如何写好 Respon to review——发表SCI文章实战
发表文章有不少步骤，走走停停，有时候会因为得到审稿人的赏识和认可开心不已，当然也会因为意见尖锐，无法修改而苦恼不已，下面我总结了一些例子，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，希望对大家有所帮助。
1. 关于 Cover letter
整理了一份一般的格式，大体都是这样，呵呵
Dear Editor
Dr. Yinon Rudich Nov. 25, 2009
JGR
Manuscript Number: 2009JD013023,
“Gross primary production estimation from MODIS data with vegetation index and photosynthetically absorbed radiation in maize”
Enclod is the revid 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 by the journal and the positive respon of both two reviewers that found the rearch of this manuscript is suitable for JGR. Below is our respon to their comments resulting in a number of clarifications.
Regards
北京冬奥会女性参赛比例历届最高
Dr. Chaoyang Wu
**************
2. 关于 Respon 细节
最根本的一个要求是事实就是，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同意，然后再做出修改。格式一般要求对不同的审稿人的意见作出一一回答，一定要细致，千万不要以为能够蒙混过关，自己把不能解决的问题删掉，这样的回复估计就要被拒掉了。还是老老实实的回答，即使暂时不能回答的，如一些方法改进之类的，委婉的说一下，如今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。
2011专四答案下面是一个列子，希望能对大家有所帮助。
Manuscript Number: 2009JD013023
Manuscript Title: Gross primary production estimation from MODIS data with vegetation index and
photosynthetically absorbed radiation in maize
如何撒娇------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Editor (Remarks to Author):
Three reviewers provide reasonably consistent views about your manuscript, although their choices
英语情侣网名of the category differ. I believe that the paper is worthy of publication in JGR as the correlations
between GPP and VIs are significant and could be uful for arid region crop growth estimation.
However, the empirical relationships would have limitations, and the limitations are not clearly
stated. In areas where radiation is variable, GPP may depend on not only vegetation gree
nness
but also meteorological variables. The limitations should be stated clearly in the revision. Youmicroblog
should revi your manuscript according to suggestions of the reviewers.
Respon: We appreciate the positive comments about the manuscript. We also consider it is very
important and necessary to state the limitations 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 be better evaluated and compa
red with
asian beautiful pictureother publications. This new validation part may also suggest some explanations to some concerns
全能隐形眼镜护理液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 and grassland sites, and
the two sites are ud 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 analys of remotely-nd VIs for improved GPP estimations in Maize fields.
Reviewer #1 (Comments):
missingOverall this is an interesting paper with some nice findings about cross-multiplying VI's to better
relate remotely nd vegetation information with tower measures of GPP. The main weakness
is that there ems to be excessive u of "correlations" of many parate 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 prented.
My specific comments are as follows: butcher
1. In the Abstract, PAR should be "...active radiation" and not "...absorbed radiation".
Respon: we followed the suggestions.
2. The equation provided and ud applies to "SAVI" and not "MSAVI". 2016年12月英语四级答案
Respon: we changed the MSAVI to SAVI throughout the paper, including in the text and figures.
3. Note that Sims et al. (2006) had an earlier paper in which they utilized both NDVI (for fPAR) and
EVI in some combined fashion to predict GPP. This VI x VI ca should be discusd and evaluated,
as this study has also tested the product (NDVI x EVI).
