In our recent paper entitled "Pairing mechanism of high-temperature superconductivity: Experimental constraints" (to be published in Physica Scripta), we review some crucial experiments that place strong constraints on the microscopic pairing mechanism of high-temperature superconductivity in cuprates. In particular, we show that phonons rather than spin-fluctuation play a predominant role in the microscopic pairing mechanism. We further show that the intrinsic pairing symmetry in the bulk is not d-wave, but extended s-wave (having eight line nodes) in hole-doped cuprates and nodeless s-wave in electron-doped cuprates. In contrast, the author of the Comment (to be published in Physica Scripta) argues that our conclusions are unconvincing and even misleading. In response to the criticisms in the Comment, we further show that our conclusions are well supported by experiments and his criticisms are lack of scientific ground.In our recent paper [1], we review some crucial experiments that place strong constraints on the microscopic pairing mechanism of high-temperature superconductivity in cuprates. In particular, we show that phonons rather than spin-fluctuation play a predominant role in the microscopic pairing mechanism. We further show that the intrinsic pairing symmetry in the bulk of cuprates is not d-wave, but extended s-wave (having eight line nodes) in hole-doped cuprates and nodeless s-wave in electron-doped cuprates. However, Plakida [2] has raised strong criticisms on these conclusions based on an oversimplified polaronic model and some experimental results that have been misinterpreted. Below we will show that our conclusions are well supported by experiments and the criticisms raised in the Comment are lack of scientific ground.In the Comment [2], the author first considers the oxygen-isotope effect (OIE) on T c by taking into account the observed oxygen-isotope effect on the in-plane effective supercarrier mass. He has used the weakcoupling BCS-like formula [Eq. (2) in the Comment] to calculate the doping dependence of the OIE on T c in La 2−x Sr x CuO 4−y (LSCO) on the assumption that the electron-phonon coupling constant λ ep has the same OIE on the in-plane effective supercarrier mass. Actually, Eq. (2) used in the Comment is incorrect. The correct T c formula in the (bi)polaron theory has the polaronic half bandwidth in front of the exponent rather than the phonon energy [3]. When the correct expression is applied, the theory describes well the doping dependence of the isotope exponents in many cuprate superconductors [3]. Also, the tunneling experiments [4,5] have consistently shown that λ ep is larger than 2.5 for optimally doped Bi 2 Sr 2 CaCu 2 O 8+y (BSCCO). Therefore, the weak-coupling BCS-like formula does not hold in cuprates. A strong-coupling formula has been used to consistently explain the negligible OIE on T c and substantial OIE on the in-plane effective supercarrier mass in nearly optimally doped BSCCO [6]. In the underdoped regime, superconductivity should be better described by th...