Peer Review Response — 答审稿人英语

读完本页后,你应该能够:

• 写一封结构清晰的 response letter,包含 cover + per-reviewer + per-comment 三层
• 用 STAR-CR(Comment / Response 4 步)模板回每条意见
• 对敌意 / 错误 / 含糊的意见用合适的"反驳但不冒犯"chunks
• 区分修改了 / 解释了 / 拒绝了三种 response 各自的固定开头
• 写好一封 cover letter 给 editor,framing 整个 R&R
• 识别并避免 5 种中国工程师 rebuttal 反模式

Cover Letter to Editor → Response to Reviewer 1 → Response to Reviewer 2 → ...

每个 reviewer 的 response 内部:

Reviewer 1
=========

We thank Reviewer 1 for the careful and constructive feedback. The comments
substantially improved the manuscript. Below we address each point in turn.

Comment R1.1: [paste reviewer's exact words verbatim]
Response: [STAR-CR 4 steps, see §3]
Changes: [exact location in revised manuscript: e.g. "page 7, lines 142-156"]

Comment R1.2: ...

给 editor 的 cover 是 framing — 让 ta 知道:(1) 你修了什么大改, (2) 你怎么处理 reviewer 间的冲突, (3) 你为什么 disagree(如果有) 但仍尊重过程。

2.1 模板

Dear Dr. [Editor],

We thank you and the reviewers for the thoughtful feedback on our
manuscript "[Title]" (Manuscript ID: [XXX]). We are pleased to submit
a revised version, which addresses all the comments raised.

The major changes are:

  1. [Major change 1, 1 sentence]: e.g., "We have added a new experiment
     in Section 5 to address Reviewer 1's concern about generalizability."
  2. [Major change 2]: e.g., "We have rewritten the Methods section to
     clarify the data preprocessing pipeline (per Reviewer 2)."
  3. [Major change 3]: e.g., "We added a new comparison with [baseline]
     in Table 3 (per Reviewer 3)."

We have prepared a detailed point-by-point response to each reviewer
comment, attached as a separate document. All changes in the manuscript
are highlighted in [blue / track changes / colored text].

We believe the revised manuscript is significantly stronger and hope
it now meets the standards of [Journal]. We look forward to your
decision and welcome any further comments.

Sincerely,
[Authors]

2.2 Editor 关注的两件事

• 你 disagree reviewer 时怎么处理:Editor 怕作者删 reviewer comment 的 deal-breaker。Cover 里主动指出"We respectfully disagree with Reviewer 2's suggestion to remove Section 4 because [reason]; we have instead addressed the underlying concern by [alternative]."
• reviewer 之间冲突时谁的话听:R1 说加实验 A, R2 说加实验 B, 又有 page limit。Cover 里:"Reviewers 1 and 2 had partially conflicting suggestions about [aspect]; we adopted the approach that [rationale]." Editor 通常会站这种说法。

每条 comment 的 response 都按 4 段写。比 STAR(Behavioral)简化:

Comment R1.3: [paste 原文]

Response:
S - Summary: 一句话理解你认为 reviewer 在说什么(防止 talking past)
T - Thanks/Take: 简短致谢 + 表态(同意 / 部分同意 / 不同意)
A - Action: 具体改了什么(包括没改的也明说)
R - Reference: 指给 reviewer 看哪一段 / 哪个文献支持

Changes in manuscript: page X, lines Y-Z (or Section A.B)

3.1 同意 + 修改了(最常见,80% 的 response)

Comment R2.5: The authors should clarify why XGBoost was chosen over
LightGBM, given that LightGBM typically achieves comparable accuracy
with faster training.

Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this important methodological
point. The reviewer is correct that LightGBM is a reasonable alternative;
our original manuscript did not justify the choice clearly. In the revised
version, we have added a brief comparison in Section 3.2 (paragraph 2)
explaining that XGBoost was selected for its native support of monotonic
constraints, which we apply to features X1 and X2 to ensure interpretability.
We have also added a supplementary experiment (Table S2) showing that
LightGBM achieves comparable F1 (-0.7%) with 2.3x faster training but
without monotonic guarantees, which validates our choice for this
specific use case.

