标签：
（a) 首先，要把编辑评委提出的修改意见逐条列出。 建议这里直接quote对方的原文， 比如象这样：
"The reference to Bianchi‘s model published in 2000 is a bit obsolete, even Bianchi has produced and published (in this same publication) a better model."
这样直接quote对方的原文，表明你并没有歪曲，修改对方的意见，是对方的一种尊重。
(b) 然后开始回答你是如何针对这个意见来修改你的文章。
（b-1)首先，你要写出你对编辑评委意见的理解：
Reviewer 1 requires that we should update our reference to Bianchi‘s work.
(b-2) 指出我们在没有修改前，我们是如何写的。
In our previously submitted draft, we use the following reference to Bianchi‘s work:
[3] G. Bianchi, "Performance analysis of the IEEE 802.11 distributed coordination function", IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 535-547, 2000.
(b-3) 阐述你针对这个意见做了什么事。 比如这个意见是说我给出的一个reference太旧。 我就说明我上网去查阅了专门的数据库，列举查到的结果， 并对结果进行解释和说明：
We checked IEEE Xplore database and found two Bianchi‘s letters mentioned by Reviewer 1:
1. G.Bianchi, “IEEE 802.11-saturation throughput analysis", Communications Letters, IEEE, vol. 2, no. 12, pp. 318-320, 1998.
2. G.Bianchi, I.Tinnirello, ”Remarks on IEEE 802.11 DCF performance analysis ", Communications Letters, IEEE Volume: 9 Issue: 8 Aug 2005
Page(s): 765- 767.
The frst letter is the short letter version of [3]. The second letter proposes a non-Markov chain approach for IEEE 802.11 DCF analysis.
Extensive work have been done on analyzing IEEE 802.11 DCF performance. Most of them use a Markov chain approach based on Bianchi‘s work in [3], and accordingly [3] are frequently mentioned in publications in this area.
Our analytical model also uses Markov chain approach, which is still based on Bianchi‘s work in [3]. Thus it is reasonable that we should mention it. Also compared with Bianchi‘s letter published in 1998, more details are presented in [3]. Thus we decide to mention [3] instead of that letter as [3] can help readers better understand Bianchi‘s work as well as our work.
Regarding Bianchi‘s second letter published in 2005, it contributes a new approach to analyzing the performance of IEEE 802.11 DCF. Elementary probability theory instead of complicated Markov chain is used in this letter. However, this work still ignores the effect of using data rate switching as most other work in this area do. It is diffcult for us to list numerous publications in this area due to the limited space. Therefore, in this draft, we only list the closely related publication (reference [3]), because we used this work in our analysis.
（b-4) 如果我针对这个意见对文章做出一定的修改，应该列举出对应的修改：
The related statement in the revised draft is as follow (referred to Paragraph 2, Section I):
“Despite extensive work on analyzing the performance of IEEE 802.11 DCF, most of them consider stations use a single data rate only and the effect of using DRS has been largely ignored, such as that in [3]."
写这种response letter时要注意语气，表现出礼貌。 最好要说一些"We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments"之类的客套话在（b-1）部分。此外，很有可能对方给的意见你本人不赞同（比如上面的例子），这时更要注意语气，同时给出详细可靠的数据证和充足的理由解释你为什么不赞同对方的看法（b-3)。 当然，为了照顾对方的情绪，可以在文中加一两句无关痛痒的话来cover对方的意见，如同我在上面的例子中(b-4)做的那样。
如果对方的意见确实是正确的和很有帮助的，在(b-1)更加要毫不吝啬的发表赞同的话，在(b-2)部分，可以用“incorrect"这类负面意义的词来形容自己以前文章中的相关内容， 表明自己深刻认识到这个错误。此外，(b-3)（b-4)可以合并，要详细介绍你是如何针对这个意见修改文章的， 不要再浪费过多时间来为你以前文章做辩护。
from: http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4723da760100tccz.html
标签：
原文地址：http://www.cnblogs.com/GarfieldEr007/p/5723903.html
