메뉴
在为《电子学报》(Acta Electronica Sinica, AES) 撰写审稿意见答复与修回说明时调用。适用于收到编辑部"修改后再审/退修"通知后，逐条回应外审专家意见、撰写"修改说明"对照表、在正文中标注修改痕迹、处理相互矛盾或要求补做实验的意见、把握修回时限与再审轮次。帮助电子/信息/通信/信号处理方向的中文稿件在《电子学报》多级审理中稳步走向录用，避免因答复不规范或情绪化措辞被再次退修甚至退稿。
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Use when preparing the accountability artifacts that accompany an ACM FAccT paper — datasheets for datasets, model cards, data statements, audit and impact-assessment documentation, and released code/data — since FAccT's culture centers documentation and accountability infrastructure rather than a formal ACM artifact-badging track; covers what makes each genre credible, anonymized-review versus public-release versions, and consistency with the paper's harm claims.
Use when drafting ACM FAccT author responses — the short factual-correction rebuttal after preliminary reviews, and, distinctively for the 2026-new process, the Revise-and-resubmit round where you address Area-Chair-prioritized concerns from a mixed CS+law+social-science panel, map each to a concrete change, and survive a re-review while keeping mutual anonymity.
Use when preparing an accepted ACM FAccT paper for camera-ready — de-anonymizing and adding the withheld Positionality/Acknowledgements statements, switching to the acmart sigconf proceedings format, ACM metadata (DOI, ORCID, CCS concepts, rights), the two-round camera-ready calendar for Accept vs Revise papers, ACM Open Access, finalizing datasheets/model cards, and integrating required changes without scope creep.
Use when designing or auditing ACM FAccT empirical work — quantitative fairness audits with disaggregated metrics and fair baselines, qualitative and participatory studies with coding and reflexivity, mixed-methods designs, sound handling of protected attributes and proxies, consent and IRB for human-subjects and community-facing work, and matching evidence to the shape of a fairness/accountability/transparency claim.
Use when positioning an ACM FAccT submission across its many disciplinary lanes — algorithmic fairness/ML, HCI, law and policy, STS and critical theory, and prior FAccT/FAT* proceedings — writing delta-first contrast that a mixed reviewer pool will accept, citing borrowed constructs to their real origin, keeping self-citations mutually anonymous, and declaring overlap with workshops, preprints, and prior versions.
Use when strengthening ACM FAccT transparency and reproducibility — releasing code, data, and analysis for quantitative audits; documenting datasets and models with datasheets, model cards, and data statements; making qualitative and participatory work auditable without breaking confidentiality; pinning provenance for scraped and model-generated data; and keeping the paper, the supplementary material, and any released artifact consistent.
| name | aes-author-response |
| description | 在为《电子学报》(Acta Electronica Sinica, AES) 撰写审稿意见答复与修回说明时调用。适用于收到编辑部"修改后再审/退修"通知后，逐条回应外审专家意见、撰写"修改说明"对照表、在正文中标注修改痕迹、处理相互矛盾或要求补做实验的意见、把握修回时限与再审轮次。帮助电子/信息/通信/信号处理方向的中文稿件在《电子学报》多级审理中稳步走向录用，避免因答复不规范或情绪化措辞被再次退修甚至退稿。 |
收到《电子学报》(Acta Electronica Sinica, AES) 编辑部的退修/修改后再审通知，意味着稿件已越过 初审、进入实质性学术评价，这是好信号。本刊由中国电子学会 (Chinese Institute of Electronics) 主办、 走多级审理，退修通知通常附有若干位外审专家的分条意见和编辑的综合处理意见。你的任务是提交 两份东西：修改后的稿件与一份逐条修改说明 (Response Letter)。以下要点于 2026-07-09 经官网 (ejournal.org.cn) 与期刊主页交叉核验；凡未公开确认者标 待核实，以退修信与投稿系统为准。
核心原则：审稿人不是敌人。把每条意见当作提高论文质量、也提高录用概率的机会；用数据与文献回应， 而非用情绪或辩解回应。这是 Acta / Electronica / Sinica 学报评审文化里最看重的作者素养。
尊敬的编辑与各位审稿专家：
感谢各位对本文（稿号：XXXX）的宝贵意见。我们已逐条修改，
以下"[意见]/[回应]/[修改位置]"三段式说明每处改动。正文中修改
部分以蓝色/修订模式标出。
【审稿专家一】
[意见 R1-1] 原文……（原样引用专家意见）
[回应] 感谢指出。我们……（说明如何修改、依据是什么）
[修改位置] 见修改稿第 X 页第 Y 段 / 图 Z / 式 (n)。
[意见 R1-2] ……
...
【审稿专家二】
...
每一条都必须有回应，不允许跳过任何一条，即使是"表述建议"这类小意见。
| 意见类型 | 推荐回应策略 |
|---|---|
| 指出方法/推导错误 | 承认并改正，给出更正后的公式或证明，说明影响范围 |
| 要求补充对比实验 | 尽量补做；列出新增表格/图，报告新结果 |
| 质疑创新性不足 | 用一段"贡献重述"澄清与已有工作（含 CJE 相关文献）的区别 |
| 要求补充文献 | 补引并在相关工作中讨论其与本文关系，而非机械堆砌引用 |
| 表述/语言问题 | 直接采纳并致谢，列出修改后的句子 |
| 相互矛盾的意见 | 礼貌指出分歧，说明本文选择哪条及理由，请编辑裁量 |
| 不便采纳的意见 | 提供数据/文献/篇幅依据，礼貌保留，绝不无视 |
aes-experiments）。《电子学报》的退修常不止一轮。把握多轮节奏能避免"越修越乱"：
| 轮次 | 特征 | 策略 |
|---|---|---|
| 第一轮大修 | 意见多、涉及方法与实验 | 系统性重构，补关键实验，全面回应 |
| 第二轮 | 聚焦第一轮未彻底解决处 | 精准回应残留质疑，勿引入新改动 |
| 第三轮及以后 | 多为细节/表述 | 快速精修，稳定全文，避免反复 |
每轮都保留上一轮的修改说明，形成可追溯的答复档案；新一轮回应时可引用"如上一轮所述并进一步…"， 让编辑与专家看到工作的连续性与诚意。
【《电子学报》(AES) 修回交付物】
稿号：<XXXX> 轮次：<第 N 轮外审后修回>
修改说明：<逐条三段式，覆盖 R1/R2/... 全部意见>
改痕稿：<已备> 干净稿：<已备>
新增实验/文献：<列表>
矛盾意见处理：<如何裁量并请编辑定夺>
未采纳意见：<条目 + 保留理由>
时限：<截止 YYYY-MM-DD，已/未申请延期>
待核实：<允许再审轮次上限 / 延期政策>
一份条理清晰、态度诚恳、以证据说话的修改说明，是稿件在《电子学报》(Acta Electronica Sinica, AES) 从"退修"走向"录用"的关键一步，也是外审专家判断作者专业度的重要依据。