How-to-Respond-to-Reviewers.md

@@ -7,10 +7,11 @@
 - *Be confident*: Try to provide further explanation or rebuttal with the reviewer's unclear understanding, you can promise to make some revisions for the final version, but not too much. Too many revisions will make your submission fall into an unready submission.
 
 ## Response to each reviewer:
-- Thank the reviewer's thoughtful comments/or time, if you have enough response space, e.g. begin with: `We thank the reviewer for your helpful comments. We summarise and respond to your specific questions below.'
+- Thank the reviewer's thoughtful comments/or time, if you have enough response space, e.g. for each review response begin with: `We thank the reviewer for your helpful comments.' Or if you don't have enough response space, at the very beginning for each reviewer, you can use a single sentence, something like this: `We thank the reviewer for your helpful comments. We summarise and respond to your specific questions below.'
 - During the response, you can also use references to support your response, if the reference exists in your manuscript, you can just cite with the citation format used in the paper without adding the detailed reference in the response letter. If the reference is new, you cite the same format and need to add the reference in your response letter.
-- Analyse and try to summarise the reviewer's question with a shorter question title.
--
+- If you promise to make the revision in your final version, you need assertively state what exactly you will change, for instance, `We agree that XX, we will do YY in the final version'.
+- Analyse and try to summarise the reviewer's question with a shorter question title, and response to the summarised questions, for instance: `We thank the reviewer for your helpful comments. We summarise and respond to your specific questions below.'
+
 ### For reviewers with positive reviews:
 - Response with short sentences, something like this: we appreciate your positive feedback.
 
@@ -22,14 +23,10 @@
 
  Response: state the fact and provide further explanation of this technical detail. 
 
-> Question Type: 
-
-Response: 
-
 
 > Question Type: typos or other writing issues;
 
- Response: if there is no space, can ignore this question response; otherwise, promise will revise them in the final version.
+ Response: if there is no space, can ignore this question response; otherwise, promise will revise them in the final version. Response to this type of question can be: `We appreciate the suggested references and the list of minor corrections, we will incorporate them in the final version.'
 
 
 
@@ -37,5 +34,6 @@ Response:
 
 ## General Response to All Reviewers:
 
-- Highlight and summarise all the positive reviews.
+- Highlight and summarise all the positive reviews. For instance, one of the GR to all reviewers of mine:
+`We thank you all reviewers for your thoughtful comments. We appreciate that the reviewers found the paper to be “well presented”, “technically sound”, exhibited “extensive experiments”, provided “significant improvements”, gained “promising performance in both efficiency and effectiveness”, provides an “interesting perspective”, and “easy to reproduce”. We have summarised the questions of each reviewer and made responses regarding each question. We thank them for all the minor revision suggestions, which we will revise accordingly in the final version.'