大修后文章直接录用(共9页).doc

精选优质文档-倾情为你奉上回复审稿人，态度决定一切  也许说的有点过，但个人觉得还是很有道理的。  最近我的一篇SCI接受了。这篇文章花了我大半年时间，于今年暑假完稿并投出。投的杂志是美国的*杂志。一个多月前受到编辑的通知：要求大修！三个审稿人，一个建议积极，说只是语言问题，并没提有关内容的问题；第二、三审稿人都提了很多问题，总共14个大问题，有的大问题里面还有小问题。三个审稿人得第一个问题都是语言问题（一般中国作者投英美杂志大都会遇到此问题，当然，我的看来比较严重）。拿到这个通知，说实在的，头都大了。有几个问题直指文章的死角，回答不好的话，文章的立意直接会受到怀疑。不过，我决定修改！本着态度诚恳，认真、严谨求实的原则，我花了22天的时间把所有问题回答完毕，该补充的实验进行了补充，该分析的数据又进行重新分析，基本是严格按照审稿人的建议意义修改。最后整篇文章的80%左右进行了大修，当然结论不能改动，只能从补充的那个实验中得到进一步的加强。语言问题，本来想请修改公司润色，后来在小木虫上求助, 绝大数虫友建议自己修改, 只有这样不能达到锻炼和提升自己的目的,于是决定完全自己修改。于是乎，就找了十几篇*最近发表的论文（英美作者写的）进行仔细研读，论文语言格式可以套用，加上自己的论述对象就OK了。最后回答问题15页，补充实验3个，原文章80%的修改最终于10月31日提交。后来经过半个月的再审，就直接录用了！  现在回想起来，感触颇多，本打算着再次小修，然后才能接 受（一般都这样），没想到还算顺利。后来，自己总结一下认为：回复审稿人的意见是很讲技巧的，说不好就完了，特别是对于要求大修的文章！更是如此。谦逊、谨慎、认真、求实的态度最为重要。对于不太清楚的地方也不能回避，要本着自己理解给以回答，最后最好在征求一下审稿人的意见，谦虚的染提起对着干问题给以指导，总之要给审稿人以最好的印象，这是文章录用的关键所在。下面列出审稿意见和我的回复，以期与朋友们问共勉：（由于帖子限制长度，部分问题与回答略）Dear Editors and Reviewers.    Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers comments concerning our manuscript entitled “A simple method for preparation of * used as active, stable and biocompatible SERS substrate  by  using  electrostatic  self-assembly”  (ID:  *-09-1602).  Those  comments  are  all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important 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# Response to comment: The review is complete and the main objection lies with the English language. I point out a few sentences only from the ABSTRACT and Conclusion. The rest corrections have to be done by the authors. I encourage the authors for small sentences. ABSTRACT - A new SERS-active * on the surface of glass slide has been prepared by a low-cost electrochemical strategy at a proper voltage and polyvinyl alcohol (*) concentration in  electrolyte  is  performed.  With  scanning  electron  microscopy,  the  morphology  of  the  Ag nanofilm is a two-dimensional structure with nano-scale regions should read as  A new SERS-active * on the surface of glass slide has been prepared by a low-cost electrochemical  strategy  using  polyvinyl  alcohol  (*)  at  a  proper  voltage.    The  two dimensional morphology of the * has been examined by scanning electron microscopy. Conclusion - . The morphologies and SERS activity and stability of the *s are characterized by SEM and SERS measurement, respectively. SERS spectra of * and * obtained from  these *s compare with those from Ag colloids, which reavals an excellent enhancement effect of the *s as SERS-active substrates. should read as The morphology, stability and SERS activity of the * have been studied. The excellent enhancement of SERS spectra for * and * from the * is observed in comparison to the Ag colloid system. The whole MS needs to be edited before it is accepted for publication. Response: As the Reviewer's good instruction, we have tried our best to revise the English of the whole MS carefully. In order to make the whole MS better understanding, we have revised some long  sentences  into  short  sentences  and  edited  the  whole  MS  according  to  the  Reviewers  instruction. Meanwhile, we also have asked some colleagues who are skilled authors of English  language papers to help us for checking the English (see the revised MS). We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review process. Special thanks to you for your good comments. Reviewer 3# 1. Response to comment: English should be checked throughout the text by a native English speaker. Response: According to the reviewer's good instruction, we have revised the whole manuscript carefully and tried to avoid any grammar or syntax error. In addition, we have asked several colleagues who are skilled authors of English language papers to check the English. We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review process. 2. Response to comment: The manuscript is too long. It must be shortened. The authors must be more concise. The introduction takes three pages. In fact, it is very hard to read the paper. There are several sentences that should be changed for a better understanding. Some corrections are done in the margins of the manuscript (pods file). I enclosed a copy of that. Response: We agree the reviewer's good advice. Yes, the manuscript is too long (especially the part of introduction), which is very hard to read the paper. And that, there are several sentences are hard for understanding. Thus, we have revised the original manuscript in order to reduce the length of the manuscript and make it better understanding (especially the part of Introduction). However, due to additional experiments and explanations are added in the revised manuscript according to the other Reviewers suggestion, the revised manuscript is still long in some sort. Nevertheless, we have revised the sentences (especially some long sentences) for the whole manuscript in order to make the manuscript more concise.    