如何回复英文论文编辑部的修改意见Respon to Editor and Reviewer
英文修改稿回复信，希望对大家有帮助
1.
Dear Prof. XXXX,
Thank you very much for your letter and the comments from the referees about our paper submitted to XXXX (MS Number XXXX).
hostageWe have checked the manuscript and revid it according to the comments. We submit here the revid manuscript as well as a list of changes.
If you have any question about this paper, plea don’t hesitate to let me know.
物色Sincerely yours,
Dr. XXXX
Respon to Reviewer 1: tough是什么意思
Thanks for your comments on our paper. We have revid our paper according to your comments:
1. XXXXXXX
2. XXXXXXX
2.
Dear Professor ***,
Re: An *** Rotating Rigid-flexible Coupled System (No.: JSV-D-06-***)
by ***
Many thanks for your email of 24 Jun 2006, regarding the revision and advice of the above paper in JSV. Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it.
After carefully studying the reviewer’ comments and your advice, we have made corresponding changes to the paper. Our respon of the comments is enclod.
If you need any other information, plea contact me immediately by email. My email account is ***, and Tel.is ***, and Fax is +***.
Yours sincerely,
Detailed respon to reviewer’s comments and Asian Editor’s advice
Overall the comments have been fair, encouraging and constructive. We have learned much from it. Although the reviewer’s comments are generally positive, we have carefully proofread the manuscript and edit it as following.
(1)
(2)
初中英语教学
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Besides the above changes, we have corrected some expression errors.
feedsThank you very much for the excellent and professional revision of our manuscript.
3.
The manuscript is revid submission (×××－××××) with new line and page numbers in the text, some grammar and spelling errors had also been corrected. Furthermore, the relevant regulations had been made in the original manuscript according to the comments of reviewers, and the major revid portions were marked in red bold. We also responded point by point to each reviewer comments as listed below, along with a clear indication of the location of the revision.
Hope the will make it more acceptable for publication.
List of Major Changes:
1).........
2).........
3).........
Respon to Reviewers:
1).........
2).........
3).........
Respon to Reviewer XX
We very much appreciate the careful reading of our manuscript and valuable suggestions of the reviewer. We have carefully considered the comments and have revid the manuscript accordingly. The comments can be summarized as follows:
1) XX
2) XX
Detailed respons
1) XX
2) XX
4.
Dear editor XX
We have received the comments on our manuscript entitled “XX” by XX. According to the comments of the r
eviewers, we have revid our manuscript. The revid manuscript and the detailed respons to the comments of the one reviewer are attached. 2199什么意思
Sincerely yours,
XX
5.
Respon to Reviewer A
Reviewer A very kindly contacted me directly, and revealed himlf to be Professor Dr. Hans-Georg Geissler of the University of Leipzig. I wrote him a general respon to both reviews in January 2000, followed by the respons to specific points, both his own, and tho of the other reviewer .
Respon to Specific Points
What follows is a brief and cursory discussion of the various issues raid by yourlf and the other reviewer. If you should revi your judgment of the validity of the theory, the points will be addresd at greater length in a new version of the paper that I would resubmit to Psychological Review.
Respon to Specific Points- Reviewer A:
In part (1) of your critique the major complaint is that no theory is prented, which was discusd above. You continue "Regrettably, not much attention is drawn to specific differences between the chon examples that would be necessary to pinpoint specificities of perception more precily", and "if perceptual systems, as suggested, hler (Kindeed act on the basis of HR, there must be many more specific constraints involved to ensure special `veridicality' properties of the perceptual outcome", and "the difficult analytic problems of concrete modeling of perception are not even touch
ed". The model as prented is not a model of vision or audition or any other particular modality, but is a general model to confront the alternative neural receptive field paradigm, although examples from visual perception are ud to exemplify the principles discusd. The more specific visual model was submitted elwhere, in the Orientational Harmonic model, where I showed how harmonic resonance accounts for specific visual illusory effects. As discusd above, the attempt here is to propo a general principle of neurocomputation, rather than a specific model of visual, auditory, or any other specific nsory modality. Again, what I am proposing is a paradigm rather than a theory, i.e. an alternative principle of neurocomputation with specific and unique properties, as an alternative to the neuron doctrine paradigm of the spatial receptive field. If this paper is eventually accepted for publication, then I will resubmit my papers on visual illusory phenomena, referring to this paper to justify the u of the unconventional harmonic resonance mechanism.
marktwain
In part (2) (a) of your critique you say "it is not clarified whether the postulated properties of Gestalts actually follow from this definition or partly derive from additional constraints." and "I doubt that any of the reviewed examples for HR can treat just the ca of hler: (1961, p. 7) "Human experience in the phenomenological n cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be fo
rced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague." Wolfgang Kthe dog cited to demonstrate `emergence'. For this a hierarchy relation is needed." The principle of emergence in Gestalt theory is a very difficult concept to express in unambiguous terms, and the dog picture was prented to illustrate this rather elusive concept with a concrete example. I do not suggest that HR as propod in this paper can address the dog picture as such, since this is specifically a visual problem, and the HR model as prented is not a visual model. Rather, I propo that the feature detection paradigm cannot in principle handle this kind of ambiguity, becau the local features do not individually contain the information necessary to distinguish significant from insignificant edges. The solution of the HR approach to visual ambiguity is explained in the paper in the ction on "Recognition by Reification" (p. 15-17) in which I propo that recognition is not simply a matter of the identification of features in the input, i.e. by the "lighting up" of a higher level feature node, but it involves a simultaneous abstraction and reification, in which the higher level feature node reifies its particular pattern back at the input level, modulated by the exact pattern of the input. I appeal to the reader to e the reified form of the dog as perceived edges and surfaces that are not prent in the input stimulus, as evidence for this reification in perception, which appears at the same time that the recognition occurs. The remarkable property of this reification is that the dog appears not as an image of a canonical, or prototypical dog, but as a dog percept that is warped to the exact posture a
antispywarend configuration allowed by the input, as obrved in the subjective experience of the dog picture. This explanation is subject to your criticism in your general comments, that "the author demonstrates more insight than explicitly stated in assumptions and drawn conclusions". I can only say that, in Kuhn's words, sometimes it is only personal and inarticulate aesthetic considerations that can be ud to make the ca.
affairsIn the words of Wolfgang K?hler: (1961, p. 7)
"Human experience in the phenomenological n cannot yet be treated with our most reliable methods; and when dealing with it, we may be forced to form new concepts which at first, will often be a bit vague."
