| 查看: 3788 | 回复: 3 | |||
[交流]
resubmission，机会还大吗？ 已有3人参与
|
|
Dear Mrs. , We have now received the reports from our advisors on your manuscript XXXXX"XXXXX". Unfortunately, the comments were very contrasted and the referees and handling edtor raised some important concerns about your manuscript. Below, please find the comments for your perusal. You are kindly requested to also check the website for possible reviewer attachment(s). With regret, I must inform you that, based on the advice received, we are unable to consider your manuscript for publication in Annals of Forest Science under its present form. Nevertheless, if you feel able to address all the concerns raised by the referees, we would be pleased to reconsider a thoroughly revised version of your manuscript for publication. In this case, please submit the revised version as a fully new manuscript to Editorial Manager, together with the reference of the earlier version as well as a detailed cover letter providing a clear statment of the changes brought to the manuscript. This new version would undergo a complete review. I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration and am looking forward receiving a carefully revised resubmission. With kind regards, XXXX, Chief Editor COMMENTS FOR THE AUTHOR: Handling Editor: Dear authors In your manuscript you study XXXXX, and XXXX. The study contains valuable information to understand the effects of forest species composition on soil fauna, and an arduous fieldwork has been carried out. However, the rationale of the study is poorly described and no explicit hypotheses are presented. An important concern is that although the response of fauna to environmental changes is the main aim of the research, no analysis searching for causality was performed concerning temperature, precipitation or edaphic variables and fauna richness. The tittle does not reflect the findings of the work (i.e., no spatial analyses or regressions with climatic variables have been performed), and the key message is difficult to understand in the abstract and along the text. Through an extensive review, both reviewers provide very valuable advice for improving the ms. Both underlined that the methods are poorly detailed. The discussion, that is no always supported by results, has to be rewritten. Finally, a thorough English editing is also recommended. With best regards The handling editor. Reviewer #2: The authors have to work strongly on the text, overall the discussion. They have the information in figures and tables, but they ommitted to write some relevant information, so I encourage the authors to rewrite, and to rework the discussion. I recommend to change the tittle, because I dont see the environmental information that they suggest. I see that the study was developed at different forests with a diffent gradient of altitude, but not environmental conditions, wel this information is not in the manuscript. Reviewer #3: I found the study interesting and potentially giving a valuable contribution to our understanding of the responses of soil fauna to changes in forest composition due to management. I suspect the methods used for analyzing the data was appropriate, even though not enough details are given to be sure about this. The discussion brought up some interesting theories concerning the mechanisms behind the observed patterns and the connection to succession is well described. However, I found the method section to poorly written to fully be able to review if the fauna has been sampled properly, the data have been handled appropriate and how the analyzes have been performed. Overall, the text was not constructed in a logical way and sometimes that made it unclear what the point the authors wanted to make was. I recommend the ms to rewritten to clarify especially the method section before it can be considered for publication. I would suggest the authors to get help with checking the language by a native English that also knows the field of ecology, to make sure that what they intend to say gets through. My major concerns are the poor description of the methods and the sometimes strange interpretation of the results, I think the conclusions drawn are not always supported by the results. Some of the most important points to take into consideration during a potential revision of the ms are listed in the next page |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
268求调剂
已经有7人回复
-
一志愿重庆大学085700资源与环境总分308求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
302求调剂
已经有11人回复
-
306求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
材料学学硕080502 337求调剂-一志愿华中科技大学
已经有4人回复
-
求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
313求调剂
已经有3人回复
-
南昌大学材料专硕311分求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
316求调剂
已经有6人回复
-
346求调剂[0856]
已经有7人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- SCI投稿过程总结、投稿状态解析、拒稿后对策及接受后期相关问答
已经有142人回复
- 求各位指点Journal of Materials Chemistry A投稿问题
已经有5人回复
- SCI投稿过程总结
已经有124人回复
- 投journal of materials of chemistry，大家看看我这状况还有救吗？
已经有19人回复
逝水无痕1990
铁杆木虫 (文坛精英)
- 应助: 4 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 27693.6
- 散金: 681
- 红花: 174
- 帖子: 24539
- 在线: 271.7小时
- 虫号: 3479286
- 注册: 2014-10-16
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 煤炭地下开采
2楼2017-02-20 23:02:57
3楼2017-02-21 10:58:26
4楼2017-05-06 10:09:03