Especially,  the  corrections  done  in  the  margins  of  the  manuscript  (pods  file)  which  the Reviewer enclosed are very helpful to us. We are very appreciated for the Reviewers good comments and corrections made for our manuscript.     3. Response to comment: Repetitions and several adjectives should be avoided. For example: authors use ". active, stable and biocompatible SERS substrate." a lot of times through the text. Also, they indicate ".perfect stability of." or ".perfect biocompatible." Well, SERS spectra of SC become weaker when the time goes on thus, no Raman signal will be obtained for a long, long time. It means, that the time deteriorates Ag surface. I think that "perfect" is not a good adjective.Response: It is really true as the Reviewer suggested that some repetitions and several adjectives should be avoided. Thus, we have made corrections according to the Reviewers good instructions. We have deleted the repeated words such as "active", "stable" and "biocompatible" in some sentences. Meanwhile, like the Reviewer questioned that we have not studied the SERS spectra of SC for a long, long time. Thus, the using of "perfect" to describe the SERS substrate of Ag nanofilm  is  inapposite.  Considering  the  Reviewers  good  suggestion,  we  have  deleted  this adjective in some sentences of the revised manuscript. 4. Response to comment: About organization of the manuscript. There are too many epigrap* in section 2. I propose the following points: 2.1. Reagents. Preparation of * and * (old points 2.1 and 2.2 together) 2.2. Preparation of *-protected Ag nanoparticles and *s (old points 2.3 and 2.4 together) 2.3. Experimental equipments (old points 2.5; 2.6 and 2.7 together)Response: Considering the Reviewers good suggestion, we have re-organized the epigrap* in section 2. We have organized three parts for the section 2 of the revised manuscript. The epigrap* in section 2 are as following:   2.1. Reagents and preparation of * and * 2.2. Preparation of *-protected * (*-Ag CNPs) and *s 2.3. Experimental equipments  Special thanks to you for your good comments. Dear Editors and Reviewers.        We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the manuscript according to the Reviwersgood comments. 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 corrections will meet with approval. Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We look forward to your information about my revised papers and thank you for your good comments.    Yours sincerely, R.M. Liu5. Response to comment: Point 3.3 is entitled "stability and repeatability of *s". Some questions:  Here, it is shown the dependence of SERS relative intensities of SC on time. Is it the same sample (*-adsorbate) that is stored and then SERS spectra are recorded at different times? or instead, the same * is stored and then the adsorbate is added at different times and thereafter the SERS spectra are recorded?  Authors should clarify the procedure. Are different results expected with these two procedures? Have been these two methods checked? It is possible that only *s stored without adsorbate are active for a longer time? Experimentally  it  is  often  observed  that  roughed  surface  in  SERS produces  molecular degradation and a comparation between Raman and SERS spectra is necessary to identify the molecular fundamental modes. Why the authors did not record Raman spectra of SC? Raman spectra should be added to Fig. 5. The point 3.3 should be 3.2 because a characteristic of surface is explained and must follow point 3.1. The old 3.2 becomes 3.3. Moreover, old epigrap* 3.2.1. and 3.2.2 should be removed and  a  unique  point  3.3.  should  be  presented  instead  and  entitled  "  Biocompatibility  of  *s. SERS spectra of * and *". Also, epigraph 3.4 must be removed and the text must follow to the new section 3.3.Response: We are very sorry for our unclear report in the section of 3.3.  For the first question proposed by the Reviewer, our answer is as following: Yes, in the section of 3.3, the main intention is to display the stability and reproducibility of Ag nanofilms.  Fig.  6  (in  the  original  manuscript,  Fig.  5  in  the  revised  manuscript)  shows  the dependence of SERS relative intensities of SC on time. In this section, the *s are stored and then the adsorbate is added at different times and thereafter the SERS spectra are recorded.  