Changes in manuscript: Section 3.2, page 8, lines 178-195.
Changes in supplement: Table S2.

3.2 同意 + 没改(rare,要小心 framing)

Comment R1.7: The introduction is too long.

Response: We agree that conciseness is valuable. However, after careful
consideration, we believe the current introduction length is necessary
to motivate readers from both [field A] and [field B] communities, who
may not share common background. We have, however, tightened the writing
in three paragraphs (Sections 1.1, 1.3) to reduce the length by ~15%
while preserving the bridging context. We hope this addresses the
reviewer's concern while maintaining clarity for cross-field readers.

Changes in manuscript: Section 1, pages 2-4 (15% length reduction).

3.3 不同意(需要技巧)

Comment R3.2: This work is essentially incremental over [Smith et al. 2024].

Response: We respectfully disagree with this characterization, and we
appreciate the opportunity to clarify the distinction. Smith et al. (2024)
addresses [problem A] using approach X; our work tackles [problem B],
which differs in [specific way 1, 2, 3]. The mathematical framework in
their Section 4 cannot be directly applied to our setting because [reason].
We have added explicit comparison and clarification in the revised
introduction (Section 1, last paragraph) and in Related Work (Section 2.3,
new subsection) to make the contribution boundary clearer. We hope this
addresses the reviewer's concern.

Changes in manuscript: Section 1, page 3, lines 81-98; Section 2.3, page 6.

3.4 Reviewer 错了(最难,但有时必须)

不要直接说 "you are wrong"。用证据 + 第三方 framing:

Comment R2.4: The authors' claim that Method X is O(n log n) is incorrect;
it should be O(n²).

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's careful attention to algorithmic
complexity. We note that the O(n log n) claim is based on the standard
analysis when the input is assumed to be [condition], which holds in our
experimental setting (Section 4.1). The O(n²) bound the reviewer mentions
is the worst-case complexity when [condition] does not hold. To avoid
confusion for future readers, we have explicitly added the assumption
in the revised text (page 11, line 234) and cited the canonical analysis
[Reference, Theorem 3.2]. We also added a remark on worst-case behavior
in the supplementary material (Section S1).

Changes in manuscript: page 11, lines 234-237; supplementary S1.

3.5 Vague / hostile comment(最让人烦但必须 polite)

vague 例:"The presentation is not clear." hostile 例:"This work has no significance."

Comment R3.5: The presentation is not clear.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the feedback. To improve clarity,
we have made several specific changes:
  (1) Added a high-level overview figure (Figure 1) in the introduction
      illustrating the end-to-end pipeline.
  (2) Restructured Section 4 with clearer subsection headers and
      transitional sentences.
  (3) Standardized notation throughout the paper (consolidated in
      Table 1, page 5).
We hope these changes substantially improve readability. If the reviewer
has additional specific suggestions, we would be glad to address them
in further revisions.

Changes in manuscript: Figure 1; Section 4 throughout; Table 1.

关键 chunk (vague comment 标准应对):"To improve clarity / address this concern, we have made several specific changes: (1)... (2)... (3)... If the reviewer has additional specific suggestions, we would be glad to address them in further revisions." 这给了 reviewer "我尽力了 + 你想要更多请说" 的台阶。

4.1 加了实验 / 数据

Per the reviewer's suggestion, we have conducted a new experiment with
[setup]. The results, summarized in Table X / Figure Y, show that ...
This new evidence strengthens our original claim in Section Z.

4.2 改了图 / 表

We have revised Figure X to address the readability concern. The new
version uses [improvement: better color palette / larger font / clearer
labels / etc.]. We have also added a more detailed caption explaining
[X].

4.3 添加了引文

We thank the reviewer for pointing us to [Author Year]. We have added
this reference (Section X, page Y) and discussed how their approach
relates to ours in [way Z].

4.4 拒绝了一个 suggestion

We carefully considered the reviewer's suggestion to [X], but we
believe the current approach is more appropriate for this work because
[reason 1, 2]. We have, however, addressed the underlying concern by
[alternative action], which we believe captures the spirit of the
reviewer's suggestion while maintaining [important property].

