliographical errors. Here below is our description on revision according to the reviewers’ comments.
Part A (Reviewer 1).
1. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
...
Part B (Reviewer 2)
1. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
2. The reviewer’s comment: ......
The authors’ Answer: .....
...
Many grammatical or typographical errors have been revised. All the lines and pages indicated above are in the revised manuscript.
Thank you and all the reviewers for the kind advice.
Sincerely yours,
一個回覆的例子(已接收)
Major comments:
1. The authors need to strengthen their results by including MMP secretion, and tran-matrigel migration by a positive control progenitor cell population i.e. enriched human CD34 cells obtained from mobilized PBL, since this is a more clinically relevant source of CD34 cells which has also been shown to secrete both MMP-9 and MMP-2 (ref. 11). CD34 enriched cells from steady state peripheral blood which also secrete MMPs are also of interest.
2. In fig1Cplease specify which cell line represents MMP-negative cells. This needs to be clarified, as well as a better explanation of the method of the protocol.
3. The ELISA results are represented as "fold increase" compared to control. Instead, we suggest that standards should be used and results should be presented as absolute concentrations and only then can these results be compared to those of the zymography.
4. When discussing the results, the authors should distinguish clearly between spontaneous migration vs chemotactic migration.Furthermore, the high spontaneous migration obtained with cord blood CD34 cells should be compared to mobilized PBL CD34 enriched cells and discussed.
5. The authors claim that the clonogenic assay was performed to determine the optimum concentration for inhibition of MMP activity by phenanthroline and anti MMP-9 mAb, however they should clarify that this assay can only determine the toxicity of the inhibitors and not their optimal inhibitory concentrations.
Minor comments:
1. There are many spelling and syntax errors, especially in the results and discussion, which need correction.
a. Of special importance, is the percent inhibition of migration,which is described as percent of migration. i.e. pg 7:"Migration of CB CD34 was reduced to 73.3%?" Instead should read "Migration of CB CD34 was reduced by 73.3%?"
b. The degree symbol needs to be added to the numbers in Materials and methods.
2. It would be preferable to combine figure1Aand B, in order to confirm the reliability of fig. 1B by a positive control (HT1080).
Answer to referee 1 comment:
1. Mobilized peripheral blood is a more clinical source of CD34+ cells, so it is necessary to compare the MMP-9 secretion and trans-migration ability of CB CD34+ cells with that of mobilized PB CD34+ cells. However, we couldn t obtain enough mobilized PB to separate PB CD34+ cells and determine the MMP-9 secretion and migration ability, so we couldn’t complement the study on PB CD34+ cells in this paper. Results obtained by Janowska-Wieczorek et al found that mobilized CD34+ cells in peripheral blood express MMP-9. Furthermore, Domenech’s study showed that MMP-9 secretion is involved in G-CSF induced HPC mobilization. Their conclusions have been added in the discussion. In our present study, our central conclusion from our data is that freshly isolated CD34+ stem/progenitor cells obtained from CB produce MMP-9.
2. MMP-9 negative cell used in fig1Cwas Jurkat cell. In zymographic analysis, MMP-9 was not detected in the medium conditioned by Jurkat cell. To exclude that the contaminating cells may play a role in the observed MMP-9 production, we screened the media conditioned by different proportion of CB mononuclear cells with MMP-9 negative cells by zymography. This result may be confusion. Actually, only by detecting the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml (since the purities of CD34+ cell are more than 90%), it could exclude the MNC role. In the revised manuscript, we only detected MMP-9 activity and antigen level in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB mononuclear cells (MNC)/ml. There is no MMP-9 secretion be detected in the medium conditioned by 2X105 CB MNC/ml. It excluded the possibility that the MMP-9 activity in CB CD34+ cells conditioned medium is due to the contamination by MNC.
http://3.In this revised paper, we have detected the MMP-9 antigen levels by using commercial specific ELISA kits (R&D System, sensitivity, 0.156ng/ml). Recombinant MMP-9 from R&D System was used as a standard. The results are expressed in the absolute concentration. The absolute concentration result has been added in the paper. As shown in Fig2, MMP-9 levels were detectable in both CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium and BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium. However, MMP-9 level was significantly higher in CB CD34+ cell conditioned medium than in BM CD34+ cell conditioned medium (0.406±0.133ng/ml versus 0.195±0.023ng/ml). Although gelatinolytic activity was not detected in media conditioned by CD34+ cells from BM, sensitivity of ELISA favors the detection of MMP-9 antigen in the BM CD34+.
