如何回复SCI投稿审稿人意见

第三个审稿人的意见如下：
Reviewer #3: The present paper addresses a hot topic of interest in the area.
The first part section the paper presents a brief and concise state of the art of the domain approached. Since this topic has been intensively studied during the last decade and a large number of papers and books have been published, this part might be extended to include the most recent research in this domain, and have to be included in Chapter +References:
R.O. Preda, D.N. Vizireanu, "Blind Watermarking Capacity Analysis of MPEG2 Coded Video", IEEE TELSIKS 2007, 8th International Conference on Telecommunications in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services, 26-28 Sept. 2007, Nis, Serbia and Montenegro, p. 465-468.
D.N. VIZIREANU, R.O Preda, BD Milovanovic, "A New Digital Watermarking scheme for Image Copyright Protection using Wavelet Packets", IEEE TELSIKS 2005, 7th Intern. Conf. on Telecomm. in Modern Satellite, Cable and Broadcasting Services, 28-30 September 2005, Nis, Serbia and Montenegro, p. 518-521.
Some interesting papers have been published recently in CS&SP and have to be included in Chapter 1 +References.
The authors contribution is not clearly underlined. Moreover, the performance design criteria are not addressed in the simulation part.
The simulation results presented are sometimes uncler.
The abbreviations presented in figures are not clear and should be explained in more detail. The results should be more emphasized and the conclusion chapter should be extended.
The results should be also compared with other existing work from the literature.
As a conclusion, the paper presents a high potential and should be accepted only if several and minor changes are made by the authors.
The list of references should be extended to include recent papers, results of relevant research projects, part of them published recently in journal.
The theoretical contribution should be clearly emphasized, and compared with existing literature. The theoretical part that is not connected directly with the simulation performed and brings no novelty in the domain should be removed.
The results should be better explained and their relevance must be commented.
The results should be checked for compliance with other papers from literature.

你知道怎么回复审稿意见么