Rejoinder to the review reports on
“Title of seminar paper”
Author Name
1. Introduction
This rejoinder summarizes the corrections which were applied on the seminar paper, based on the comments given by the two reviewers. Both reviewer reports were thoroughly analyzed and if clarifications were needed, the reviewer was contacted by email to get further explanations on his/her comment. In the following, the review reports are identified as R1 (by ‘name of reviewer 1’) and R2 (by ‘name of reviewer 1’).
The rejoinder is presented in a tabular form whereby the columns are:
· ID: An identifier for the reviewer comment, CA for R1 and respectively CB for R2, (which may be used in some cases in the “Description” column to refer to other comments).
· Comment: The literal transcription of the comment given by the reviewer.
· Action: The action taken by the author of the paper:
o Fix – the comment identified an issue and is corrected in the final paper
o No fix – the comment identified an issue and is not corrected in the final paper. The motivation is given in the column “Description”.
o Not valid – the comment is proven to be wrong.
· Description: Elaborates the action taken by the author and gives motivations for not correcting an issue identified by the reviewer.
2. Rejoinder for R1 (by ‘name of reviewer 1’)
Table 1: General issues
ID / Comment / Action / DescriptionCA1 / Fix
CA2 / Fix
CA3 / Fix
. / .
. / .
Table 2: Specific issues
ID / Comment / Action / DescriptionCA6 / Fix
CA7 / No fix
CA8 / Not valid
. / .
. / .
Table 3: Other issues
ID / Comment / Action / DescriptionCA11 / Fix
CA12 / Fix
. / .
. / .
3. Rejoinder for R2 (by ‘name of reviewer 2’)
Table 4: General issues
ID / Comment / Action / DescriptionCB1 / Fix
CB2 / No Fix
CB3 / Fix
. / .
. / .
Table 5: Specific issues
ID / Comment / Action / DescriptionCB6 / Fix
CB7 / No fix
CB8 / Not valid
. / .
. / .
Table 6: Other issues
ID / Comment / Action / DescriptionCB11 / Fix
CB12 / Fix
. / .
. / .
4. References
[R1] Add references (if required)
1