4. In our study, to establish the direct link between MMP-9 and CB CD34+ cells migration, we only determined the role of MMP-9 inspontaneous migration of CB CD34+ cells, but not in chemotactic migration. Actually, regulation of hematopoietic stem cell migration, homing and anchorage of repopulation cells to the bone marrow involves a complex interplay between adhesion molecules, chemokines, cytokines and proteolytic enzymes. Results obtained by the groups of Voermans reveal that not only the spontaneous migration but also the SDF-1 induced migration of CB CD34+ cells is greatly increased in comparison to CD34+ cells from BM and peripheral blood.
5. CD34+ cells we obtained in each cord blood sample were very limited. It is not enough to screen the inhibitors concentrations to select the optimal inhibitory concentrations. In the blocking experiments, based on the concentrations used by others and the manufacturer s recommendation, we then determined the inhibitors concentrations by excluding the toxicity of the inhibitors in that concentration, which was determined by clonogenic assay.
Minor comments:
1.The spelling and syntax errors have been checked and corrected.
2.Since the results in figure1Aand B were obtained from two separated and parallel experiments, it is not fitness to combine two figures.
這是我的一篇修稿回覆，雜誌是JBMR-A,影響因子3.652,已發表，供參考！
Reply to the comments on JBMR-A-05-0172
Comment:
Reference #10 is missing from the Introduction but used much later in the manuscript. Should these be in order used in manuscript?
Reply:
The missing reference has been added into the revised manuscript.
Comment (continued):
What is the sample size for all tests performed?
Reply:
The sample size for drug release and PCL degradation tests was 3.0×3.0 cm2, with a thickness of about0.1mmand a weight of about 40mg. This dada have been added into the revised manuscript.
Comment (continued):
Figure 7. There is no scientific evidence presented in the TEM figure to convince this reviewer of sub-jets. This statement on Page 9 cannot be made without clear evidence during the jet formation/separation. Figure 7 is just a large fiber and small fiber fused together, no other conclusion than this can be made.
Reply:
Necessary change in the statements has been made in the revised manuscript. as well as in the referred figure accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Table 3: Need standard deviation for all values reported not just for a select few.Equation after Table 3 not necessary. Just reference method used.
Reply:
Done accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Page 11: "faster weight loss" What was the sample size? Where is the statistical analysis of this data? This reviewer does not see a significant difference in any of the data presented, thus weight loss would be considered equivalent.
Reply:
Although not too much difference was seen, the conclusion that “the GS/PCL membrane exhibited a relatively faster weight loss compared with the RT/PCL membrane” was indeed applicable through “one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)” analysis. Following the reviewer’s comment, a new sub-section has been added to the manuscript. to address the statistical analysis for the data.
Comment (continued):
Page 12: What is the sample size for release data? Looks like results based on a sample size of one? Need stand deviations on the data presented in Figure 11. Why wasn t release
performed and compared for all electrospun conditions investigated otherwise?
Reply:
Three repeated tests were performed for each set of measurements and the resulting data were averaged. As stated in the revised manuscript, each sample had a square area of 3?3cm2 with a slightly different thickness.Standard deviations have been added to the data shown in Fig. 11.The present manuscript. aimed to show that medical drugs can be encapsulated in ultrafine fibers through a co-axial electrospinning process. The drug release data intended to show that the encapsulation was successful. We did not consider any specific application in this preliminary paper, and in fact the two drugs were just chosen as model illustration. As such, there seemed not necessary to perform. release experiments for all of the membranes electrospun with different conditions (i.e. the core concentrations)
Comment (continued):
Table 3: Yang s or Young s Modulus (page 10 says Young s).
