revised version review（如何写好 Response to review）

本文目录

• 如何写好 Response to review
• revised version review什么意思

如何写好 Response to review

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 review report 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 Cover letter 整理了一份一般的格式，大体都是这样，呵呵 Dear Editor 吴朝阳 加为好友 打个招呼 给我留言 发送消息 Dr. Yinon Rudich JGR Manuscript Number: 2009JD013023, Nov. 25, 2009 “Gross primary production estimation from MODIS data with vegetation index and photosynthetically absorbed radiation in maize” Enclosed is the revised version of the paper entitled “Remote estimation of gross primary production in maize, coniferous forest and grassland using MODIS images”. We appreciated the thorough reviews provide by the journal and the positive response of both two reviewers that found the research of this manuscript is suitable for JGR. Below is ourresponse to their comments resulting in a number of clarifications. Regards Dr. Chaoyang Wu hefery@163.com 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。 Manuscript Number: 2009JD013023 Manuscript Title: Gross primary production estimation from MODIS data with vegetation index and photosynthetically absorbed radiation in maize -----------------------------------------------------------------------------Associate Editor (Remarks to Author): Three reviewers provide reasonably consistent views about your manuscript, although their choices of the category differ. I believe that the paper is worthy of publication in JGR as the correlations between GPP and VIs are significant and could be useful for arid region crop growth estimation. However, these empirical relationships would have limitations, and these limitations are not clearly stated. In areas where radiation is variable, GPP may depend on not only vegetation greenness but also meteorological variables. The limitations should be stated clearly in the revision. You should revise your manuscript according to suggestions of these reviewers. Response: We appreciate the positive comments about the manuscript. We also consider it is very important and necessary to state the limitations of this method. With help of Prof. Anatoly Gitelson, blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=sp… 1/7 2011-7-19 如何写好 Response to review——发表… we decided to add a further validation of our method in forest and grassland ecosystems in the manuscript. Although this decision was not suggested by the reviewers, we think that by applying the method to the three species, our method can be better evaluated and compared with other publications. This new validation part may also suggest some explanations to some concerns of the review report. For example, the relationship between GPP and VI*VI*PAR shows species specific. Regretfully, we did not get enough auxiliary data in the forest and grassland 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 cross-product analyses of remotely-sensed VIs for improved GPP estimations in Maize fields. Reviewer #1 (Comments): Overall this is an interesting paper with some nice findings about cross-multiplying VI’s to better relate remotely sensed vegetation information with tower measures of GPP. The main weakness is that there seems to be excessive use of “correlations“ of many separate relationships which are then combined. A more rigorous evaluation of the VI x VI approach would have been preferable and more worthy. However, there are still interesting results presented. My specific comments are as follows: 1. In the Abstract, PAR should be “...active radiation“ and not “...absorbed radiation“. Response: we followed the suggestions. 2. The equation provided and used applies to “SAVI“ and not “MSAVI“. Response: we changed the 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) and EVI in some combined fashion topredict GPP. This VI x VI case should be discussed and evaluated, as this study has also tested the product (NDVI x EVI).Response: we have tried to find the reference the reviewer suggested but failed. Instead, we think it may probably the paper of “A new model of gross primary productivity for North American ecosystems based solely on the enhanced vegetation index and land surface temperature from MODIS, RSE, 2008” which already listed in our reference. In that paper, a model (TG Temperature and Greenness) of EVI ×LST was proposed for the estimation of GPP (below name Fig.6) because the MODIS LST correlated well with PAR (below name Fig.1). We find two more papers of Sims et al., 2006 (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 American ecosystems, JGR), but no method of VI×VI was found. We think Our VI×VI approach validated TG model indirectly because we used the in situ measured PAR (in TG model, the LST was used as a proxy of PAR), the VI× VI constitutes a non-linear stretch of a single VI, increasing its sensitivity at high vegetation green biomass. We added some explanations in the discussion part. 4. In the Eddy covariance methods, there is no mention of what portion and what averaging of the diurnal data was used in this study? Response: we agree with this suggestion and provided more detail information about the EC and PAR data used. First, we got the time of MODIS overpass time. Then five readings of NEE/T and 10 readings of PAR around the time were selected. The averaged values were used for GPP calculation. 5. In the MODIS methods section, how were the clouds and thin clouds identified and removed. There should be mention of the use of MODIS quality assurance data information provided with the MOD09 reflectances. There is no mention as to whether the 3x3 or 9 pixels were averaged. Response: Yes, we added the method of cloud detection and relevant reference was also included. Also the average values of nine pixels were averaged for later analysis. 6. Using MODIS LAI/fPAR product to derive an independent LAI- fPAR relationship is very questionable and needs to be better assessed. In the first place, one should better define what was used, which may have been MOD15 500m product. Secondly, for the aims of this study, the authors need toestablish the LAI- fPAR relationship with more independent, and maybe in-situ data, and not with satellite data, as MODIS LAI/fPAR products are just more VIs and the fPAR product has been shown to have problems in agriculture and other areas (just as stated in Xiao’s and Zhang’s papers). There is a lot of biophysical information available over maize canopies (see Gitelson articles referenced), and the authors should first evaluate use of MOD15 LAI/fPAR products through cross-comparisons with in-situ measurements from maize fields. If the authors believe that MOD15 is suitable for use as is, then these 2 “indices“ can perhaps be directly used in their GPP model study, i.e., fPAR is directly available from satellite (MOD15), 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. We made some corresponding changes in the manuscript and below are our clarifications. First, the LAI-f APAR relationship was used for calculation of LUE, which is a variable for cross validation of our model. Due to the experiment design (see paper of Li et al., 2009, JGR, WATER experiment), some biophysical information were not observed, especially the f APAR. However, it will be important in our blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=sp… 2/7 2011-7-19 如何写好 Response to review——发表… paper to explore the potential of VIs in the estimation of both LUE and f APAR. Therefore, we used an indirect method to calculate these two variables. As suggested by the reviewer, we used the in situ measurements of LAI (details of LAI measurement was also added) for f APAR calculation with equation of fAPAR=0.95(1-Exp (-0.5LAI)). This method demonstrated to be workable with other publications (Ruimy et al., 1999; Xiao et al., 2004). The LUE was calculated by the following equation of GPP=LUE*f APAR*PAR, GPP were from EC measurements, fAPAR from in situ LAI, and PAR from in situ meteorological measurements. We think that it was not appropriate to use MODIS product for calculation. 7. Section 3.2. “...we displayed the NEE and T in the daytime when the MODIS data acquired...“ Again, the authors do not provide how “daytime“ is defined and how NEE, GPP, PAR were averagedto generate a daily comparison with the satellite. Have the authors considered that satellite overpass time varies day to day across time zones (hourly intervals)? Response: we added the data processing information in section 2.3 and the daytime here is the MODIS satellite overpass time. 8. There needs to be a minimal level of aggregation of the fluxes in order to be able to compare with satellite data, and the authors need to provide this information.

revised version review什么意思

revised version review修订版的评论revised英 复审vt.检验； 复查； 复习； 评论vi.复习功课； 写评论