\documentclass[11pt]{article}

\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}
\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0in}
\setlength{\topmargin}{-0.5in}
\setlength{\headheight}{0pt}
\setlength{\topskip}{0pt}
\setlength{\textwidth}{6.5in}
\setlength{\textheight}{9in}
\setlength{\parindent}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{1mm}

\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}

\begin{document}

\begin{center} \bf \Large
Andrews, Menzies and Li \\
SBSE Special Issue Submission \\
--- \\
Authors' Response to Editor
\end{center}

Mark, thank you for all your guidance through this process. 
Here are some responses to your editor comments.  ``Authors'
Response to Reviewers'' are in a separate file.  Your comments
are in {\tt teletype} font; our responses are in Roman font.


\small \begin{verbatim}
Editor Comments to the Author:
Thank you for your re-submitted paper for TSE. I am delighted to report
that all three referees recommend acceptance and two of these require no
further changes. However, you will notice that one of the referees does
indicate some changes. This referee has some concerns listed under the
heading "Major Comments" which the referee is particularly concerned
about. Following a discussion with this referee concerning the balance of
comments between major and minor revisions made in the review, it was
agreed that the overall recommendation from this referee was "minor
revisions" (as opposed to something more serious). 
\end{verbatim} \normalsize

Thank you.
It may be worthwhile pointing out that Reviewer 1 has raised
some new objections to material that has been in the paper since
at least the previous draft; for example, they objected
to the overloaded use of ``type'' in the phrase ``gene type'',
which has been in the paper since the first draft (autumn 2008) with no
previous objections.

Another point is that the first and last reviewers seem to have
conflicting opinions.  The first reviewer appears to believe
that we are successful only if we are able to eliminate a lot of
gene types.  In contrast, the last reviewer appears to believe
that if we eliminate a lot of gene types, then there was never
any need for a GA at all.  In our presentation, we have tried to
stress the cost-benefit tradeoffs and the fact that there is no
one right answer.  We hope that this point comes across better
in this draft.

\small \begin{verbatim}
While I feel confident as an associate editor in determining whether the
more minor comments from this review have been addressed, I may need to
pass the paper back to this referee to check that they are satisfied with
the treatment and response in relation to those comments and requests
listed under "major comments". I think that it is right that I should do
this, but also, clearly very important that I should alert you to the
possibility that the manuscript may go back to this referee for comment
and that you should, therefore, be careful to address these concerns and
to write a response that explains that manner in which you have done so.
\end{verbatim} \normalsize

We hope that our revisions will be acceptable to the reviewer.

\small \begin{verbatim}
I realise that this process has been a rather long one, but I hope that
you will be able to address these comments and that, as a result I will
then be in a position to recommend final acceptance of this paper. I
believe that the paper makes a valuable contribution to work on search
based software engineering and creates important links between SBSE/SBST
and other approaches to test data generation (such as DART). 
\end{verbatim} \normalsize

Thanks!

\small \begin{verbatim}
I would like to add one additional request that you consider whether or
not it might be appropriate to add some mention of search based software
engineering in the related work section; It seemed rather odd to me that
the related work section had no mention of the fact that there is a large
body of work now accruing on the application of SBSE to testing. I would
not want to abuse my position as AE in any way and so I would make it
clear that I do not make this a requirement of acceptance, but I would
like to raise this as a point for you to consider.
\end{verbatim} \normalsize

Section II.C contains a pointer to an extensive recent survey of SBSE (Rela's thesis).
We would, of course, be willing to add more information at the direction of
the editor. However, before doing that, the editor might care to consider the
implications of that on the overall length of the document- if we format this in two column 
format, we are currently 15-16 pages (depending on some formatting issues with some tables).

\small \begin{verbatim}
Once again, thank you very much for your contribution and your interest in
TSE
\end{verbatim} \normalsize

Thanks again.

\end{document}
