应《网络安全法》要求，自2017年10月1日起，未进行实名认证将不得使用互联网跟帖服务。为保障您的帐号能够正常使用，请尽快对帐号进行手机号验证，感谢您的理解与支持！

24小时热门版块排行榜    

CyRhmU.jpeg
小木虫论坛-学术科研互动平台 » 学术交流区 » 论文投稿 » 投稿求助 » No further comments的修改搞的回复怎么回复，就回thanks可以吗？
111/2返回列表12下一页
查看: 5831  |  回复: 10
只看楼主@他人 存档 新回复提醒 (忽略) 收藏    在APP中查看

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:
1楼2010-07-16 10:51:53
已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

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
赞一下(1人) 回复此楼
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

padian

木虫 (著名写手)
★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
Reviewer #2呢？
回复此楼
3楼2010-07-16 11:52:02
 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
回复此楼
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

nosema
★
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

felicity6056

至尊木虫 (知名作家)
恭喜一下 恭喜一下
回复此楼
努力的过程讲究方法！
6楼2010-07-16 12:48:05
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ashun2089

木虫 (小有名气)
不用回的
回复此楼
7楼2010-07-16 12:54:16
 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)
谢谢。。。
回复此楼
8楼2010-07-16 14:17:15
 已阅   回复此楼   关注TA 给TA发消息 送TA红花 TA的回帖

ahpeasant

银虫 (著名写手)
★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
很成功的revision啊，恭喜！
赞一下(1人) 回复此楼
9楼2010-07-16 14:35:52
 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
赞一下 回复此楼
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
相关版块跳转 我要订阅楼主 sjtugtd 的主题更新
111/2返回列表12下一页
普通表情 龙 兔 虎 猫 高级回复(可上传附件)
信息提示
关闭
请填处理意见
关闭