如何寫好-Response-to-reviewer——發(fā)表SCI文章實(shí)戰(zhàn)

1、女口何寫好 Response to review發(fā)表SCI文章實(shí)戰(zhàn)發(fā)表文章有不少步驟,走走停停,有時候會由于得到審稿人的賞識和認(rèn)可開心不 已,當(dāng)然也會由于意見鋒利,無法修改而苦惱不已,下面我總結(jié)了一些例子,看 看如何答復(fù)review report里面的問題,所有內(nèi)容均是自己文章投稿的真實(shí)過程,希望對大家有所幫助.1.關(guān)于 Cover letter整理了一份一般的格式,大體都是這樣,呵呵Dear EditorNov.Dr. Yinon Rudich25, 2021JGRMan uscript Number: 2021JD013023Gross primary product ion estima

2、ti on from MODIS data with vegetati on in dex and photosynthetically absorbed radiation in maizeRemote estimati on of grossEn closed is the revised vesion of the paper en titled primary product ion in maize, coni ferous forest and grassla nd using MODIS images . We appreciated the thorough reviews p

3、rovide by the journal and the positive resp onse of both two reviewers that found the research of this manuscript is suitable for JGR. Below is our response to their comments resulting in a number of clarifications.RegardsDr. Chaoya ng Wu2. 關(guān)于Response纟田節(jié)最根本的一個要求是事實(shí)就是,有什么說什么,不要企圖遮遮 掩掩,也不要回避,對意見一般先要禮節(jié)

4、性的感謝或者同意,然后再做出修改. 格式一般要求對不同的審稿人的意見作出一一答復(fù),一定要細(xì)致,千萬不要以為能夠蒙混過關(guān),自己把不能解決的問題刪掉,這樣的回復(fù)估計(jì)就要被拒掉了.還是老老實(shí)實(shí)的答復(fù),即使暫時不能答復(fù)的,如一些方法改良之類的,委婉的說一 下,如今后的實(shí)驗(yàn)會注意等等.對于粗心的錯誤,自己就痛快成認(rèn)了,沒什么大不了的.哈哈,坦誠一點(diǎn),給人的印象好一點(diǎn).下面是一個列子,希望能對大家有所幫助.Ma nuscript Number: 2021JD013023Manu script Title: Gross primary producti on estimati on from MODIS d

5、ata with vegetati on in dexandphotos yn thetically absorbed radiati on in maizeAssociate Editor (Remarks to Author):Three reviewers provide reas on ably con siste nt views about your manu script, although their choicesof the category differ. I believe that the paper is worthy of publication in JGR a

6、s the correlations between GPP and VIs are significant and could be useful for arid region crop growth estimation.However, these empirical relati on ships would have limitatio ns, and these limitatio ns are not clearlystated. I n areas where radiati on is variable, GPP may depe nd on not only vegeta

7、ti on gree nn ess but also meteorological variables. The limitations should be stated clearly in the revision. You should revise your manu script accord ing to suggesti ons of these reviewers.Resp on se: We appreciate the positive comme nts about the manu script. We also con sider it is very importa

8、nt and necessary to state the limitations of this method. With help of Prof. Anatoly Gitels on,we decided to add a further validati on of our method in forest and grassla nd ecosystemsin the manu script. Although this decisi on was not suggested by the reviewers, we thi nk that by appl ying the meth

9、od to the three species, our method can be better evaluated and compared with other publicati ons. This new validati on part may also suggest some expla nati ons to some concerns of the review report. For example, the relati on ship betwee n GPP and VI*VI*PAR shows species specific. Regretfully, we

10、did not get eno ugh auxiliary data in the forest and grassla nd sites, and these two sites are used for model validation. We can modify the manuscript just following the suggestions in review report, but we think it will be better and more interesting by adding this part.Reviewer #1 (Highlight):The

11、cross-product an alyses of remotely-se nsed VIs for improved GPP estimati ons in Maize fields.Reviewer #1 (Comme nts):Overall this is an interesting paper with some nice findings about cross-multiplying VI's to better relate remotely sen sed vegetati on in formati on with tower measures of GPP.

