From 720776cd65074b3eb5edb6a16e672022523bb81c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jaron Kent-Dobias <jaron@kent-dobias.com>
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

