| 查看: 2828 | 回复: 0 | |||
[交流]
Hydrobiologia 投稿经验分享
|
|
2013年6月来单位工作 实验设计已经完成，我负责完成该实验。 2014年 4月开始着手写准备论文（呵呵，5月份设计种子萌发实验，6月份读文献设计博士期间要做的东西，7月份帮Sarra做实验，出差去贵州，8月份帮尹老师做了个小实验，9月份博士入学，10月份开展第二届水生植物国际大会，11月份准备博士开题） 11月1日与Eric讨论后，重新准备着手写论文 2015年 4月3日投稿到hydrobiologia 6月16日收到反馈意见 7月23日完成修改稿的投稿工作 8月5日收到反馈意见 8月12日完成投稿 8月17日R3 8月17日完成R3修改 8月18日R4文稿接受历时4个月15天 9月5日校稿 9月8日paper online COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR: Dear Dr. Zhao, Thank you for resubmitting your revised manuscript. Most of the reviewer comments appear adequately addressed and only a few minor points remain: 76 I believe a little more time needs to be spent on shoot vs. root uptake, perhaps in the discussion if not here, as it is a very important part of the picture 88 rephrase sentence 98 add comma after study 100 specify which variables in "large range of variables", 102 unite paragraphs 122 need to justify why these particular concentrations were chosen 150 rephrase 'leaf and root' 151 ruler 153 use equations editor for the formula 167 move Table A.1 to main text, this information is important; briefly justify parameters in text 206 state whether these transformations have indeed mitigated departure from assumptions 224 N treatment or N concentration... 225 and throughout provide exact p-values (move Table 3 to appendices); note that several p-values would no longer be significant after the correction for multiple tests; please discuss this accordingly. 263 in our experiment, (add comma) 272 need to justify that this list of physiological parameters considered is, in fact, an exhaustive list covering all aspects of plant physiology We are looking forward to your revised submission, Sincerely, Katya Kovalenko COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR: Dear Authors, thank you for your revision. However, before sending your manuscript in production I still have a couple of small requets. 1. You didn't need to add the authorship in the title. Please remove it. 2. I see that the abstract in the manuscript and the one in the submission form are different. Since the one in the manuscript is longer than allowed (200 words), you probably "cut" the first sentences to go ahead with the submission. However, as a rule, our journal does not accept abstracts longer than 200 words. As a suggestion, you could reduce it as follows (194 words): The role of nitrogen (N) in the shift from a macrophyte-dominated state to a phytoplankton-dominated one at high N concentrations in shallow lakes is still debated. To elucidate possible toxic and ecological effects of high N on macrophyte growth, we conducted a short-term (40 day) study of a eutrophication-tolerant macrophyte, Vallisneria spinulosa (Hydrocharitaceae), incubated in pots in a mesocosm system subjected to different N concentrations (1, 3, and 5 mg L-1). Plant leaf and root length as well as growth rate decreased significantly with increased N concentrations, but most N- and P-related physiological parameters, including the soluble protein content, nitrate reductase activity, acid phosphatase activity, and tissue N and P contents, did not differ significantly among the N treatments. Only the alkaline phosphatase activity differed, being lower at high nitrogen loading, likely due to P limitation. Epiphyton and phytoplankton biomasses increased significantly with increasing N loading. Our results including a large number of physiological tests of the macrophytes, therefore, provide supporting evidence that the loss of submerged macrophytes, like V. spinulosa, seen at high N loading in shallow lakes, can be attributed to competition with phytoplankton and epiphyton rather than to toxic effects. Please resubmit your manuscript without highlighting the changes in "red-text". Yours sincerely, Luigi Naselli-Flores Associate Editor in Chief Dear Authors, Thank you for your revised manuscript. I have now the pleasure to accept your paper for publication in Hydrobiologia. You will be contacted by the manufacturing department in due course. May I ask you to fully collaborate with the production process leading up to publication of your manuscript, i.e. by providing figures of high technical quality if and when necessary and requested, and by returning your proofs within the requested period. Failure to do so might delay the publication of your manuscript, as both scientific and technical quality of Hydrobiologia papers must be of high standard. Thank you again for submitting your material to Hydrobiologia. With kindest regards Luigi Naselli-Flores Associate Editor in Chief |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
有多少人是今天查系统知道结果的？
已经有17人回复
-
为什么资助数各大高校都创新高，自己申请怎么就这么难
已经有3人回复
-
基金未中，这种答复是模板吗？
已经有4人回复
-
导师吐槽：我怎么摊上了这么个极品研究生！
已经有5人回复
-
怎么看青基中了没有啊
已经有5人回复
-
梦想
已经有3人回复
-
面上合作单位盖章
已经有3人回复
-
看板上这么多中的，有点像50人群里49个人都是骗子的那种感觉……
已经有5人回复
-
基金不中，共勉
已经有7人回复
-
为什么 国际(地区)合作与交流项目 没有放榜？
已经有11人回复
投票:
