如何正确回复审稿意见

投稿后勿需修改就直接发表的情况应该几乎没有，一个好的期刊应该都有明确的同行评议制度，再好的文章在审稿人那里都能够挑出一些毛病，或者说都能够给出进一步完善的建议。

以下是回复审稿人意见的一个例子：

Joe Huston

Editor-in-Chief

Behavioural Brain Research

Jun 26, 2011

Thank you very much for your letter on Jun 14, 2011, with detailed evaluations by

anonymous reviewers on our manuscript “XXX” (Ms. Ref. No.:XXX  ).

We have revised the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments and

suggestions. We believe that it has been greatly improved and hope it will be accepted

for publication in Behavioural Brain Research.

Our responses to the reviewers’ comments and suggestions are as follows:

Reviewer #2: Title: Inter-annual variations of methane emission from an open fen on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau: A three-year study.

Evaluation: Accepted with minor revision.
RE: Thanks for your positive evaluation.
This paper has improved considerably since the previous version sent for review. There are still a few points that need more clarification. The discussion of the data could also be improved by cleaning up the statistics and by commenting further on the reasons why CH4 could be higher/lower in some sites/years, instead of merely describing results already given in tables and figures. For example, why do you think the Eh is significantly correlated to CH4 in the dry year? Somewhere in the site description you need to make clear (preferably since the beginning) that one of your communities is almost always flooded, another is almost never flooded, and the third one is shifting depending on the year.

RE: Thanks for your constructive suggestions. Yes. In the revised version, we made more clarificationtried to clarifyabout ourthe data and discussiongive more explanation. For example, we added a new section in the results to summarize the relationship between methane emissions and environmental factors in different years or stands. For your concern about the significant relation between methane emission and Ehs in 2006, we considered that this relationship was for all the three stands not for individualsrather than any one of them, therefore, this relationship wasthus reasonable. According to your suggestion, we also added someinformation about the water regime for the three standssince the beginning.

- The title is more appropriate now. You don't need to repeat "inter-annual variation" as keyword since it is already in the title.

RE:Yes. We deleted the keyword and added “climate change” and “Zoige wetlands”.
- In the abstract, define QTP the first time you mention it.

RE: Yes. We defined QTP at the first timedid it.
- L46: note that CH4 is second in concentration in the atmosphere.

RE: Yes.We added information about this.
- L61: explain why you think this area is very important and sensitive for climatic change.

RE: Yes.We added information herecited froma referenceto explain it.
- L67: you probably weather change here...

RE: Yes. For a small temporal scale, we can say the wetland is sensitive to the weather condition. However, for decades or more, we should use climate change instead of weacherweatherchange.