Reply:
Corrected accordingly.
Comment (continued):
Figure 11: What is the % release, not just concentration. Why just this small sample of release data? Where is the release data for the other conditions?
Reply:
Unfortunately, we did not measure the amount of the shell material in obtaining the composite nanofibers. Namely, the flow rate of the shell solution during the electrospinning was not accurately controlled using an injecting pump. Hence the % release was not applicable. Please refer to the previous reply related to Page 12 and Figure 11 for the remaining comments.We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and suggestions very much, which are valuable in improving the quality of our manuscript.
等了20多天，查閱狀態看到了第一次回信：
Home Author Area Reviewer Area Personal Info. ClinChem Home Sign Out Submit New Manuscript. Information for Authors Queue Summary Feedback Help FAQ
Decision Letter
[Return to Queue]
To:作者姓名（電子郵件）
From: [email protected]
Subject: Clinical Chemistry -- Manuscript. Decision
Cc:
RE: Clinical Chemistry MS ID# CLINCHEM/2002/036332
TITLE:
Dear Dr. xxx:
Your manuscript. has been examined by two expert reviewers. Please visit http://submit.clinchem.org to view their comments. For the reasons detailed in these comments, we cannot accept this manuscript. for publication in Clinical Chemistry in this form. Also, your Reference 28 is not formatted properly. Our Information for Authors will offer assistance with journal style; it can be found athttp://www.aacc.org/ccj/infoauth.stmWe would consider a revised version that takes these criticisms into account. If you should resubmit the paper I would also ask that you have several English speaking colleagues proof the paper for grammar and composition. Additionally, be sure to provide a detailed point-by-point response to the comments of the reviewers. Failure to do so will delay consideration of the revised manuscript.Prior to publication we require copyright releases signed by all authors. Our Authors Assurances and Assignment of Copyright form. can be downloaded from http://www.aacc.org/ccj/auth_assure02.pdf. Please note that all authors must sign both sections of the form. (a signature on the lower section means that all conflicts of interest have been disclosed even if there are none). Send the completed form. to us by FAX (434-979-7599).
Sincerely,
Dr. xxx nesley
Associate Editor
P.S. You will find your revised manuscript. can be uploaded in your "Submit a Revision" queue at http://submit.clinchem.org. Please do not begin the submission of your revised manuscript. until you are ready to submit the entire manuscript. A checklist regarding requirements for submission can be found athttp://www.aacc.org/ccj/manuscript_check02.pdf. Figures must be uploaded as Image Files in .tif or .eps files at 600 DPI. Alternatively, you may use PowerPoint software for figures but fonts must be embedded and only one image per slide, one slide per file. When uploading the revised version, please be sure to include in the "Response to Reviews" field a point-by-point list of all changes made, or your rebuttal, in response to each of the reviewers?
suggestions.
P.P.S. Please note that if your manuscript. has color figures, the authors are expected to bear the cost of printing them, except in the case of invited papers. The charges for these figures are $1500 for the first color figure or part of a figure, and $500 for each additional color figure or part of a figure. Authors will be billed for color publication costs unless they request that their figures be printed in black and white.
