24小时热门版块排行榜    

查看: 6564  |  回复: 10
当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖,点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖

sjtugtd

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

[交流] No further comments的修改搞的回复怎么回复,就回thanks可以吗? 已有9人参与

Reviewers have now commented on your paper. They recommend minor revision and that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider your paper for publication. For your guidance, the reviewers' comments are appended below.

Please incorporate all the final improvements and check all the Tables, Figures and References for possible errors and good quality.
THereafter submit the MS again and I will forward it for the printing without further revision.

Please note that minor revisions should be submitted within 30 days.

To submit a revision, please go to http://ees.elsevier.com/ejsobi/ and login as an Author. Your username is Your username is: ******
If you need to retrieve password details, please go to: http://ees.elsevier.com/ejsobi/automail_query.asp

On your Main Menu page is a folder entitled "Submissions Needing Revision". You will find your submission record there.

Yours sincerely,
Yakov Kuzyakov
Field Editor
European Journal of Soil Biology

Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: The authors have done a good job in addressing my comments. The manuscript is acceptable to me and I have no further comments.
Reviewer #3: No further comments.
回复此楼

» 猜你喜欢

» 本主题相关价值贴推荐,对您同样有帮助:

已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

sjtugtd

至尊木虫 (职业作家)

现附上我的response letter,供参考。。。
5 July, 2010
Dear Dr Tebbe,
Re: Manuscript reference No. EJSOBI-D-10-00054
Please find attached the revised draft of our manuscript “Soluble organic nitrogen pools in horticultural soils under greenhouse cultivation: a case study”, which we would like to resubmit for publication as a Full Paper in the European Journal of Soil Biology.

The comments of the reviewers were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. Below, we have provided our point-by-point responses to each of the reviewers’ comments. The line numbers refer to those in the original manuscript.

Revisions in the text are shown using yellow highlight for additions (reviewer #1) and green highlight for reviewer #3. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in European Journal of Soil Biology.

We shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,



E-mail:  sjtugtd@gmail.com

Responses to the comments of Reviewer #1
Line 42: Replace 'ecosystem' with 'ecosystems'. This change has been made.
Line 44: Replace 'On the other hand' with 'Moreover'. This change has been made.
Lines 60-65: The soil types of the two sites should be given. At line 73, the following text was added “The properties of the soil (a Fluvisol developing towards a Cambisol at both sites) are shown in Table 1. These soils had neutral to high pHs. ”
Line 100: Replace 'quite high' with 'much higher'. This change has been made.
Line 111: Replace 'relationship' with 'correlation'. This change has been made.
Line: 120: Insert 'Reference' after 'plant uptake'.  This change has been made and the reference to Ge et al 2010 has been included.
Lines 146-148: rewrite the reference according to the Journal's rule. This change has been made.
Table 1: The crops tested under different systems may affect the results of this study, the authors should discuss this. In addition, is there the same soil type between the two sites? Discussion on the effects of the crops (line 141-155) and soils studied (line 74 and Table 1) has been provided.

Responses to reviewer #3
The title should be more focused and mention different types of cultivation (organic and conventional farming, open field and greenhouse cultivation). The title has been changed to reflect the reviewer’s comments to ‘Soluble organic nitrogen pools in greenhouse and open-filed horticultural soils under organic and conventional management: a case study ’

The abstract. It seemed not convincing to generally compare organic and conventional farming concerning SON responses as you provide only data for conventional (may only be organic) farming under greenhouse conditions and moreover from different sites and the significances of differences between organic and conventional farming (see QCP5 and TZP in Figure 1) were not indicated properly. Therefore, you should rethink this conclusion. While the differences between organic and conventional farming on SON have been stated, lines 31–32, the following text has also been added at line 37 ‘The reasons for the observed differences in pool sizes of SIN and NO3- in the greenhouse soils and the open fields include (a) the heavy applications of both complex fertilizer and organic fertilizer that exceeded crop requirements and (b) warmer temperatures and moist soils in the greenhouses, which are likely to lead to greater rates of N cycling compared with the open field soils. These results suggest that SON may be an important source of N in all horticultural systems, representing a pool of labile N readily available for plant growth. However, its concentration is less sensitive to different management practices than SIN. In contrast to SON, the total soluble nitrogen and inorganic N (SIN) pools varied widely with the different management practices although they were dominated by NO3- in all treatments. Soil organic N was positively related to dissolved organic carbon and NO3- contents. This relationship indicates that NO3- and dissolved organic matter play a key role in the retention of SON in soil.’
We also add some more labels to Figure 1. i.e. QCP1 QCP5, QCP7 were greenhouse soils (organic farming), QCO1, 2 and 4 were open field organic
10楼2010-07-16 15:08:49
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
查看全部 11 个回答

