From 720776cd65074b3eb5edb6a16e672022523bb81c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jaron Kent-Dobias Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 17:07:11 +0100 Subject: Appeal wording. --- appeal.tex | 18 ++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) (limited to 'appeal.tex') diff --git a/appeal.tex b/appeal.tex index d1df16c..2cf4757 100644 --- a/appeal.tex +++ b/appeal.tex @@ -38,18 +38,16 @@ \opening{To the editors of Physical Review,} -We wish to appeal your decision on our manuscript LZ16835, \emph{Complex -complex landscapes}, which received a single referee report. +We wish to appeal your decision on our manuscript \emph{Complex complex +landscapes}, which received a single referee report. +We believe that the referee's overall criticisms of our paper are not entirely +justified (and above all, difficult to answer). We have, however, submitted a +revised manuscript clarifying the specific aspects that the referee found trying. -We believe that the criticisms that the referee addresses to our paper are -not entirely justified (and above all, difficult to answer). We have, however, -clarified as much as possible the parts that the referee found trying. - -The referee is particularly worried that we have cited articles that are not -themselves sufficiently cited, so we thought that it may be useful at this -point to propose a set of referees that are beyond suspicion of incompetence or -uncitedness: +The referee seems particularly worried that we have cited articles that are not +themselves sufficiently cited, so we thought it may be useful propose a set of +referees that are beyond suspicion of incompetence or uncitedness: \begin{tabular}{ll} G Ben Arous & Courant \\ -- cgit v1.2.3-54-g00ecf