| 查看: 5280 | 回复: 24 | ||
[求助]
这个审稿结果修改后录用的概率有多大？ 已有11人参与
|
||
|
Dear XXX: Your manuscript entitled "XXX" which you submitted to Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Plant Soil Science, has been reviewed. Enclosed please find the reviews of the above manuscript. On the basis of the reviewers' appraisals and my own, your manuscript is conditionally accepted pending revision. Please carefully review all criticisms and suggestions raised by the referees. Please keep in mind that this decision does not guarantee a final acceptance of the work. In your cover letter please provide a point-by-point response to each comment. When I have received your revised manuscript, I will notify you of the status of your manuscript. When you revise your manuscript please highlight the changes you make in the manuscript by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text. Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Plant Soil Science and I look forward to receiving your revision. Sincerely, XXX Referee(s)' Comments to Author: Referee: 1 Comments to the Author 1. Novelty of the paper. I do not see some novelty in the paper. The aim of the paper was to compare infiltration /outflow rates during heavy rainfall under conditions of different treatments, slopes and with and without soil crust. 2. Results obtained by measurements (experiments) in laboratory are correct, they correspond to the known qualitative results of measurements published in literature. 3. Novelty are probably the data for Chinese loess plateau; but they are probably interesting to this region. I am not sure if this type of information (case study) can be published in this Journal. 4. I can repeat, that this study is good made. Formally, it needs a lot of improvements. Language is not good enough, there are presented some trivial information, like definition of infiltration, some terms are not used properly. Substantial language improvement is needed to sanction publication-important 5. Regarding to the influence of slope on the infiltration rate, it can be noted, that it depends on rain rate. At low rate of precipitation, the influence of slope can be negligible, but at high rates it can be significant. The rate of rain used here was extremely high, therefore the slope matters. As many studies already are available on the topic you must highlight the new information-important Referee: 2 Comments to the Author General comments Generally, the innovation degree of the manuscript is medium, since there have been some researches on infiltration under tillage treatments in Loess Plateau of China. And it is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing by someone with expertise in technical English editing paying particular attention to English grammar and sentence structure. 1) I think Fig. 3 is not necessary, since Fig. 2 clearly shows the infiltration rate curve including the steady-state infiltration rate for different tillage treatments under different slope angles, and Table I is not necessary, since Table Ⅱ shows the ponding time from different tillage treatments between the crusted and uncrusted soil surface including all the data in Table I. 2) In Table IV, the positions of Rtc and Rtuc may be opposite. The meanings of IRc-CK and IRuc-CK are not clear, and I think IRc-SS and IRuc-SS are easier to understand. 3) Enlarge description in “treatments” to explain the different treatments more clearly. As far as I understand there’re 24 treatments (2 soil surface conditions by 3 tillage treatments by 4 slope angles), aren’t there? 4) There is a lack of explanation of statistical methods used in the study. You need to provide more descriptions on the paired T-test and the Multivariate analysis. 5) The results should be compared with previous researches, since there have been some relative researches in Loess Plateau of China. 6) The conclusion section was omitted. You need to provide major conclusions from this study in a lonely section. 7) You provided an exhaustive list of references in various place. I recommend you only cite the ones that are most relevant and representative. In addition, the reference formats are not uniform, so you should revise them carefully according to the editor demands. 8) The 9th line: “The results showed that” instead of “Results show that:”? 9) The 28th line: “influencing” rather than “influence”. 10) The 45th line: “Tillage treatments sometimes were discussed as no tillage, mulch farming, stable mulch, minimum tillage and so on in the USA and Australia.” References are needed for the 2 countries listed in this sentence. 11) The 161st line: “Fig. 3” should be revised into “Fig. 4”. Fig. 4 is an example of 5° slope, but its representativeness is not clear and it can’t stand for the other slopes, so the relative conclusion appears unbelievable. 12) The 164th line: “Fig. 4” should be revised into “Fig. 5”. 