Wolfgang K?hler (K?hler 1923 p. 64)
"Natural sciences continually advance explanatory hyptothes, which cannot be verified by direct obrvation at the time when they are formed nor for a long time thereafter. Of such a kind were Ampere's theory of magnetism, the kinetic theory of gas, the electronic theory, the hypothesis of atomic disinte gration in the theory of radioactivity. Some of the assumptions have since been verified by direct obr vation, or have at least come clo to such direct verification; others are still f
copdar removed from it. But physics and chemistry would have
been condemned to a permanent embryonic state had they abstained from such hypothes; their development ems rather like a continuous effort steadily to shorten the rest of the way to the verification of hypothes which survive this process"
In ction (2) (b) of your critique you complain that "there is no rious discussion of possible alternatives", and you mention Neo-Gibsonian approaches, PDP, Grossberg's ART model and Pribram's holographic theory. In the next version of the paper this omission will be corrected, approximately as follows. Gibson's u of the term resonance is really a metaphorical device, since Gibson offers no mechanisms or analogies of perceptual process, but merely suggests that there is a two-way flow of information (resonance) between behavior and the environment. This is really merely a metaphor, rather than a model.
The PDP approach does address the issue of emergence, but since the basic computational unit of the neural network model is a hard-wired receptive field, this theory suffers all the limitations of a template theory. The same holds for Grossberg's "Adaptive Resonance Theory", which also us the word resonance metaphorically to suggest a bottom-up top- down matching, but in Grossberg's mod
el that matching is actually performed by receptive fields, or spatial templates. The ART model demonstrates the limitations of this approach. For the only way that a higher-level detector, or "F2 node", can exhibit generalization to different input patterns, is for it to have synaptic weights to all of the patterns to which it responds. In esnce, the pattern of synaptic weights is a superposition or blurring together of all of the possible input patterns to which the F2 node should respond. In top-down priming mode therefore that F2 node would "print" that same blurred pattern back at the lower "F1 node" level, activating all of the possible patterns to which that F2 node is tuned to respond. For example if an ART model were trained to respond to an "X"-shaped feature prented at all possible orientations, top-down priming of this node after training would "print" a pattern of all tho X-shaped features at all orientations superimpod, which is simply an amorphous blob. In fact, that same node would respond even better to a blob feature than to any single X feature. In the prence of a partial or ambiguous X-like pattern prented at a particular orientation, the ART model could not complete that pattern specific to its orientation. The HR model on the other hand offers a different and unique principle of reprentation, in which top-down activation of the higher level node can complete a partial or ambiguous input pattern in the specific orientation at which it appears, but that same priming would complete the pattern differently if it appeared in a different orientation. This generalization in recognition, but specification in completion, is a property that is unique to the harmonic resonance reprent
ation.
Kuhn obrves that the old paradigm can always be reformulated to account for any particular phenomenon addresd by the new paradigm, just as the Ptolomaic earth- centered cosmology could account for the motions of the planets to arbitrary precision, given enough nested cycles and epicycles of the crystal spheres. Similarly, a conventional neural network model can always be contrived to exhibit the same functional behavior of generalized recognition but specific completion described above, but only by postulating an implausible arrangement of spatial receptive fields. In this ca that would require specific X-feature templates applied to the input at every possible orientation, any one of which can stimulate a single rotation-invariant X-feature node, to account for bottom-up rotation invariance in recognition. However in order to also account for top-down completion specific to orientation, top-down activation of the higher-level invariant node would have to feed back down to a t of top-down projection nodes, each of which is equipped with an X-shaped projective template at a particular orientation, able to project a complete X-shaped pattern on the input field. But the top-down completion must lect only the specific orientation that best matches the pattern prent in the input, and complete the pattern only at that best matching orientation. This system therefore requires two complete ts of X-feature receptive fields or templat
es, one t for bottom-up recognition and the other t for top-down completion, each t containing X-feature templates at every possible orientation, and similar ts of receptive fields would be required for the recognition of other shaped patterns such as "T" and "V" features. This reprents a "brute force" approach to achieving invariance, which although perhaps marginally plausible in this specific example, is completely implausible as a general principle of operation of neurocomputation, given the fact that invariance appears to be so fundamental a property of human and animal perception. However, as Kuhn also obrves, a factor such as neural plausibility is itlf a "personal and inarticulate aesthetic consideration" that cannot be determined unambiguously by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science.
With regard to Pribram's Holographic theory, the concept of a hologram is cloly related to a standing wave model, since it too works by interference of waveforms. The difference is that the hologram is "frozen in time" like a photograph, and therefore does not exhibit the tolerance to elastic deformation of the input, as does the standing wave model. Neither does the hologram exhibit rotation invariance as does the standing wave in a circular- symmetric system. However holograms can in principle be constructed of dynamic standing waves, as Pribram himlf suggests, and this concept then becomes a harmonic resonance theory. The prent proposal is therefore cloly related
