作为对编辑和匿名审稿人的整体回复，一般要在返修的开头做一个简单介绍。一方面是概括此轮修改的主要内容，用Firstly, Secondly … Lastly等列示，让编辑和匿名审稿人清晰地看到你做了什么样的回复，是否是他们所关注的点；另一方面也是表示尊重，比直接答复问题要更正式和严谨。下面是我起始返修稿的一个例子，可以作为模板套用。
Dear Dr. XXX,
Dear Members of the Editorial Team,
We appreciate the opportunity to modify our paper according to the critical comments of three reviewers. We now provide an argument for and explanation of the choice to represent XXX by a binary rather than a metric variable and discuss the implications of the results on the auxiliary socio-economic variables in more detail. In response to the comments made by both reviewers on the conclusions we have substantially re-written that section of the manuscript, eliminating redundancies to previously stated results and providing more of an outlook on the meaning and importance of our findings as well as on future research opportunities. Please find our detailed replies to the reviewers’ specific comments below.
Thank you for handling our submission.
答复的格式因人而异。但是一般有两种模式：一种是一问一答，将审稿人的问题列示一条、自己答复一条。但注意要将问题的字体加黑，以示区别。问题要用Q（Question）起头，答复要用A（Answer）起头。另一种是表格形式（如下图所示），左列是匿名审稿人提出的问题和建议（Comments），右列是自己的回复（Response to reviewers）。这样做的好处是简洁明了，便于阅读，也便于导师提建议和自己的修改。
Response to reviewers
Comments from the Editor – Dr. XXX
(Editor (E)) I have now received all reviews for your paper. As you will see, two of the reviewers have very serious reservations about the paper, although they see the topic - 'XXX' - as one that deserves study, and that fits well with the theme of the special issue. Based on the comments, which are appended to the end of this letter, I ask that you undertake major revisions and resubmit the revised manuscript for further consideration.
((Authors) (A)) Thank you. We have undertaken major revisions and the article now has a slightly modified title, a new introduction, a re-arrangement in the sequence of sections and about 40% new text (below we explain the substance of the changes). Let us note also that while the reviewers demanded significant changes to the motivation and structure of the paper (including the selection of case-studies), they did not question the core of our main arguments, with the exception of our argument that XXX could be understood as a “dialectical” utopia, which we have decided to leave out (see below).
一些审稿人会给予积极评价，这时可以用Thank you，Thank you for your suggestion, Correct等作为回复。如果认同评价并做了修改，可以直接回答Done（已完成）。
(R1) This essay offers a fascinating and well-written analysis of XXX, a largely European social movement that seeks an alternative to capitalist socio-ecological relations. The piece is particularly interesting, and its arguments and conclusions particularly compelling, by virtue of the ways in which the author(s) weave together a consideration of XXX as an actually existing political movement alongside a view of XXX as political imaginary via the utopian sci-fi of Ursula Le Guin.
(A) Thank you, this was precisely our intention, we are happy that it comes out clear.
(R1) As an aside, however, I encourage the author(s) to drop the use of TD as an acronym for her novel. Oh, the horror of it! There's something profoundly depressing about submitting to the reductive imperative of the social sciences acronym here. AVOID! This is a convention of social science you should reject.
Q：Thank you for your constructive engagement with my previous comments, as well as those of the other reviewers. I do not have further substantive comments on this revision, which I feel addresses my comments well. However, it still requires a detailed copy edit from a native English speaker. I appreciate you say this has been done, but I am afraid the result is far from ideal as there are still many grammatical issues throughout.
A: Thank you for your positive consideration of the paper. Another reviewer also raised the question of copy editing. We have revised the grammar problems and examined the draft text with the support of a Native English Editor.2对负面评价的回复
针对负面评价并且自身不认同的，不要直接拒绝，要委婉地回复，并加以佐证，让审稿人认识到自己可能是错的。例如下面的 (R2) （Reviewer 2）审稿人质疑稿件阐述不清晰，就可以回复已有8位学者浏览但无一人认为有这个问题，然后再说尽管如此自己还是做了一些修改。这样可以让审稿人开心的跳过这个问题。
(R2) In principle, the subject as well as the selected approach is very interesting, but unfortunately the manuscript exhibits considerable weaknesses and in several places appears confusing to the reader.
(A) We are sorry to hear this. We had tested the article with 8 external reviewers before submitting and we didn't receive a comment about confusion. We take your concern seriously though and as a result have restructured radically the article, by removing the CIC case, and rearranging the sections accordingly. The improved contextualization within XXX debates should improve readability.
Q: A manuscript layout review is needed; reorganize and merge sections 4 and 5 since they are both about discussion and results.
A: Thank you for your suggestion. To make the structure more logic and clear, we spilt section 4.2 into two parts: section 4.2 Empirical results and section 5 Discussion. The former objectively describe the empirical results of Table 4, and the latter focused on discussion of the findings. Further, we distinguish section 5 Discussion and section 6 Conclusions, in that references are needed to support our viewpoints in Discussion part, and Conclusions part is generally the summary of the whole paper, including methods, findings, contributions and future prospects.
有些审稿人会针对研究方法做出直接的质疑。在这种情况下，最好的办法就是列出证据（高水平的期刊论文、书籍或者报告等），证明自己的方法也是正确的。下例的审稿人认为GMM只适合于“大N小T” 面板，我就找到了剑桥大学出版社Econometric Theory期刊的一篇文章，证明“大N大T”也是可以的。这样的实例他无法反驳，最后给了Accept。
Q：While the authors have done work to address the reviewer concerns, I still have some issues with the methods and a major concern regarding the contribution of the paper. I don't think GMM is the most appropriate method. GMM is best for large N, small T; however, the current data is large N, large T.
A: Thank you. We understand your concern on the method. The GMM method is more suitable for large N, small T, and our research is large N and large T. However, it still makes sense, according to Kazuhiko Hayakawa`s paper ‘The Asymptotic Properties of the System GMM Estimator in Dynamic Panel Data Models When Both N and T are Large’, Volume 31 / Issue 03 / June 2015, pp 647-667, Econometric Theory (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9700521&fileId=S0266466614000449).
In this paper, he considered the asymptotic properties of system GMM estimators when both N and T are large. By using Monte Carlo experiments, he found that system GMM estimator using the sub-optimal weighting matrix is still consistent even when T is large, and using redundant moment conditions could improve efficiency in both small and large T cases. These results indicate that estimator originally developed for large N and small T panel data is also usable for large N and large T panel data.
Q：My main concern is whether/how the paper contributes to the WTR or broader environment literature…. From some of the discussion on Page 23, it seems that the WTR literature has already come to that conclusion. I don't think demonstrating that ambiguity with a slightly different model and dataset is much of a contribution.… I would urge the authors to refocus the paper in order to answer one of those two questions.
A: Thank you for the comment and for interesting suggestions on research questions. In our view, and building on previous WTR literature, the most important contribution of this paper is to show that XXX. To our knowledge, prior scholars such as XXX (2013) have discussed this problem, but no one proved it to date.
Obviously, WTR is not the only factor with impacts on the environment. Although it is the topic of our analysis, we should acknowledge and address this question more clearly and openly in the paper, that is, other factors also show significant effects on the environment…. We specified this in the last part of the text.
We truly appreciate the questions suggested. They have given us new ideas for further research that we will certainly explore in the future. Still, we consider them to lead us a bit too far from our original research concern for this paper, and we prefer not to make them explicit in the paper. Honouring the reviewer’s effort to provide us with useful food for thought, we offer next our views on how these two questions could be possibly answered, and the contact points with the work in the paper….