13) The 166th line: the expression “1.29-1.56 times under CT treatment” and following similar ones are not accurate from mathematical angle. Referee: 3 Comments to the Author 1. The manuscript dealt with the infiltration under tillage treatments and soil crusts in the Loess Plateau of China. One problem is that the authors used the changed soil in their experiment, compared to the undisturbed soil. Sieve could change soil particle composition and grain size distribution; while compressing could destroy the original soil porosity and soil pore structure. All of these will lead to the alterations of soil texture and bulk density, which are closely related to soil permeability. Besides, the soil used in the experiment has been processed into a uniform bulk density, which is impossible in the field environment. 2. Line 24-25: From the references you provided, you cannot draw the conclusion that “soil moisture is the greatest fact or affecting vegetation restoration and ecological environment”. I think the greatest factor is water resources instead of soil moisture. 3. Line 26-27: Please give detailed explanation about the sentence to make it convinced or more accessible. How could infiltration process increase crop yield? 4. Line 32: Is the term “a soil crust” or “soil crust”? Please clarify. 5. Line 34-36: What kind of impact does crust have on the erosion process, positive or negative? It’s better to make it clear. 6. Line 37-39: Rewrite the sentence please. The sentence “Effects of soil crusts on the soil erosion process have been studied for many years” has nothing to do with the hydraulic conductivity. 7. Line 45-46: What do you want to express through the sentence? 8. Line 60-61: After reading through the full manuscript, it’s hard to find the relationship between infiltration and soil and water loss, let alone the prevention of soil and water loss. 9. Line 62-67: “Interaction” is quite different from “combined action”. What have you done in your experiment is the combined action instead of the interaction. 10 Section of Soil Materials (Line 73-82): What have you done on the soil before the experiment could change the soil texture. Why did you select the uniform bulk density? 11. Section of Rainfall simulator(Line 83-91): The authors could use a picture to summarize these sentences. 12. Line 125: “to runoff”? 13. Line 125-130: The section of results and discussion is too simple. What about the situation under the crusted surface? 14. Line 152-153: How to draw this conclusion? Where is the table or fig.? 15. Line 206: The conclusion should come from the comparison of the crusted without tillage treatments and the crusted with tillage treatments. |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
一志愿北京化工大学材料与化工（085600）296求调剂
已经有22人回复
-
322求调剂：一志愿湖南大学 材料与化工（085600），已过六级。
已经有7人回复
-
332求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
310求调剂
已经有10人回复
-
26考研-291分-厦门大学（085601）-柔性电子学院材料工程专业求调剂
已经有5人回复
-
085600 材料与化工 329分求调剂
已经有15人回复
-
化学0703 调剂 306分 一志愿211
已经有8人回复
-
342求调剂
已经有4人回复
-
334分 一志愿武理 材料求调剂
已经有14人回复
-
材料科学与工程 317求调剂
已经有5人回复
» 本主题相关价值贴推荐，对您同样有帮助:
- 编辑给的回复是这样的，这样最后接受的几率大吗？
已经有5人回复
- 请问论文外审通过之后录用概率大吗？
已经有10人回复
- 收到初审意见了，大家说录用的可能性有多大？
已经有13人回复
- 审稿时间与接收概率
已经有7人回复
- 通信学报审稿费是等通知再交吗？一般审稿时间是多久啊？录用几率有多大？
已经有11人回复
- 修改后再审是什么状态？？？求助~~~~~
已经有7人回复
- 审稿意见修改影不影响录用？
已经有10人回复
- 修改后录用机会大吗
已经有8人回复
- 物理学报主编终审阶段被退稿的概率有多大
已经有10人回复
- 专家意见是建议录用，稿件状态是修改后终审，这样的情况录用的机会大吗？
已经有36人回复
- 审稿人给提了修改很多的修改意见，是不是被拒概率很高？
已经有30人回复
- 这么个审稿意见，录用几率大吗？
已经有20人回复
- 外审后退修,录用的可能性有多大?
已经有13人回复
- 《材料科学与工艺》修改后再审被录用的概率有多大？
已经有19人回复
- 论文处于编辑加工状态，录用率有多大？
已经有11人回复
- Re-submit 的文章几率有多大？
已经有32人回复
- 审稿意见“修改后录用”，改得不好的话会不会被毙掉
已经有48人回复
- 机械工程学报初审通过，无修改意见，已送复审，请问录用几率多大？
已经有30人回复
- 《电子学报》的编委审批状态录用的几率是多大？
已经有11人回复
- 一审的评审结果，接收的可能性多大？
已经有7人回复
- 论文修改后由谁决定录用与否
已经有10人回复
- 大家帮我分析一下material and design的审稿意见，录用几率大不？
已经有24人回复
- 请问一下，是不是审稿时间越长，被录用的可能性越大呢？
已经有58人回复
- 投稿AEM，这种审稿结果，稿件录用的机会有多大？
已经有8人回复
- 请教《物理学报》修改后再审的录用几率？
已经有16人回复
- 请教《计算机应用》到了审理三录用概率有多大
已经有24人回复
yinss
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 4 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 2316.8
- 散金: 5
- 红花: 6
- 帖子: 964
- 在线: 84.5小时
- 虫号: 1142501
- 注册: 2010-11-09
- 专业: 放射医学
9楼2014-02-28 10:25:44
8楼2014-02-28 10:19:21
oceanlike
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 214 (大学生)
- 金币: 5043.2
- 散金: 419
- 红花: 15
- 帖子: 2578
- 在线: 435.1小时
- 虫号: 619577
- 注册: 2008-10-07
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 矿山岩体力学与岩层控制
4楼2014-02-28 06:38:16
dahuaidang
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 97 (初中生)
- 金币: 5610.2
- 散金: 1132
- 红花: 13
- 帖子: 2720
- 在线: 184.5小时
- 虫号: 1538736
- 注册: 2011-12-15
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 微生物遗传育种学
5楼2014-02-28 08:54:52
6楼2014-02-28 09:09:48
statsky
木虫 (正式写手)
- 应助: 35 (小学生)
- 金币: 4634.7
- 散金: 2415
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 782
- 在线: 627.8小时
- 虫号: 417924
- 注册: 2007-07-02
- 专业: 数学
2楼2014-02-28 01:04:13
3楼2014-02-28 05:53:32
yijianmeixyt
铁杆木虫 (著名写手)
一剪梅
- 应助: 158 (高中生)
- 金币: 16506.5
- 散金: 59
- 红花: 5
- 帖子: 1880
- 在线: 304.6小时
- 虫号: 1161506
- 注册: 2010-12-03
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 机构学与机器人
7楼2014-02-28 09:18:11
10楼2014-02-28 10:29:40
