【IEEE】IEEE审稿意见与回复-写作指南

0 IEEE 审稿流程与状态解读

参考链接

对于不同的期刊，其对应的审稿流程以及审稿状态大体相同，但略有不同。这里主要介绍下IEEE Trans的投稿及审稿流程：

1. 参与审稿的人：

• EIC: Editor in Chief，主编，对稿件有最终决定权。
• ADM: Administrator，协助主编工作。
• AE: Associated Editor, 副主编，其会在审稿人（reviewers）意见的基础上对文章作个综合评价后，给主编一个recommendation。一般主编都会按照AE的意见写最终的decision letter。
• TE：Technical Editor, 技术编辑，主要是熟悉你文章领域的人对你的文章进行宏观上的评价；
• SE：Senior Editor，资深编委，我不知道，应该跟主编差不多吧；
• Reviewer：审稿人，一般给你assign三个审稿人对你的文章进行评审，并将审稿意见提交给AE。

2. 审稿状态：

• Awaiting Admin Processing：一般3-4天后就会安排主编；
• Awaiting Reviewer Assignment ：等待指定审稿人。主编在选择审稿人，等待审稿人回复是否同意审稿。一般在一周以内，看审稿人的回复速度；
• Awaiting Reviewer Scores：等待审稿人审稿意见。一般会要求审稿人三周内给审稿意见，如果审稿人觉得时间不够，可以写信给主编要求延长审稿期限。这个时间长短要取决于审稿人是否有空看你的文章，还要看他是否守时。苦逼的我等了4个月……；
• Awaiting AE Assignment ：等待AE的指派。编辑部在选择/联系AE，一般1-3天左右；
• Awaiting AE Recommendation： 等待AE的推荐。一般要求AE三周内给结果，但我们都知道：Deadline是第一生产力；
• Awaiting TE Recommendation：等待技术编辑的推荐，一般技术编辑会根据审稿人的意见做决定；
  Awaiting EIC Decision ：等待主编的决定，时间不一定，有人说3-4天，我咋感觉我等了半个多月。

3. 审稿结果：

• Accept：那只能恭喜你了！
• Accept after minor revision：withour re-review不需要再送审；
• Major revision：大修，一般根据审稿人的意见进行修改录用的概率很大；
• Reconsideration after major revision：要再送审，即要再经过审稿流程3－6；
• Reject and resubmit：论文现在状态不能接受，但可以修改后重新再投（其实就是大修的意思，我当时得到的就是这个结果，主编没有给我的文章一棒子打死，说我的文章有点新意，但是需要改进的地方还有很多，所以给我一个机会让我大修重投）。大修后的稿件要重新经过整个审稿流程；
• Reject ：一点希望都没有了，改投吧……

1 意见-怎么写（编辑与审稿人）

1. 常用的审稿意见角度

语言方面

1. 语言错误、缺少逗号，需要在准备正式手稿的时候仔细校对。
2. 为了使学术语言更加专业，我建议作者多学习专业文献，然后统一用词。
3. 你可以在稿件中使用你已经定义的缩写。当你重新定义了你的缩写后，你就不必再重新定义了。
4. 文章中部分概念的解释不够明确，需要作者精确，这样更容易让读者清楚。

内容和篇幅方面

1. 关于**相关作品太长了。请作者简化这两个方面的内容。
2. 增加一些最近的论文。/文献综述部分却缺乏关于。。。的著作，这是本文的核心内容。
3. 本文的研究内容主要是A,请在摘要部分对A进行简短的补充。
4. 某些部分逻辑性有些混乱。建议作者重新组织构。（例如摘要部分或者方法部分）
5. 对名次不同的叫法容易给读者带来错误的理解。请统一稿件中描述的写法，我建议作者可以使用***
6. 图片或者表格的风格不统一、质量不高，请对图片或者图标进行修改，使其更加美观。对于图，表的描述混乱，标题混乱，建议作者重新组织对图，表的语言描述。
7. “ **** ”文章中的这句话可以通过添加引用来加强。
8. 在introduction部分，作者没有详细地说明作者的架构为什么要介绍这种架构，这种架构比其他的方法好在哪里？

