登录
第三步 突出重点
如果是会议投稿，评审专家可以需要审阅大量的回复，因此，需要把重要的观点放置在最前面，让评审专家一眼就能看到问题。
例如：
> The paper is a clever generalization of [Foo, 1989].
This is an accurate summary.
> And, Z is simply incorrect by the [some argument].
It appears that there is a misunderstanding. We realize now that our presentation obscured some important facets of Z. The reviewer seems to think that Z is Z', and we would agree that Z' is incorrect.
> However, I don't agree that X is novel.
> I've seen it in [Foo, 1989].
While [Foo, 1989] does contain a method for doing X in specific cases, we have generalized the method for *all* cases. Consider the following case:
[motivating case]
This case is beyond the limits of [Foo, 1989], while it is in scope for our technique. This is the key distinction in our work, and we discussed this in more detail in the related work on page 11.
> Moreover, Y is trivial.
While we agree that Y is *simple* once the construction is seen, we argue that it is not *trivial* to create this construction in the first place. If Y were trivial, we might have expected earlier work such as [3] and [4] to use it, yet they did not. Instead, they opted for a much more complicated partial solution.
> But, I see the real contribution as W.
We thank the reviewer for raising the point. We agree: W is a real contribution.
> The paper is about [restatement of the abstract].
The summary is accurate at a high-level, but misses some key details like A, B and C.
> The main claimed contributions are:
> 1. X
> 2. Y
> 3. Z
Agreed.
> The main claimed contributions are:
> 1. X
> 2. Y
> 3. Z
We concur.
> In conclusion: strong accept.
We agree.
> In conclusion: strong reject.
We respectfully disagree.
第四步 精简
如果回复有字数限制，或者多个审稿者的审稿意见之间有重复的内容，可以对回复内容进行精简。可以从最后的问题开始。
例如：
> The paper is a clever generalization of [Foo, 1989].
This is an accurate summary.
> And, Z is simply incorrect by the [some argument].
It appears that there is a misunderstanding. We realize now that our presentation obscured some important facets of Z. The reviewer seems to think that Z is Z', and we would agree that Z' is incorrect.
> However, I don't agree that X is novel.
> I've seen it in [Foo, 1989].
While [Foo, 1989] does contain a method for doing X in specific cases, we have generalized the method for *all* cases. Consider the following case:
[motivating case]
This case is beyond the limits of [Foo, 1989], while it is in scope for our technique. This is the key distinction in our work, and we discussed this in more detail in the related work on page 11.
> Moreover, Y is trivial.
While we agree that Y is *simple* once the construction is seen, we argue that it is not *trivial* to create this construction in the first place. If Y were trivial, we might have expected earlier work such as [3] and [4] to use it, yet they did not. Instead, they opted for a much more complicated partial solution.
> But, I see the real contribution as W.
We thank the reviewer for raising the point. We agree: W is a real contribution.
> The paper is about [restatement of the abstract].
The summary is accurate at a high-level, but misses some key details like A, B and C.
第五步 润色
现在，可以开始编辑一下回复了。
如果是会议投稿，注意把审稿者所写的关于论文最简炼准确的摘要放在回复的最前面。因为会议开始之前，很多人并未读过论文，也不大可能想通读一下整个回复。但是，他们可能会对回复的第一段瞟上一眼。把摘要放在前面可以让他们对整个论文有个大体的印象。另外，不要吝啬添加一下「thank you」之类的客气话。
在编辑回复之前，要站在审稿者的角度考虑问题。如果您是审稿者，对这样的回复满意不?
例如：
We thank the reviewers for the time and expertise
they have invested in these reviews.
> The paper is a clever generalization of [Foo, 1989].
This is an accurate summary, and we'd like to amplify the recognition of W as an additional contribution of the work by reviewer 2.
We'll reply to individual points below:
> And, Z is simply incorrect by the [some argument].
It appears that there is a misunderstanding. We realize now that our presentation obscured some important facets of Z. The reviewer seems to think that Z is Z', and we would agree that Z' is incorrect.
> However, I don't agree that X is novel.
> I've seen it in [Foo, 1989].
While [Foo, 1989] does contain a method for doing X in specific cases, we have generalized the method for *all* cases. Consider the following case:
[motivating case]
This case is beyond the limits of [Foo, 1989], while it is in scope for our technique. This is the key distinction in our work, and we discussed this in more detail in the related work on page 11.
> Moreover, Y is trivial.
While we agree that Y is *simple* once the construction is seen, we argue that it is not *trivial* to create this construction in the first place. If Y were trivial, we might have expected earlier work such as [3] and [4] to use it, yet they did not. Instead, they opted for a much more complicated partial solution.
> But, I see the real contribution as W.
We thank the reviewer for raising the point. We agree: W is a real contribution.
> The paper is about [restatement of the abstract].
The summary is accurate at a high-level, but misses some key details like A, B and C.
第六步 核对
好了，SCI投稿评审意见回复完毕之后先放松一下，然后仔细核对核对，看看有无遗漏的问题，如无，然后提交回复吧。