| 查看: 6550 | 回复: 10 | |||
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
应该是93bebmhtak前后十一个字符比较关键
已经有32人回复
-
2019年青年基金涵评意见，大家看看几个A，几个B?
已经有5人回复
-
职称评审，求友友推荐见刊最快的期刊
已经有4人回复
-
奇怪，两个人的filecode固定段从头到尾一模一样
已经有10人回复
-
综述论文作为代表作会不会影响评审专家的印象分？
已经有13人回复
-
是这周出结果还是下周出结果？
已经有3人回复
-
小木虫上这么多卖论文的，真有人买论文么？感觉没必要啊
已经有9人回复
-
有时候，自然基金真的不能太认真 （我的申报经验）
已经有4人回复
-
帮忙看看fileCode
已经有13人回复
-
为什么网上很多人说本周 12号出结果
已经有7人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 2013CRC新著：复合材料及其加工（Composite Materials and Processing）
已经有81人回复
- 【英美经典书籍】《Comprehensive Dictionary of Electrical Engineering》(第2版)
已经有26人回复
- Ammonia selective catalytic reduction of NO over Fe/Cu-SSZ-13
已经有3人回复
- 分享——世界上最奇异动物图册（彩色英文版）
已经有219人回复
- Status comment: No further corrections can now be made.求助
已经有6人回复
- 强烈推荐 提高英语阅读，了解西方文化的好书：关于英语语言的文化故事
已经有245人回复
- No further corrections can now be made到online avaliable需多久？
已经有3人回复
- 英国全奖T4签证-其实我就想说说资金证明的事情-附app8填表范例
已经有46人回复
- 我发了信问是否收到proof，变成了No further corrections can now be made
已经有5人回复
- further study
已经有13人回复
- 石墨烯泡沫吸附
已经有96人回复
- No further explaination,hehe
已经有31人回复
lwiaanngg
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 46 (小学生)
- 贵宾: 0.773
- 金币: 7403.2
- 散金: 24
- 红花: 12
- 帖子: 1211
- 在线: 110.3小时
- 虫号: 43541
- 注册: 2004-04-10
- 专业: 应用高分子化学与物理
2楼2010-07-16 11:47:59
padian
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 51 (初中生)
- 金币: 2399.2
- 散金: 841
- 红花: 7
- 帖子: 1141
- 在线: 229.3小时
- 虫号: 500995
- 注册: 2008-02-13
- 专业: 凝聚态物性 II ：电子结构
3楼2010-07-16 11:52:02
恭喜一下 4楼2010-07-16 11:57:20
★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖交流
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
felicity6056
至尊木虫 (知名作家)
- 应助: 6 (幼儿园)
- 贵宾: 0.033
- 金币: 10209.1
- 散金: 389
- 红花: 6
- 帖子: 6701
- 在线: 1054.7小时
- 虫号: 762546
- 注册: 2009-05-04
- 专业: 化石能源储存与输送
6楼2010-07-16 12:48:05
ashun2089
木虫 (小有名气)
- 应助: 0 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 3760.6
- 帖子: 294
- 在线: 127.5小时
- 虫号: 755020
- 注册: 2009-04-22
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 医学图像数据处理与分析
7楼2010-07-16 12:54:16
sjtugtd
至尊木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 34 (小学生)
- 金币: 23239.3
- 红花: 16
- 帖子: 3377
- 在线: 1381.2小时
- 虫号: 503488
- 注册: 2008-02-15
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 土壤生态学
8楼2010-07-16 14:17:15
9楼2010-07-16 14:35:52
sjtugtd
至尊木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 34 (小学生)
- 金币: 23239.3
- 红花: 16
- 帖子: 3377
- 在线: 1381.2小时
- 虫号: 503488
- 注册: 2008-02-15
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 土壤生态学
|
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