实验方面

1. 实验中，作者没有提供如何选择几个重要的超参数，如迷你批次大小、训练步骤和初始学习率。请提供细节。
2. 结合文章的任务解释评价指标。并解释这些指标对于现实任务的指导意义。/作者应该明确解释这些指标在这个任务中的具体含义
3. 作者在文章中说了某一个过程，但是没有对这个过程进行详细的描述。
4. 进一步解释某个实验结论的比较过程。
5. 简单解释一下，为什么使用这个方法？对这个方法有点困惑？
6. 作者在整体框架中为什么要用某一个模块，而不用其他模块？

结论方面

1. 结论反复强调了结果，这是不恰当的。这一部分需要简要说明研究内容、不足之处和对未来的展望，也就是对本文的贡献和局限性以及对未来研究的影响进行阐述。结论需要根据上述建议进行改进和补充。

2 Reject(unable to accept) 审稿拒稿意见完整案例

We regret to advise you that the Reviewing Committee is unable to accept the subject paper for publication as a PES Transactions paper even with possible revisions.

Enclosed please find the comments of the reviewers that should

serve to explain the recommendation of the reviewing committee.

I hope you will find the explanations satisfactory. Although we

could not accept this paper, we hope that you will consider

Transactions on Power Delivery for other papers in the future.

We thank you for your continued interest in the Power Engineering Society.

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS:

Editor’s Comments:

Editor

Editor Comments for Author:

The paper has received in general bad reviews. Much of the criticism has been caused by the problems with the English language. It is recommended to the authors that before they submit papers to the IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery to
use professional proofreading services.

Reviewers’ Comments:

Reviewer: 1

Comments to the Author

Authors have presented a method to improve the measurement accuracy of mutual inductance transmission line parameters. However, reviewer has not found enough new research work performed by authors to be published in IEEE transactions of

Power Delivery.

The authors have compared their method with NPFM method, which is not explained that how it works. Further, authors have not provided enough latest references of the NPFM method.

In the introduction section, authors have mentioned that the TTM method performance is affected by multi-circuit line, but they have not shown the performance of the proposed method in this case.

In the section II, the subsections A and B are not having much significant role in the proposed work.

In the section II, subsection C; authors have explained the proposed algorithm. In that subsection, equations 18 to 22 are not new. They have already been derived in the past. Please refer a paper of - Niranjan Kumar, A. K. Sahani,“Microprocessor Based Measurement of Π-Model Transmission Line Parameters Under Fault Conditions”, IET-UK International Conference on Information and Communication Technology in Electrical Sciences (ICTES 2007), Dr. M.G.R. University,

Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Dec. 20-22, 2007, pp. 389-392.

Hence, reviewer has not found enough new research work done by the authors in this subsection.

Reviewer: 2

Comments to the Author

Authors have presented a method of adaptive single ended sweep measurement which can be used for measuring the mutual inductance transmission line parameters.

(i) There are many grammatical errors in the abstract as well as in the introduction. Further, introduction is written in very poor form. Most importantly, connectivity is missing between each section as well as between each sentence.

(i) The authors have not clarified what their novelty is.

Reviewer: 3

Comments to the Author

This paper presents a method for transmission line mutual inductance parameters estimation. Following the authors, the method considers the shunt capacitive effect on the transmission line model, which is ignored by the ′traditional

methods′. The proposed method, following the authors, is based on ′non-linear frequency response analysis of transmission line parameters′. This reviewer has the following comments/questions:

• The theoretical analysis presents the behavior of isolated and three-phase conductors impedance with relation to the frequency. On both analyses, AC and DC resistances and inductances are shown in respect with Frequency. A LGJQ-300

wire is given as example. It is not clear how this frequency selection is automatically done by the method for different wire types. As presented the frequency choice seems to be empirical. An explanation on such could be included on the

manuscript;