12、The main weak ness is that there seems to be excessive use of "correlati ons" of many separate relati on ships which are the n comb in ed. A more rigorous evaluati on of the VI x VI approach would have bee n preferable and more worthy. However, there are still in terest ing results prese n

13、ted.My specific comme nts are as follows:1. In the Abstract, PAR should be ".active radiati on" and no t ".absorbed radiati on".Resp on se: we followed the suggesti ons.2. The equation provided and used applies to "SAVI" and not "MSAVI".Response: we changed th

14、e MSAVI to SAVI throughout the paper, including in the text and figures.3. Note that Sims et al. (2006) had an earlier paper in which they utilized both NDVI (for fPAR)andEVI in some combined fashion to predict GPP. This VI x VI case should be discussed and evaluated,as this study has also tested th

15、e product (NDVI x EVI).Resp on se: we have tried to find the reference the reviewer suggested but failed. In stead, we think it may probably the paper of“ A new model of gross primary productivity for North America necosystems based solely on the enhanced vegetati on in dex and land surface temperat

16、ure from MODIS, RSE, 2021 which already listed in our referenee. In that paper, a model (TG Temperature and Greenness) of EVI x LST was proposed for the estimation of GPP (below nameFig.6) because the MODIS LST correlated well with PAR (below name Fig.1). We find two more papers of Sims et al., 2006

17、 (Parallel adjustments in vegetation greenness and ecosystem CO2 exchange in response to drought in a Southern California chaparral ecosystem, RSE and On the use of MODIS EVI to assess gross primary productivity of North America n ecosystems, JGR), but no method of VI x VI was found. We thi nk Our V

18、I x VI approach validated TG model in directly because we used the in situ measured PAR (in TG model, the LST was used as a proxy of PAR), the VI x VI constitutes a non-linear stretch of a single VI, increasing its sensitivity at high vegetati on gree n biomass. We added some expla nati ons in the d

19、iscussi on part.4. In the Eddy covariance methods, there is no mention of what portion and what averaging of the diur nal data was used in this study?Resp on se: we agree with this suggesti on and provided more detail in formati on about the EC and PARdata used. First, we got the time of MODIS overp

20、ass time. Then five readings of NEE/T and 10 readings of PAR around the time were selected. The averaged values were used for GPP calculatio n.5. In the MODIS methods sect ion, how were the clouds an d thin clouds ide ntified and removed. There should be men ti on of the use of MODIS quality assura

21、nce data in formati on provided with theMOD09 reflecta nces. There is no men tio n as to whether the 3x3 or 9 pixels were averaged.Resp on se: Yes, we added the method of cloud detect ion and releva nt refere nce was also in cluded. Also the average values of nine pixels were averaged for later an a

22、lysis.6. Using MODIS LAI/fPAR product to derive an independent LAI- fPAR relationship is very questio nableand needs to be better assessed. In the first place, one should better define what was used, which mayhave been MOD15 500m product. Secondly, for the aims of this study, the authors need to est

23、ablish theLAI- fPAR relatio nship with more in depe ndent, and maybe in-situ data, and not with satellite data, asMODIS LAI/fPAR products are just more Vis and the fPAR product has bee n show n to have problemsin agriculture and other areas (just as stated in Xiao's and Zhang's papers). Ther

24、e is a lot of biophysicalinformation available over maize canopies (see Gitelson articles referenced), and the authors should firstevaluate use of M0D15 LAI/fPAR products through cross-comparisons with in-situ measureme nts frommaize fields. If the authors believe that M0D15 is suitable for use as i

25、s, the n these 2 "in dices" canperhaps be directly used in their GPP model study, i.e., fPAR is directly available from satellite(M0D15),so why not use this and avoid use of NDVI and EVI.Response: we are very appreciated with these important suggestions by the reviewer and agree with this.

26、We made some corresponding changes in the manuscript and below are our clarifications. First,theLAI-f apar relati on ship was used for calculati on of LUE, which is a variable for cross validati on of ourmodel. Due to the experiment design (see paper of Li et al., 2021, JGR, WATER experiment), someb

27、iophysical information were not observed, especially the f apar . However, it will be important in ourpaper to explore the potential of VIs in the estimation of both LUE and f apar . Therefore, we used anin direct method to calculate these two variables. As suggested by the reviewer, we used the in

28、situ measurements of LAI (details of LAI measurement was also added) for fapar calculation with equati onof fAPAR=0.95(1-Exp (-0.5LAI). This method demonstrated to be workable with other publicati ons (Ruimy et al., 1999; Xiao et al., 2004). The LUE was calculated by the following equation ofGPP=LUE