lwiaanngg

铁杆木虫 (著名写手)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
你什么都不用回的
2楼2010-07-16 11:47:59
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

yw__577

金虫 (文坛精英)


小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
恭喜一下
4楼2010-07-16 11:57:20
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包,谢谢回帖交流
5楼2010-07-16 11:58:47
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖
普通表情 高级回复 (可上传附件)
最具人气热帖推荐 [查看全部] 作者 回/看 最后发表
[基金申请] 欢迎发来filecode的Mz6后的代码验证其规律 +29 医学老男孩 2026-08-13 63/3150 2026-08-15 22:12 by 医学老男孩
[基金申请] 有时候,自然基金真的不能太认真 (我的申报经验) +8 majunge000 2026-08-11 10/500 2026-08-15 18:55 by Equinoxhua
[基金申请] filecode +8 cratir 2026-08-14 12/600 2026-08-15 18:08 by zyfgau
[基金申请] 小木虫上这么多卖论文的,真有人买论文么?感觉没必要啊 +12 Tide man 2026-08-10 13/650 2026-08-15 16:34 by 氺木
[基金申请] 关于Filecode分析方法 +10 majunge000 2026-08-10 13/650 2026-08-15 12:26 by hanpeng972
[基金申请] 咱们一起用铁证分析2026国家社科基金中标与否 +7 启萌科技 2026-08-12 22/1100 2026-08-14 23:45 by Noways
[基金申请] 是这周出结果还是下周出结果? +4 yuleib84 2026-08-11 4/200 2026-08-14 23:05 by lfy8008
[硕博家园] 请教兼职经验 +3 是阿文鸭 2026-08-09 3/150 2026-08-14 12:07 by HER12025
[硕博家园] 读博的好处 +4 lnee 2026-08-11 4/200 2026-08-14 10:20 by ahsoarli
[基金申请] 我的国基提前知道中了,可是同事的操作让我实在接受不了,怎么会有这样的人 +10 家与远方 2026-08-10 15/750 2026-08-14 02:08 by 绵羊哥哥
[文学芳草园] 阿姨 +4 汪汪锅 2026-08-09 4/200 2026-08-13 19:43 by arzu_hma
[基金申请] 不应该看fileCode +7 且听虎啸 2026-08-12 9/450 2026-08-13 14:27 by flydreamws
[基金申请] Filecode 又变了,巨变 +3 WH3796 2026-08-12 4/200 2026-08-13 14:13 by 小木虫6752397
[基金申请] 结合人工智能,周易传统文化,filecode打分制来了,3分以上希望很大。 +3 Tide man 2026-08-12 4/200 2026-08-13 08:35 by ZJTJZ
[基金申请] 2019年青年基金涵评意见,大家看看几个A,几个B? +11 Tide man 2026-08-11 11/550 2026-08-13 07:35 by 撸猫猫
[基金申请] 综述论文作为代表作会不会影响评审专家的印象分? +11 yufeiwaner 2026-08-09 13/650 2026-08-12 08:17 by yufeiwaner
[基金申请] 什么时候出结果,有咨询渠道??? +3 Tide man 2026-08-11 3/150 2026-08-11 17:54 by kudofaye
[基金申请] 确定了,国自然21号放榜 +6 布布和一二 2026-08-10 7/350 2026-08-10 19:15 by 2000zf36392
[基金申请] 国自然结果 +4 Vierhys 2026-08-10 8/400 2026-08-10 15:06 by Vierhys
[基金申请] 据悉今年马上要出结果了 +7 瞬息宇宙 2026-08-10 8/400 2026-08-10 12:42 by Vivilian
信息提示
请填处理意见