SCI 修改稿回答审稿人意见范文模板修改稿回答审稿人的意见（最重要的部分）List of ResponsesDear Editors and Reviewers:Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers comments concerning ourmanuscript entitled “Paper Title” (ID: 文章稿号). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as theimportant guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewers comments are as flowing:Responds to the reviewers comments: Reviewer #1:1. Response to comment: (简要列出意见) Response: 2. Response to comment: (简要列出意见) Response: 。逐条意见回答，切忌一定不能有遗漏针对不同的问题有下列几个礼貌术语可适当用用：We are very sorry for our negligence of .We are very sorry for our incorrect writing .It is really true as Reviewer suggested thatWe have made correction according to the Reviewers comments. We have re-written this part according to the Reviewers suggestion As Reviewer suggested thatConsidering the Reviewers suggestion, we have 最后特意感谢一下这个审稿人的意见： Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer #2:同上述Reviewer #3:Other changes:1. Line 60-61, the statements of “” were corrected as “”2. Line 107, “” was added3. Line 129, “” was deletedWe tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions以下是审稿人意见和本人的回复。与大家分享。从中可以看出，这位审稿人认真读了文章，提出很多宝贵的意见。这些意见分布在文章的各个地方。我很诧异有人真正读了我的文章。看到这些意见，我觉得很感激，不是因为接收文章的原因，而是这些意见能真正有助于提高文章的质量。从中还看出，回答审稿人问题的“技巧”。对于回答问题，有的人就是一味反驳，却不加改进。记得 ACS Style Guide 里面说，当审稿人问到问题的，哪怕是他理解错误，这也说明作者这么写，其他读者也会理解错误，引起歧义。因此，作者就是要修改句子，使表达不引起歧义。因此：有时间一味反驳，还不如指出具体改进在第几页、第几段。=Reviewers comments:Reviewer #3: While revising the script, it is to be suggested that author should clearly indicate the aim & scope of the study and while making conclusion, it is to be mentioned how the study is useful for the practical purposes. In addition the followingare the few suggestions/comments, which may be included while revision.1. Introduction part first para last line, author must avoid to write ambiguous statement i.e., much work is still ahead, may indicate properly.2. Author could not demonstrate the reason why, to select the organic compound such as ethyl pyruvate for this study?3. Experimental part: It is difficult to understand the in-situ RAIRS experiments with homemade liquid-solid RAIRS cell. More detailed information may be useful for the others those who are working in the area. Photograph of the assembled cell may be included.4. The description given for the experimental set up (page 4) can be presented by flow diagram instead, as an ease to understand the set up.5. Resluts Part (Page 6): CO adlayers with identical monolayer coverages, the monolayer coverage, is it been performed with some adsorption model? Further, it was suggested that CO-saturated Pt surface, but not mentioned about the saturation experiments. Is it obtained after 60 min of CO bubbling?6. Page 12, 2nd para: The displacement of EtPy by CCl4 flushing, is it confirmed by the EtPy peaks? If so, it has to be mentioned clearly in the para. Also in the same para, author referred for Fig. 7a and 7b but in the figures, it didnt appear, only figure 7 appeared. I feel it refers for figure 7, portion A and B, to be corrected. Similarly, in the text referred the fig 2a, 2b. etc but on the figure sheet it is mentioned as 2A, 2B.etc. to be corrected.7. Page 14, 1st para: contamination of the Pt surface by corrosion of o-rings in high concentration EtPy, but the statement has not been supported by other evidence/literature.8. Pages 14 through 17: the observed reactivity of various solvents for adsorbed CO on the Pt surface (figs 3 & 4) has to be discussed more precisely. This reviewer is unable to follow the reason why they showed different reactivity, is it principally due to the organic moieties, or due to the impurities of commercially available chemicals or a mixed effect. It has to be clearly demonstrated, however, the only experiment performed with CO/water? CCl4 would difficult to describe it in detail.9. The author try to restrain with repeated arguments in the text e.g., page 3 para 1: It was generalized that. , also appeared on page 21 first para.10. Captions of the figures are too long, the detailed descrip