4.5 处理 R1 vs R2 冲突

Manuscript level — 在 cover 里讲;具体 comment 里:

Reviewer 1 suggested [direction A] while Reviewer 2 suggested [direction B].
We have adopted [approach C] which we believe addresses both concerns:
[explanation]. We hope this compromise is acceptable to both reviewers.

5.1 Opening(致谢)

• "We thank the reviewer for [specific positive thing about their feedback]."
• "We appreciate the reviewer's [careful reading / insightful suggestion / detailed comments]."
• "We are grateful for the reviewer's [thoughtful concern about X]."

避免空话:"Thank you for your comments." → 改 "We thank Reviewer 1 for the detailed comments on our methodology section, which substantially improved the rigor of the analysis."

5.2 同意

• "The reviewer is correct that..."
• "We agree with the reviewer's observation that..."
• "We acknowledge the reviewer's important point regarding..."

5.3 部分同意

• "While we agree that [X], we believe [Y] is more appropriate for this specific context because..."
• "We share the reviewer's concern about [X]; however, our approach addresses this differently by..."

5.4 不同意(polite but firm)

• "We respectfully disagree with this characterization, and we appreciate the opportunity to clarify."
• "We must respectfully clarify..."
• "Our perspective differs slightly: ... We hope this clarification addresses the concern."

5.5 解释清楚后 redirect

• "To clarify, ..."
• "We may not have communicated this clearly in the original version. The intended meaning is..."
• "Upon re-reading, we see how this could be confusing. We have rewritten the passage to..."

5.6 Closing(每条 comment 末尾)

• "Changes in manuscript: page X, lines Y-Z."
• "We hope this revision adequately addresses the concern."
• "We are happy to make further changes if the reviewer has additional suggestions."

□ Cover letter
   □ 致谢 reviewers
   □ summary of major changes (3-5 bullets)
   □ 主动 framing reviewer 间冲突
   □ 主动 framing 你 disagree 的地方
□ 每个 reviewer 单独一段
   □ Opening 致谢(具体,非空话)
   □ 每条 comment paste 原文
   □ STAR-CR 4 步 response
   □ 明确 changes location(page / line / section / table)
□ 高亮 manuscript 改动(track changes / blue text / highlighter)
□ 没回避任何 comment(即使是 hostile / vague 也回了)
□ 拒绝的 suggestion 给了替代 action
□ 整体语气:礼貌 + 坚定 + 具体 + 无空话
□ Editor 能在 5 min 内读完 cover + summary 知道你做了啥

如果 Round 2 同一 reviewer 给同一 concern,前一轮的 letter 必须显式引用:

Comment R1.2 (Round 2): The authors did not adequately address my
previous concern about [X].

Response: We apologize that our previous response (Round 1, Comment R1.2)
did not fully address this concern. In the current revision, we have
[NEW more substantial action]. Specifically, [details]. We hope this
revision now adequately addresses the reviewer's concern.

Changes in manuscript: [new locations]

Round 3 时通常 editor 会做 final call,response 应短而精,聚焦核心。

• Cover letter framing 决定 editor 的 first impression — 主动 surface 大改 + reviewer 冲突 + 你 disagree 的地方
• 每条 comment 用 STAR-CR 4 步:Summary / Thanks-Take / Action / Reference,缺一显得敷衍
• 不同意要用"respectfully disagree" + 证据 + 第三方 framing,不要直接 you are wrong
• Vague comment 标准应对:列具体 (1)(2)(3) 改动 + "if reviewer has additional specific suggestions"
• Reviewer 错了:用 condition / assumption framing,不正面冲突
• 5 反模式戒除:过度致谢 / 嘴硬不修 / 承诺过头 / vague 对 vague / 被动模糊
• Round 2 的 same-concern:必须显式承认前一轮没解决 + 这轮做更多
• 整体语气:礼貌(每段开头致谢) + 坚定(disagree 时直说) + 具体(每条都指 page/line) + 无空话(不写 thank you very much for your kind comments)

• ← 索引
• Engineering Writing(paper / report / memo)
• Business Email(邮件结构 + 拒绝 / 催办)
• Academic Vocabulary(AWL + 抽象动名词)
• Tech Interview(STAR + clarifying)
• Meeting & Presentation chunks
• IELTS Writing Task 2(议论文)
• Pronunciation(中国 accent 弱点)