• Equations (20)-(22) are adequate for single phase systems modeled with lumped parameters. The extended equations for 3 phase systems should be presented in the manuscript ;

• Long Transmission lines should be modeled with frequency dependent distributed parameters at the selected frequency range (300-800Hz). Comments on such approximation should be included in the manuscript;

• By selecting the ′best test frequency′, the method makes some considerations about the resistance and inductance behavior of wires. However the resistance and inductance behavior of the three phase lines are dependent, between others,on geometric and construction parameters. Equation 13 provides such relation. It is not clear how the estimated resistance and inductance values (which equations are not presented), will be used together with the line frequency

characteristic curves to provide the mutual inductance parameter. Detail explanation on such should be provided on the manuscript;

• It is not clear on the proposed method, how the estimated values are compensated from the mutual inductance effect. An explanation on such could be included on the manuscript;

• Different geometric configurations and operating conditions will produce different mutual inductance values. A discussion on such, based on test results, could be included on the manuscript;

• No reference for the so called NPFM method is presented. Such reference should be in the manuscript;

• A complete grammatical text review could improve greatly the manuscript readability. Figure 4 text should read inductance instead of resistance;

Reviewer: 4

Comments to the Author

(There are no comments. Please check to see if comments were included as a file attachment with this e-mail or as an attachment in your Author Center.)

2 意见回复-指南（作者）

2.1指南获取方法1

可以在各大学、研究机构或学术出版商的网站上找到英文期刊的审稿意见回复模板。这些模板通常在网站的“作者指南”、“投稿指南”或“编辑部”等部分提供。以下是一些常见学术出版商的网站，您可以访问它们以找到相关的模板：

Elsevier: https://www.elsevier.com/authors/journal-authors
Wiley: https://authorservices.wiley.com/
Springer: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors
Taylor & Francis: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/
在这些网站上，您可以找到与撰写审稿意见回复相关的指南、模板和示例，以帮助您撰写和格式化回复函。

请注意，不同期刊可能对审稿意见回复的格式和内容有所不同，因此最好查阅所投期刊的具体要求和提供的模板，以确保您的回复符合期刊要求。

以 Wiley为例的回复指南

https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/submission-peer-review/peer-review.html

Responding to the reviewer
You may not be able to control what the reviewers write in their review comments, but you can control the way you react to their comments. It’s useful to remember these points:
在回复审稿人时注意以下几点:

1️⃣Reviewers have, on the whole, given time and effort to constructively criticize your article
Reviewers are volunteers and have given up their own time to evaluate your paper in order to contribute to the research community. Reviewers very rarely receive formal compensation beyond recognition from the editors of the effort they have expended. The author will get the ultimate credit, but reviewers are often key contributors to the shape of the final paper. Although the comments you receive may feel harsh, most reviewers are also authors and therefore will be trying to highlight how the paper could be improved. So, it is important to be grateful for the time that both reviewers and editors have spent evaluating your paper – and to express this gratitude in your response.
诚挚地感谢编辑和审稿人评阅你的文章！（不断感谢）

The importance of good manners
You should remain polite and thoughtful throughout any and all response to reviewers and editors. You are much more likely to receive a positive response in return and this will help build a constructive relationship with both reviewer and editor in the future.
保持礼貌！！！（不断感谢）

Don’t take criticism as a personal attack
As stated previously, it is very rare that a paper will be accepted without any form of revisions requested. It is the job of the editor and reviewer to make sure that the published papers are scientifically sound, factual, clear and complete. In order to achieve this, it will be necessary to draw attention to areas of improvement. While this may be difficult for you as an author, the criticism received is not intended to be personal.
谦虚接受批评！！！（不断感谢）