該雜誌一般為2個審稿人，審稿過程也較嚴格，都是本領域的大牛。後來我還有幸在一次會議上認識到一個當年的審稿人，但不知道是1還是2，呵呵！一般總是先鼓勵一段話，不寫了。。。
下面問題就來了，共12個，有些很好回答，一句話就可以解釋清楚，有些就比較麻煩。還是舉例說明吧
1）實驗的有效性和深度（at least for a few substances of major importance
detection limits, cut-off values and specificity should have been studied. Also the description of the assay principle is not quite clear）
沒辦法，只有一條路，補充相關實驗，然後再投。
2）語言問題（The English text would have to be substantially improved）
雖然這是一個美國雜誌，但對語言的要求一點都不弱，投之前還是忽略了，沒辦法，慢慢修改。
3）核心的技術問題（A cut-off value is given for MOL but the dimension is missing. In the discussion various anecdotic reports are given for which no data are presented under results.） 重新驗證討論。
本來認為很快就可以接受了，沒想到卻又等了一個半月（中間發過一次信件詢問）才收到回信。原來除了上次2個評委，這次又增加了一個獨立審稿人。。。
原文如下：
Your revised manuscript. has been examined by the original two reviewers, plus a recommended third reviewer with special expertise in this area. Please visit http://submit.clinchem.org to retrieve their comments. The three reviewers find merit in the work, but have numerous constructive suggestions（別害怕，其實就是幾個小問題）. Please consider these suggestions carefully and prepare an improved version that addresses these concerns. I have also noted that there are several color figures included in the paper, which seem to be useful only in color. Please be aware that (should your paper be accepted for publication) authors are expected to pay the costs for publication of color figures. The charge for the first color figure is $1500; subsequent figures, or parts of figures, are $500 each. Of course, if you wish to submit alternate figures in black and white (or grayscale), you may do so.
Sincerely,
Dr. xxx
Associate Editor
P.S. You will find your revised manuscript. can be uploaded in your "Submit a Revision" queue at http://submit.clinchem.org. A checklist of requirements for submission can be found at http://www.aacc.org/ccj/manuscript_check02.pdf. When uploading the revised version, please be sure to include in the "Response to Reviews" field a point-by-point list of all changes made, or your rebuttal, in response to each of the reviewer suggestions. Also, please submit copyright releases for all authors. Our Authors Assurances and Assignment of Copyright form. can be downloaded from http://www.aacc.org/ccj/auth_assure02.pdf. Please note that all authors must sign both sections of the form. Send the completed form. to us by FAX (434-979-7599).P.P.S. For figures, please submit .tif files that have a minimum resolution of 600 DPI; the width and height of the Pixels should be about 4200 x 4200. Alternatively, you may use PowerPoint for figures, but each .ppt file may contain only one slide and fonts must be embedded.
總之一句話，還是需要再次修改。
又等了接近1個月時間，幸虧不是學生趕畢業，最終被接收了。
Thank you for your revised manuscript. It is acceptable and will be processed for publication. Please note that I edited the paper to remove all text related to Figure 6. The structures of the drugs are available to anyone who wants to look them up. Thus this figure will not be in the proofs that you receive.
如果proof快的話，這個雜誌一般會安排在2-3個月後發表。
If page proofs are returned promptly, your paper is scheduled to appear in the Oct issue.之前電子版會先在網上發佈Papers in press are posted online 2-6 weeks before the issue date. Issues are scheduled to be mailed to subscribers and appear on the Internet before the first day of the issue month. The electronic version (http://www.clinchem.org) is published at Stanford University s HighWire Press, where your article will be linked electronically to and from PubMed and directly to and from over 340 other journals that are on-line at Stanford.當然還要轉移版權Prior to publication we require copyright releases signed by all authors. Our Authors Assurances and Assignment of Copyright form. can be downloaded from http://www.aacc.org/ccj/auth_assure02.pdf. Please note that all authors must sign both sections of the form. (a signature on the lower section means that all conflicts of interest have been disclosed even if there are none).
Thank you for this contribution.
Sincerely,
Dr. xx
Associate Editor
我們的回覆
Dear Dr.×××,
Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to revise the above manuscript.
According to the reviewers comments, we have revised the manuscript to provided our explanation.
Furthermore, we revised the paper according to your suggestion.
1) The length of abstract is 194 words, and the word of the main text is 2550.
2) The layout and format guidelines have been followed.
3) The changes to the paper have been highlighted underlined as well as including detailed responses to the reviewers comments.
I hope you are satisfied with the revised version, however, if there is more question, we are willing to revise it again.
Thank you.
××××
come from×××
閱讀更多 又在划水 的文章
