《如何写好-Response-to-reviewer——发表SCI文章实战》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《如何写好-Response-to-reviewer——发表SCI文章实战（16页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、如何写好 Response to review刊登SCI文章实战 刊登文章有不少环节，走走停停，有时候会由于得到审稿人的赏识和承认开心不已，固然也会由于意见锋利，无法修改而苦恼不已，下面我总结了某些例子，看看如何回答 review report 里面的问题，所有内容均是自己文章投稿的真实过程，但愿对人们有所协助。1. 有关 Cover letter 整顿了一份一般的格式，大体都是这样，呵呵Dear Editor Dr. Yinon Rudich Nov. 25, JGRManuscript Number: JD013023,“Gross primary production estimatio
2、n from MODIS data with vegetation index and photosynthetically absorbed radiation in maize”Enclosed is the revised version of the paper entitled “Remote estimation of gross primary production in maize, coniferous forest and grassland using MODIS images”. We appreciated the thorough reviews provide b
3、y the journal and the positive response of both two reviewers that found the research of this manuscript is suitable for JGR. Below is our response to their comments resulting in a number of clarifications.RegardsDr. Chaoyang Wu2. 有关 Response 细节 最主线的一种规定是事实就是，有什么说什么，不要企图遮遮掩掩，也不要回避，对意见一般先要礼节性的感谢或者批准，
4、然后再做出修改。格式一般规定对不同的审稿人的意见作出一一回答，一定要细致，千万不要觉得可以蒙混过关，自己把不能解决的问题删掉，这样的答复估计就要被拒掉了。还是老诚实实的回答，虽然临时不能回答的，如某些措施改善之类的，委婉的说一下，如此后的实验会注意等等。对于粗心的错误，自己就痛快承认了，没什么大不了的。哈哈，坦诚一点，给人的印象好一点。下面是一种列子，但愿能对人们有所协助。Manuscript Number: JD013023 Manuscript Title: Gross primary production estimation from MODIS data with vegetatio
5、n index and photosynthetically absorbed radiation in maize - Associate Editor (Remarks to Author): Three reviewers provide reasonably consistent views about your manuscript, although their choices of the category differ. I believe that the paper is worthy of publication in JGR as the correlations be
6、tween GPP and VIs are significant and could be useful for arid region crop growth estimation. However, these empirical relationships would have limitations, and these limitations are not clearly stated. In areas where radiation is variable, GPP may depend on not only vegetation greenness but also me
7、teorological variables. The limitations should be stated clearly in the revision. You should revise your manuscript according to suggestions of these reviewers. Response: We appreciate the positive comments about the manuscript. We also consider it is very important and necessary to state the limita
8、tions of this method. With help of Prof. Anatoly Gitelson, we decided to add a further validation of our method in forest and grassland ecosystems in the manuscript. Although this decision was not suggested by the reviewers, we think that by applying the method to the three species, our method can b
9、e better evaluated and compared with other publications. This new validation part may also suggest some explanations to some concerns of the review report. For example, the relationship between GPP and VI*VI*PAR shows species specific. Regretfully, we did not get enough auxiliary data in the forest
10、and grassland sites, and these two sites are used for model validation. We can modify the manuscript just following the suggestions in review report, but we think it will be better and more interesting by adding this part. Reviewer #1 (Highlight): The cross-product analyses of remotely-sensed VIs fo
11、r improved GPP estimations in Maize fields. Reviewer #1 (Comments): Overall this is an interesting paper with some nice findings about cross-multiplying VIs to better relate remotely sensed vegetation information with tower measures of GPP. The main weakness is that there seems to be excessive use o
12、f correlations of many separate relationships which are then combined. A more rigorous evaluation of the VI x VI approach would have been preferable and more worthy. However, there are still interesting results presented. My specific comments are as follows: 1. In the Abstract, PAR should be .active
13、 radiation and not .absorbed radiation. Response: we followed the suggestions.2. The equation provided and used applies to SAVI and not MSAVI. Response: we changed the MSAVI to SAVI throughout the paper, including in the text and figures.3. Note that Sims et al. () had an earlier paper in which they
14、 utilized both NDVI (for fPAR) and EVI in some combined fashion to predict GPP. This VI x VI case should be discussed and evaluated, as this study has also tested the product (NDVI x EVI). Response: we have tried to find the reference the reviewer suggested but failed. Instead, we think it may proba
15、bly the paper of “A new model of gross primary productivity for North American ecosystems based solely on the enhanced vegetation index and land surface temperature from MODIS, RSE, ” which already listed in our reference. In that paper, a model (TG Temperature and Greenness) of EVILST was proposed for the estimation of GPP (below name Fig.6) because the MODIS LST correlated well with PAR (below name Fig.1). We find two more papers of Sims et al., (Parallel adjustments in vegetation gr