29、*f apar*PAR, GPP were from EC measurements, f apar from in situ LAI, and PAR from in situ meteorological measurements. We think that it was not appropriate to use MODIS product for calculatio n.7. Section 3.2. ".we displayed the NEE and T in the daytime when the MODIS data acquired."Aga in

30、,the authors do not provide how "daytime" is defined and how NEE, GPP, PAR were averaged to gen eratea daily comparison with the satellite. Have the authors considered that satellite overpass time varies dayto day across time zones (hourly in tervals)?Resp on se: we added the data process

31、ing in formatio n in sect ion 2.3 and the daytime here is the MODISsatellite overpass time.8. There needs to be a minimal level of aggregation of the fluxes in order to be able to compare withsatellite data, and the authors n eed to provide this in formati on.Response: we consider it is necessary to

32、 give more detail information about the data used. In sect ion2.3, with the MODIS overpass time, we used 5 readi ngs of NEE around and 10 readi ngs of PAR foraggregatio n and averaged in later an alysis.9. Section 3.3. How were LUE values computed and derived? is this information provided?Resp on se

33、: see our expla nati ons with concerns of No.6.10. Sectio n 341. "NDVI had the least pote ntial for LUE assessme nt in this paper as NDVI was largelyaffected by backgro und in formatio n.". There is no data nor bases to support this? NDVI may be affectedby different soils, but the authors

34、did not establish that (1) there are soil variations of concern within thisstudy and (2) and that these were resp on sible for the poorer NDVI results.11. Same applies to: "First, EVI is an index that can better overcome the background disturbances andsky con diti ons tha n other in dices."

35、; The authors have not show n that sky con diti ons were a factorin thisstudy and are merely guess ing why the in dices yield differe nt results. As it was not objective ofthisstudy, such interpretations should be removed from Results; although one is free to conjecture suchideas in the Discussi on

36、sect ion (so move such comme nts to discussi on sect ion).Resp on se: we checked throughout the manu script and removed these parts into a new discussi on part.12. Conclusions section: "In this paper, our method worked well for the wheat that was a relativelyhomoge nous can opy," As far as

37、 I know this is a study about Maize?Resp on se: We are sorry for this mistake.13. There should be some error bars in Figs 3-5.Resp on se: we added the error bars as suggested.14. It was annoying that no page nu mbers were used.Resp on se: page nu mbers were added in this revisi on.Reviewer #2 (Comme

38、 nts):This paper in vestigates the relati on ship betwee n gross primary producti on (GPP) and four vegetati onin dices (NDVI, EVI, MSAVI, and WDVI), usi ng data from a maize site. Authors aim to seek a simplerelati on ship betwee n GPP and vegetati on in dices, which is an importa nt effort in lin

39、ki ng satellite observatio ns with CO2 flux tower measureme nt. However, I have a nu mber of concerns on the manu script.1. English writing needs substantial improvement, and I would suggest that authors seek a help from anative English speaker to work on it. The manuscript does not have page number

40、 and line number, which makes it difficult to write comments for the manuscript. The reference citation in the text does not follow JGR format.Resp on se: we got help from a n ative speaker to proofread the paper and the reference citati ons werecha nged to follow the JGR format.2. Page 2 Introducti

41、on: 1st paragraph needs to be re-written and expanded to include more scie ntificjustification on their study of GPP.Resp on se: we added more in formati on about the GPP defi niti on and curre nt mecha nism of GPP estimation based on LUE model.3. Page 4 literature review on the VPM model. Note that

42、 Yan et al., 2021 used the VPM model to simulateGPP of both win ter wheat and maize crop in a study site in North China. The paper might be ofin terestto the authors.Ya n, H., Fu, Y., Xiao, X., Hua ng, H., He, H. and Yu, G., 2021, Modeli ng gross primary productivity ofwin ter wheat and maize double

43、-cropp ing system, using MODIS time series imagery and CO 2 eddy fluxdata, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 129(4): 391-400.Resp on se: yes, we added this refere nee to give a better in troducti on of both VPM model and GPP estimati on.4. Page 5. It mentioned " The LUE could be estimate

44、d by spectral VIs .'. it needs to specify it.Resp on se: We added three VIs (PRI, NDSI and MTCI) as examples for LUE estimation to specify the use of VIs.5. Page 5 last paragraph, "The paper is orga nize as follows .", it would read better if authors startitin a new paragraph.Response:

45、 we followed this suggestion in the manuscript.6. Page 6. Section 2.1. It is too short, and n eeds to expa nd for providi ng more info about the site, particularly vegetati on and soils.Response: additional information were added to better description of this site.7. Page 6, Sectio n 2.2, how freque

46、 ntly does LAI is measured?Resp on se: The LAI was measured everyday duri ng the experime nt time.8. Page 7, section 2.4. Is the daily MODIS data used in the study? Is the MODIS on board Terra or theMODIS on board Aqua satellite used? When 3x3 pixels (1.5km) are used? What is the fraction of maizewi

47、th in the 1.5 km radius?Resp on se: we used the MODIS/Terra daily surface reflecta nee data in this paper. The 3x3 pixels were used for calculation of reflectanee covering the EC sites. In the maize site, the fraction of maize within the 1.5 km radius would be higher tha n 95% because only small rid

48、ges were in side. For forest and grassla nd sites, the fraction could be almost 100%.9. Section 2.5, page 7 - Page 8, it needs to expand and provide detailed description on how LUE wascalculated. Maize is a summer crop, why authors used data from 11/1/2007 to7/12/2021 to derive arelati on ship betwe

49、e n LAI and fapar?Resp on se: in sect ion 2.5, we provided a more detail in formatio n of LUE and f apar determi natio n.Furthermore, we also con sider it was n ot appropriate to use MODIS LAI/f apar product to derive the relatio nship. In stead, we used a method suggested by reviewer1 to use the in

50、 situ measured LAIfor the calculation of fAPAR with equation of fAPAR=0.95(1-Exp (-0.5LAI). This method dem onstratedto be workable with other publications (Ruimy et al., 1999; Xiao et al., 2004). The LAI used was datain the same time of other observations.10. Page 8, Sectio n 2.6, authors n eed to

51、specify what i ndices were used the work of Inoue et al. (2021).Resp on se: some VIs were added in the part to avoid con fusi on.11. Page 10, Section 3.1, why only data (NEE and T) from 22:00pm to 3:00am next day are used incalculated? The night time definition needs to revisit and authors should us

52、e appropriate definition ofnight time? In short, authors need to provide much better and consistent way to describe how to partiti on NEE data into GPP and ecosystem respirati on.Resp on se: we added an expla nati on of ni ghttime select ion. Because high altitude in wester n Chi na,sun light time m

53、ay from 05:00 to 21:00 in summer, therefore, we selected the time from 22:00 to 03:00 in the ni ght to acquire the relatio nship of NEE/T.12. Page 11, Section 3.3., Authors need to provide much more detailed information on how they calculate LUE.Resp on se: in formatio n was added in sect ion 2.5.13

54、. Page 12, sect ion 3.4.1, while vegetatio n in dices are correlated with LUE, it does n ot mea n that onecan use vegetati on in dices to replace LUE. One must realize that vegetati on in dices and LUE aretwodifferent terms and biological processes. In that same paragraph, authors also found good co

55、rrelati onbetwee n vegetati on in dices and fapar.Response: we agree with the suggestions by the reviewer, perhaps because we authors are not nativespeakers, and we made mistakes in the use of “ replace These VIs just could be indicators or proxiesof the variables. The revision will be proofread by

56、a native speaker and we are trying to make it clearand con siste nt.14. Page 15, it stats "", if that is the case, what is the value of this paper? Does that relati on shipchangeby biome? Or does that relati on ship cha nge by pixel?Resp on se: the stateme nt of"it seems un likely thv

57、ersad ceiati on ship of fapar or LUE to aVIis about the specific regression coefficients. Our mean is that a regression model (specific coefficie nts)derived from maize ecosystems may not valid for other ecosystems. As many researches(Gitelson et al., 2005, Chl estimation different for maize and soy

58、bean, GPL) indicated that differe ntecosystems may act differently. Therefore, in the revision, although all reviewers did not suggestedto apply our method in other ecosystems, we decided to add a further validation part in the manu scriptto see if this method works in forest and grassla nd. As we d

59、id not get eno ugh auxiliary data (LAI),we just apply the model derived from maize for forest and grassland systems. We got clear differe neein regressi on and this result implies, first, our method may also work for forest and grassla nd, and sec ond, differe nt species may affect the regressi on.15. This manuscript only uses 1-month long CO2 flux