Major Revision和Minor Revision有什么区别？修改后Response Letter怎么写

Day 1-3：仔细阅读所有审稿意见，不急于动手
    |
Day 3-5：逐条分类意见（必须改/可以改/不合理）
    |
Day 5-7：制定修改计划，与合作者讨论
    |
Week 2-6：执行修改（补实验/改写/补分析）
    |
Week 6-8：撰写Response Letter
    |
Week 8-9：合作者审阅Response + 修改稿
    |
提交前2天：最终检查（格式/一致性/完整性）
    |
在截止日前提交：修改稿 + Response Letter + 标注版

[封面/开头]
致谢编辑和审稿人 + 修改概述

[Reviewer 1的回复]
逐条回应每个意见

[Reviewer 2的回复]
逐条回应每个意见

[Reviewer 3的回复（如有）]
逐条回应每个意见

[Editor Comments的回复（如有）]
回应编辑的额外要求

————————————————————————————
Reviewer #1, Comment 1:
————————————————————————————

[原文引用审稿人的意见，用斜体或引用格式]
"The authors should provide more experiments on Dataset X
to demonstrate the generalizability of the method."

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion.
We have conducted additional experiments on Dataset X as
requested. The results are presented in the revised
manuscript (Section 4.3, Table 5, Page 9).

[展示新结果]

| Method | Dataset X - Acc | Dataset X - F1 |
|--------|----------------|----------------|
| Baseline A | 82.3 | 79.1 |
| Baseline B | 84.7 | 81.5 |
| Ours | **88.2** | **85.6** |

These results confirm that our method generalizes well
to Dataset X, outperforming baselines by +3.5% on accuracy.

Changes in manuscript: Section 4.3, Table 5 (Page 9, Lines 234-251)
————————————————————————————

Dear Editor and Reviewers,

Thank you for the constructive comments and suggestions on
our manuscript entitled "[Paper Title]" (Manuscript ID: XXXX).

We have carefully revised the manuscript according to all
comments and suggestions from the reviewers. Below we
provide a detailed point-by-point response to each comment.
All modifications in the revised manuscript are highlighted
in blue for easy identification.

We believe the revised manuscript has been significantly
improved and hope it now meets the standards for publication
in [Journal Name].

================================================================
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #1
================================================================

Comment 1.1:
"[审稿人原文意见]"

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this comment. [你的回复].
The corresponding revision can be found in [Section X,
Page Y, Lines Z1-Z2] of the revised manuscript.

---

Comment 1.2:
"[审稿人原文意见]"

Response:
[你的回复]

Changes: [修改位置]

---

[继续逐条...]

================================================================
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #2
================================================================

Comment 2.1:
"[审稿人原文意见]"

Response:
[你的回复]

---

[继续逐条...]

================================================================
RESPONSE TO EDITOR
================================================================

[如果编辑有额外意见，在此回复]

================================================================

We hope that the revised manuscript and our responses
adequately address all the concerns raised by the reviewers.
We are grateful for the opportunity to improve our work
and look forward to your favorable decision.

Sincerely,
[Corresponding Author Name]
On behalf of all authors

Comment: "More experiments on [X] are needed."

Response:
We appreciate this suggestion. We have conducted the
requested experiments. The new results are presented in
Table X (Page Y):

[插入结果表格]

Key findings: [1-2句总结新发现]

Changes: Added Table X and corresponding discussion in
Section Y (Page Z, Lines A-B).

Comment: "The assumption in Eq. (3) may not hold when [condition]."

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this insightful observation.
We acknowledge that [condition] is a valid concern.

To address this, we have:
1. Added a discussion of when this assumption holds
   (Section 3.2, Paragraph 2)
2. Conducted experiments under [condition] to verify
   robustness (Table X, "Condition Y" row)
3. Added a limitation discussion in Section 5

Results show that even when [condition], our method
maintains [X]% of its performance advantage.

Changes: Section 3.2 (Page X), Table Y, Section 5 (Page Z).

Comment: "Section 3 is hard to follow."

Response:
We apologize for the confusion. We have substantially
rewritten Section 3 to improve clarity:

1. Added a method overview paragraph at the beginning
2. Included Figure X as a visual pipeline illustration
3. Reorganized subsections in a more logical order
4. Clarified notation (Table 1 now lists all symbols)

Changes: Section 3 has been restructured (Pages X-Y).

Comment: "The method requires labeled data at test time,
which is impractical."

Response:
We appreciate the chance to clarify this point. Our method
does NOT require labeled data at test time. As described in
Section 3.1 (revised Page X, Lines Y-Z): "[引用修改后的
明确表述]".

Labels are used only during training (Stage 1). At inference,
the model requires only [input description].

We acknowledge that this was not sufficiently clear in the
original submission. We have added an explicit paragraph
(Section 3.4, "Inference Procedure") to prevent this
confusion.

Changes: Added Section 3.4 (Page X, Lines Y-Z).

Comment: "The contribution seems incremental over [Prior Work]."

Response:
We respectfully address this concern. While our work builds
upon [Prior Work], the key differences are substantial:

| Aspect | [Prior Work] | Ours |
|--------|-------------|------|
| [Dim 1] | [Their approach] | [Our different approach] |
| [Dim 2] | [Their limit] | [Our solution] |
| [Dim 3] | [Their result] | [Our improvement] |

We have expanded the discussion of these differences in
Section 2 (Related Work) and added a dedicated comparison
paragraph in Section 1 (Introduction).

Furthermore, the performance gap (+X.X%) demonstrates that
these differences translate to meaningful practical improvements.

Changes: Section 1 (Page X), Section 2 (Page Y, new paragraph).

Comment: "The authors should evaluate on [extremely large
dataset] which requires [unreasonable resources]."

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. While we agree
that evaluation on [dataset] would be valuable, this is
unfortunately beyond our current computational resources
([explain constraint briefly]).

As an alternative, we have:
1. Evaluated on [similar but feasible dataset] which shares
   key characteristics with [requested dataset]
2. Added a scalability analysis (Figure X) showing
   performance trends as data size increases

We have also noted this as a direction for future work
(Section 6, Page X).

Changes: Added [feasible dataset] results in Table Y;
scalability analysis in Figure Z; future work note in Section 6.

Subject: Request for Extension - Manuscript ID: XXXX

Dear Editor,

I am writing regarding the revision of our manuscript
(ID: XXXX) entitled "[Title]."

We are making good progress on the revisions. However,
due to [legitimate reason: additional experiments require
more time / collaborator availability / equipment access],
we kindly request an extension of [X weeks] beyond the
current deadline of [date].

We anticipate submitting the revised manuscript by [new date].

Thank you for your understanding.

Sincerely,
[Name]