consier如何写好 Response to reviewer——发表SCI文章实战

2021年1月19日发(作者：瓶颈英文)
如何写好

Response to review
——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
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





















Dr. Yinon Rudich
















































Nov.
25, 2009

JGR



Manuscript Number: 2009JD013023
,

“
Gross primary production estimation from MODIS data with vegetation index and
photosynthetically absorbed radiation in maize
”



Enclosed is the revised ve
rsion 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 our response to their comments resulting in a number of clarifications.



Regards





Dr. Chaoyang Wu

hefery@

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,

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


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

Response: we followed the suggestions.

2. The equation provided and used applies to

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
to
predict
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
CO
2

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
to
establish 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
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


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
f
APAR
=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, 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

calculation.



7. Section 3.2.
Again,


the authors do not provide how
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.

Response:
we
consider
it
is
necessary
to
give
more
detail
information
about
the
data
used.
In
section

2.3, with the MODIS overpass time, we used 5 readings of NEE around and 10 readings of PAR
for

aggregation and averaged in later analysis.




9. Section 3.3. How were LUE values computed and derived? is this information provided?

Response: see our explanations with concerns of No.6.



10. Section 3.4.1.
largely

affected by background information..
affected


by different soils, but the authors did not establish that (1) there are soil variations of concern
within this

study and (2) and that these were responsible for the poorer NDVI results.

11. Same applies to:
and

sky conditions than other indices.
in this

study and are merely guessing why the indices yield different results. As it was not objective of
this

study,
such
interpretations
should
be
removed
from
Results;
although
one
is
free
to
conjecture
such


ideas in the Discussion section (so move such comments to discussion section).

Response: we checked throughout the manuscript and removed these parts into a new discussion
part.



12.
Conclusions
section:

this
paper,
our
method
worked
well
for
the
wheat
that
was
a
relatively

homogenous canopy,

Response: We are sorry for this mistake.



13. There should be some error bars in Figs 3-5.

Response: we added the error bars as suggested.



14. It was annoying that no page numbers were used.

Response: page numbers were added in this revision.

Reviewer #2 (Comments):