如何写好-Response-to-reviewer——发表SCI文章实战

如何写好Responsetoreview——发表SCI文章实战发表文章有不少步骤，走走停停，有时候会因为得到审稿人的赏识和认可开心不已，当然也会因为意见尖锐，无法修改而苦恼不已，下面我总结了一些例子，看看如何回答reviewreport里面的问题，所有内容均是自己文章投稿的真实过程，希望对大家有所帮助。1.关于Coverletter整理了一份一般的格式，大体都是这样，呵呵DearEditorDr.YinonRudichNov.25,2009JGRManuscriptNumber:2009JD013023,“GrossprimaryproductionestimationfromMODISdatawithvegetationindexandphotosyntheticallyabsorbedradiationinmaize”Enclosedistherevisedversionofthepaperentitled“Remoteestimationofgrossprimaryproductioninmaize,coniferousforestandgrasslandusingMODISimages”.WeappreciatedthethoroughreviewsprovidebythejournalandthepositiveresponseofbothtworeviewersthatfoundtheresearchofthismanuscriptissuitableforJGR.Belowisourresponsetotheircomme[e-mail]2.关于Response细节最根本的一个要求是事实就是，有什么说什么，不要企图遮遮掩掩，也不要回避，对意见一般先要礼节性的感谢或者同意，然后再做出修改。格式一般要求对不同的审稿人的意见作出一一回答，一定要细致，千万不要以为能够蒙混过关，自己把不能解决的问题删掉，这样的回复估计就要被拒掉了。还是老老实实的回答，即使暂时不能回答的，如一些方法改进之类的，委婉的说一下，如今后的实验会注意等等。对于粗心的错误，自己就痛快承认了，没什么大不了的。哈哈，坦诚一点，给人的印象好一点。下面是一个列子，希望能对大家有所帮助。ManuscriptNumber:2009JD013023ManuscriptTitle:GrossprimaryproductionestimationfromMODISdatawithvegetationindexandphotosyntheticallyabsorbedradiationinmaize------------------------------------------------------------------------------AssociateEditor(RemarkstoAuthor):Threereviewersprovidereasonablyconsistentviewsaboutyourmanuscript,althoughtheirchoicesofthecategorydiffer.IbelievethatthepaperisworthyofpublicationinJGRasthecorrelationsbetweenGPPandVIsaresignificantandcouldbeusefulforaridregioncropgrowthestimation.However,theseempiricalrelationshipswouldhavelimitations,andtheselimitationsarenotclearlystated.Inareaswhereradiationisvariable,GPPmaydependonnotonlyvegetationgreennessbutalsometeorologicalvariables.Thelimitationsshouldbestatedclearlyintherevision.Youshouldreviseyourmanuscriptaccordingtosuggestionsofthesereviewers.Response:Weappreciatethepositivecommentsaboutthemanuscript.Wealsoconsideritisveryimportantandnecessarytostatethelimitationsofthismethod.WithhelpofProf.AnatolyGitelson,wedecidedtoaddafurthervalidationofourmethodinforestandgrasslandecosystemsinthemanuscript.Althoughthisdecisionwasnotsuggestedbythereviewers,wethinkthatbyapplyingthemethodtothethreespecies,ourmethodcanbebetterevaluatedandcomparedwithotherpublications.Thisnewvalidationpartmayalsosuggestsomeexplanationstosomeconcernsofthereviewreport.Forexample,therelationshipbetweenGPPandVI*VI*PARshowsspeciesspecific.Regretfully,wedidnotgetenoughauxiliarydataintheforestandgrasslandsites,andthesetwositesareusedformodelvalidation.Wecanmodifythemanuscriptjustfollowingthesuggestionsinreviewreport,butwethinkitwillbebetterandmoreinterestingbyaddingthispart.Reviewer#1(Highlight):Thecross-productanalysesofremotely-sensedVIsforimprovedGPPestimationsinMaizefields.Reviewer#1(Comments):Overallthisisaninterestingpaperwithsomenicefindingsaboutcross-multiplyingVI'stobetterrelateremotelysensedvegetationinformationwithtowermeasuresofGPP.Themainweaknessisthatthereseemstobeexcessiveuseofcorrelationsofmanyseparaterelationshipswhicharethencombined.AmorerigorousevaluationoftheVIxVIapproachwouldhavebeenpreferableandmoreworthy.However,therearestillinterestingresultspresented.Myspecificcommentsareasfollows:1.IntheAbstract,PARshouldbe...activeradiationandnot...absorbedradiation.Response:wefollowedthesuggestions.2.TheequationprovidedandusedappliestoSAVIandnotMSAVI.Response:wechangedtheMSAVItoSAVIthroughoutthepaper,includinginthetextandfigures.3.NotethatSimsetal.(2006)hadanearlierpaperinwhichtheyutilizedbothNDVI(forfPAR)andEVIinsomecombinedfashiontopredictGPP.ThisVIxVIcaseshouldbediscussedandevaluated,asthisstudyhasalsotestedtheproduct(NDVIxEVI).Response:wehavetriedtofindthereferencethereviewersuggestedbutfailed.Instead,wethinkitmayprobablythepaperof“AnewmodelofgrossprimaryproductivityforNorthAmericanecosystemsbasedsolelyontheenhancedvegetationindexandlandsurfacetemperaturefromMODIS,RSE,2008”whichalreadylistedinourreference.Inthatpaper,amodel(TGTemperatureandGreenness)ofEVI×LSTwasproposedfortheestimationofGPP(belownameFig.6)becausetheMODISLSTcorrelatedwellwithPAR(belownameFig.1).WefindtwomorepapersofSimsetal.,2006(ParalleladjustmentsinvegetationgreennessandecosystemCO2exchangeinresponsetodroughtinaSouthernCaliforniachaparralecosystem,RSEandOntheuseofMODISEVItoassessgrossprimaryproductivityofNorthAmericanecosystems,JGR),butnomethodofVI×VIwasfound.WethinkOurVI×VIapproachvalidatedTGmodelindirectlybecauseweusedtheinsitumeasuredPAR(inTGmodel,theLSTwasusedasaproxyofPAR),theVI×VIconstitutesanon-linearstretchofasingleVI,increasingitssensitivityathighvegetationgreenbiomass.Weaddedsomeexplanationsinthediscussionpart.4.IntheEddycovariancemethods,thereisnomentionofwhatportionandwhataveragingofthediurnaldatawasusedinthisstudy?Response:weagreewiththissuggestionandprovidedmoredetailinformationabouttheECandPARdataused.First,wegotthetimeofMODISoverpasstime.ThenfivereadingsofNEE/Tand10readingsofPARaroundthetimewereselected.TheaveragedvalueswereusedforGPPcalculation.5.IntheMODISmethodssection,howweretheclouds