Response Letter Template

Dear Dr or Prof. XXXX (family name of the Editor or editor-in-chief who issued the decision letter), Thank you very much For your Letter and advice. We have revised the manuscript, and would like to re-submit it for your consideration. We have addressed the comments raised by the reviewers, And the amendments is highlighted in red in the revised Manu Script. Point by point responses to The reviewers ' Comments is listed below this letter. This manuscript have been edited and proofread by Medjaden Bioscience Limited. We hope that the revised version of the manuscript are now acceptable for publication in your journal. I look forward-hearing from the you soon. With best wishes, Yours Sincerely, XXXX (name of the corresponding author) We would like to express our sincere thanks to The reviewers for the constructive and positive comments. Replies to Reviewer 1 specific Comments Comment 1:answer:comment 2:answer:comment 3:answer:replies to Reviewer 2 Spe Cific commenTS Comment 1:answer:comment 2:answer:comment 3:answer:

(a) First of all, the amendments proposed by the Editorial Committee should be itemized. It is recommended to quote the original text of each other directly, such as:

"The reference to Bianchi's model published in a bit obsolete, even Bianchi have produced and published (in this SA Me publication) a better model. "

This directly quote the other party's original text, indicating that you do not distort, modify the other party's views, is the other side of a respect.

(b) Then start to answer how you are revising your article for this opinion.

(b-1) First of all, you have to write your understanding of the editorial jury's opinion:

Reviewer 1 requires that we should update our reference to Bianchi's work.

(b-2) points out how we wrote it before we changed it.

In our previously submitted draft, we use the following reference to Bianchi's work:

[3] G. Bianchi, "Performance Analysis of the IEEE 802.11 distributed Coordination Function", IEEE Journal in Selected area S in Communications, vol. 3, pp. 535-547, 2000.

(b-3) Explain what you did with this opinion. The idea, for example, is that one of my reference is too old. I explained that I went online to look up a specific database, enumerated the results, and explained the results:

We checked IEEE Xplore database and found of Bianchi ' s letters mentioned by Reviewer 1:

1. G.bianchi, "IEEE 802.11-saturation Throughput Analysis", Communications Letters, IEEE, vol. 2, No., pp. 318-320, 199 8.

2. G.bianchi, I.tinnirello, "Remarks on IEEE 802.11 DCF performance analysis", Communications Letters, IEEE Volume:9 ISS Ue:8 2005

Page (s): 765-767.

The frst letter was the short letter version of [3]. The second letter proposes a Non-markov chain approach for IEEE 802.11 DCF analysis.

Extensive work has been done on analyzing IEEE 802.11 DCF performance. Most of the them use a Markov chain approach based on Bianchi's work in [3], and accordingly [3] is frequently mentioned in P Ublications.

Our analytical model also uses Markov chain approach, which are still based on Bianchi's work in [3]. Thus It is reasonable that we should mention it. Also compared with Bianchi's letter published in 1998, more details is presented in [3]. Thus we decide to mention [3] instead of this letter as [3] can help readers better understand Bianchi ' s work as well as O ur work.

Regarding Bianchi ' s second letter published in 2005, it contributes a new approach to analyzing the performance of IEEE 80 2.11 DCF. Elementary probability theory instead of complicated Markov chain is used in this letter. However, this work still ignores the effect of the using data rate switching as is the most other work in this area do. It is diffcult for us to list numerous publications in this area due to the limited space. Therefore, in this draft, we only list the closely related publication (reference [3]), because we used Nalysis.

(b-4) If I make certain changes to the article in response to this opinion, the corresponding changes should be listed:

The related statement in the revised draft are as follow (referred to Paragraph 2, section I):

"Despite extensive work in analyzing the performance of IEEE 802.11 DCF, most of them consider stations with a single data Rate only and the effect of using DRS have been largely ignored, such as, in [3]. "

Write this response letter to pay attention to the tone, show courtesy. It's best to say something like "We thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments" in the (b-1) section. In addition, it is very likely that the other side of the comments you do not agree with (such as the above example), then pay more attention to the tone, at the same time give a detailed and reliable data certificate and sufficient reason to explain why you disagree with each other's views (b-3). Of course, in order to take care of each other's emotions, you can add one or two words in the text to cover each other's opinions, as I did in the above example (B-4).

If the other person's opinion is indeed correct and helpful, in the (b-1) to be more stingy with the endorsement, in the (b-2) section, you can use the "incorrect" negative meaning of the words to describe their previous article related content, show that they are deeply aware of the error. In addition, (b-3) (b-4) can be combined, to detail how you modify the article in response to this opinion, do not waste too much time to defend your previous article.

From:http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4723da760100tccz.html