2️⃣Avoid personalizing responses to the reviewer
Sticking to the facts and avoiding personal attacks is imperative. It’s a good idea to wait 24 to 72 hours before responding to a decision letter—then re-read the email. This simple process will remove much of the personal bias that could pollute appeals letters written in rage or disappointment. If you respond in anger, or in an argumentative fashion the editor and reviewers are much less likely to respond favorably.
Remember, even if you think the reviewer is wrong, this doesn’t necessarily mean that you are right! It is possible that the reviewer has made a mistake, but it is also possible that the reviewer was not able to understand your point because of a lack of clarity, or omission of crucial detail in your paper.
记住，即使你认为评论家是错的，这并不一定意味着你是对的！有可能审稿人犯了一个错误，但也有可能审稿人无法理解你的观点，因为你的论文缺乏清晰度，或者忽略了关键的细节。
（遇到审稿人不懂的地方或者你在文中已经表达但是审稿人仍然 指出问题的情况时，仍然表达感谢，并说明这是论文缺乏清晰度或者忽略关键细节所导致，并详细说明，不要直接说文中说了，你没看到）（是我们自己的问题！！！！！）

3️⃣Evaluating the reviewer comments and planning your response
After you have read the decision letter and the reviewers comments, wait for at least 24 hours, then take a fresh look at the comments provided. This will help to neutralize the initial emotional response you may have and allow you to determine what the reviewers are asking for in a more objective manner.
Spending time assessing the scope of the revisions requested will help you evaluate the extent of effort required and prioritize the work you may need to undertake. It will also help you to provide a comprehensive response in your letter of reply.
（为需要回复的工作按照实验部分、综述部分、文笔错误和润色进行划分，这样能够帮助我们合理安排修稿时间）（意见分类统筹）

Some useful steps to consider:（推荐的意见分类方法如下）
Make a list of all the reviewer comments and number them
Categorize the list as follows
requests for clarification of existing text, addition of text to fill a gap in the paper, or additional experimental details
requests to reanalyze, re-express, or reinterpret existing data
requests for additional experiments or further proof of concept
requests you simply cannot meet
Note down the action/response that you plan to undertake for each comment. If there are requests that you cannot meet, you need to address these in your response – providing a logical, reasoned explanation for why the study is not detrimentally affected by not making the changes requested

列出所有评论者的评论并编号；按如下方式对列表进行分类

1.要求对现有文本进行澄清，增加文本以填补论文中的空白，或增加实验细节

2.请求重新分析、重新表达或重新解释现有数据

3.要求额外的实验或进一步的概念证明

4.对于你根本无法满足的要求
记下你计划对每条评论采取的行动/回应。如果有你不能满足的要求，你需要在你的回应中解决这些问题——提供一个合乎逻辑的、合理的解释，说明为什么研究没有因为没有做出所要求的改变而受到不利影响

2.2 指南获取方法 2

google搜索 Sample response to reviewer comments 可以检索到许多不错的指南，例如
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10099302/

3意见回复-模板获取（作者）

百度搜索的一些模板

国外论文投稿：回复“大修意见”（Major Revision）的模板【放在文中，自取

审稿意见回复信模版

如何给出审稿意见和回应审稿人

google搜索获取模板

关键词 1：Sample response to reviewer comments
关键词 2：thesis Response Template

推荐模板

1.APA模板，五星推荐
apa模版简介

模板地址：https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/research-publication/
包括：cover letter for manuscript；cover letter for revision；response to reviewers；三个文件，可以说是非常全面的模版了！！！！
2.
填空式模板，很不错
3.
比较完整丰富的模板

4意见回复-的基本思路和句型（作者）

一、表达感谢

1. 我们非常感谢您认为我们的研究是一个重要的话题，对我们来说意义重大。
   We sincerely appreciate that you find our study is an important topic and it means a lot to us.

2. 我们要感谢您的宝贵评论。
   We would like to thank you for your valuable reviews.

3. 谢谢您的好心提醒。
   Thank you for your kind reminding.

4. 感谢您的评论
   Thank you for your comment.

二、给出解释/回复/辩驳（如若辩驳请委婉一些，编辑给咱审稿也挺累的！）

1. 请允许我们向您解释。
   please allow us to explain to you.

三、列出修改后的原文内容

5 意见分类和意见分类回复-模板（暂略）