For the second question proposed by Reviewer, our answer is as following: As the Reviewer's good instruction, we have clarified the procedure in the revised manuscript. However,  in  this  study,  we  have  not  studied  the  first  procedure  of  the  same  sample  (*-adsorbate) that is stored and then SERS spectra are recorded at different times. Thus, these two methods have not been checked. Take the time limit of the submission of the revised manuscript into account; it is difficult to carry out the first procedure in the revised manuscript. However, we appreciate for the Reviewers good advice earnestly. We will check these two procedures in future studies. For the third question proposed by Reviewer, our answer is as following: According to the Reviewer's good instruction, we have recorded Raman spectra of SC in solid state, as shown in Fig. 1(a) (Fig. 4(a) in revised manuscript). Meanwhile, the points 3.2 and 3.3 have also been re-written according to the instructions proposed by the Reviewer. (See the section of 3.2 and 3.3 in the revised manuscript) 图略Fig1.man spectrum of (a) solid SC. SERS spectra of 1.0×10   mol/L SC aqueous solution adsorbed on (b) glass slide, (c) *-Ag CNPs, and (d) *, respectively. 6. Response to comment: Sentence "the number of spectra for every condition is five" (page 9) or the number of spectra is 5 (Table 1 and 2), what does it mean? Perhaps something like this: Each SERS spectrum is recorded 5 times in different points of the * surface?Response: As the Reviewer's good question, the sentence of “the number of spectra for every condition is five" or “the number of spectra is 5 (Table 1 and 2)” in the original manuscript is hard to be understood. This sentence means that each SERS spectrum is recorded 5 times in differpoints of the * surface. we have revised this sentence in the revised manuscript according to the Reviewer's advice.  7. Response to comment: Epigrap* of Table 1 and 2 should be revised. Corrections are indicated in the manuscript.Response: According to the Reviewer's good instruction, we have revised the epigrap* of Table 1 and 2.  The epigraph of Table 1 “Table 1 Preliminary assignations of the Raman bands (Mean ± S.D., n=5) for the SERS spectra of *. The number of spectra is 5” is revised as  “Assignments for the SERS bands (Mean ± S.D., n=5) of * (based on Refs. 25-30).” The epigraph of Table 2 “Table 2 Observed wavenumbers (Mean ± S.D., n=5), assignments, and local coordinates of *, excited at 785 nm. The number of spectra is 5. 35-37” is revised as “Table 2  Assignments for the SERS bands (Mean ± S.D., n=5) of * (based on Refs. 32-34).” 8. Response to comment: Figure 4 shows SERS spectra of * and * recorded on different Ag nanofilms. What do authors want to say? This experiment is to check the reproducibility of the method? Thus, it is better to use the word "reproducibility" and not "repeatability". This must be clarified in the text. Response: As the Reviewer's good advice, we should use the word “reproducibility” and not "repeatability". Figure 4 (in the original manuscript) shows SERS spectra of * and * recorded on the different *s prepared under the same conditions. The authors want to display the reproducibility of the *s prepared by this simple method. Thus, we have replaced the word "repeatability" by "reproducibility" in the revised manuscript.   9. Response to comment: Uv-vis absorption spectrum of不*-protected Ag nanoparticules shows a maximum at 418 nm and at 785 nm the absorbance is zero (Figure 1b). Given that SERS spectra are recorded at 785 nm, I think that this excitation line is very far from the maximum to obtain a good signal. In fact, the Raman signal is very weak (Figure 3). Is it possible to obtain a better signal employing another excitation laser, for example, 514nm? I mean, probably the 785nm line is better for * than for *-protected Ag nanoparticules, but under other different excitation laser the *-protected Ag nanoparticules could be a good substrate for * or *. Have been checked different excitation laser lines?  Response: We are very sorry for our negligence of the explanation for why SERS spectra of * and * are recorded at 785 nm. In the studying of the SERS effect of * and *, we think that the excitation with the 785 nm wavelength has a number of advantageous features compared to a other wavelengt*. A previous study   has reported that a laser wavelength shorter than 514.5 nm is known to enhance photodissociation and cause  protein degradation even at  a low power. However, the sample damage can be avoided using laser light of a longer wavelength. No paling effects were observed using laser light with wavelength 660 nm. In their study, degradation of the biological objects was observed when using 514.5 nm excitation lase