Freeze–Thaw Cycles Have More of an Effect on Greenhouse Gas Fluxes than Soil Water Content on the Eastern Edge of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau
, Yunfeng Yao 1,* and Junqiang Wang 2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is about Freeze-thaw cycles at the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. The Abstract is clear and it has mentioned the points of main manuscript clearly.
It is recommended, authors use different keywords that the words which are in the title of the manuscript.
The Introduction part is clearly, but the number of references and citations are not enough, and it can be improved.
The RESULT part is clear and it does not need any changes.
The DISCUSSION part is not enough, and it can be improved, by using more references, compare the current results with former published articles and manuscripts.
Conclusion is clear and it does not need any changes.
It should be better to add Abbreviation part after Conflict of Interest according to the format of MDPI journals. Abbreviation part should contain all parts of the manuscript from Introduction to final conclusion and remarks.
All the scientific words should be Italic both inside the manuscript and at the reference part.
The manuscript has used 59 References, but those numbers of references are not enough. All references need to have DOI, which has been forgotten in the manuscript.
The English language of the manuscript can be written and revised, and the authors can use native English speaker or they use the English editing system of MDPI journals.
The article can be accepted after these suggestions.
Author Response
The article is about Freeze-thaw cycles at the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. The Abstract is clear and it has mentioned the points of main manuscript clearly.
- It is recommended, authors use different keywords that the words which are in the title of the manuscript.
Reply: we had changed four of the five keywords, the new keywords have not appeared in the title.
- The Introduction part is clearly, but the number of references and citations are not enough, and it can be improved.
- The RESULT part is clear and it does not need any changes.
- The DISCUSSION part is not enough, and it can be improved, by using more references, compare the current results with former published articles and manuscripts.
Reply: dear reviewer, thank you for this suggestion. We added more appropriated references in the discussion.
- Conclusion is clear and it does not need any changes.
- It should be better to add Abbreviation part after Conflict of Interest according to the format of MDPI journals. Abbreviation part should contain all parts of the manuscript from Introduction to final conclusion and remarks.
Reply: thank you, the abbreviations were added according to the format of MDPI.
- All the scientific words should be Italic both inside the manuscript and at the reference part.
Reply: thank you, we changed all the scientific words to italics, and checked by two authors.
- The manuscript has used 59 References, but those numbers of references are not enough. All references need to have DOI, which has been forgotten in the manuscript.
Reply: we have added new references and also add the DOI number at the end of each references as the MDPI references guide.
- The English language of the manuscript can be written and revised, and the authors can use native English speaker or they use the English editing system of MDPI journals.
Reply: Thank you, the manuscript has been revised by the English editing system of MDPI journals.
The article can be accepted after these suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Why is the title of the manuscript a claim and not a research problem?
Why is the introduction so poor. It should be more widely supported by the literature and the research motives specified should resonate more strongly.
What is new in the presented study in relation to previous studies?
Why has the research area been so poorly characterized by researchers?
For example, a location drawing should be added specifying the location of the research area in relation to the borders of China and the continent.
Some figures require correction of descriptions, e.g.: fig.2, fig.3
Why are there no explanations in some drawings, e.g. fig 5
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
- Why is the title of the manuscript a claim and not a research problem?
Reply: dear reviewer, this title covers the most important findings that we had in this study, and we believe this title could make more readers interested in this study.
- Why is the introduction so poor. It should be more widely supported by the literature and the research motives specified should resonate more strongly.
Reply: thank you, we further complement the content in the introduction.
- What is new in the presented study in relation to previous studies?
Reply: dear reviewer, we added these related contents in the manuscript and thank you for this suggestion.
- Why has the research area been so poorly characterized by researchers?
For example, a location drawing should be added specifying the location of the research area in relation to the borders of China and the continent.
Reply: we had made a more specific description about the research area and a location drawing was added to the manuscript.
- Some figures require correction of descriptions, e.g.: fig.2, fig.3
Reply: we have changed the descriptions of the tables and figures.
- Why are there no explanations in some drawings, e.g. fig 5
Reply: we add the explanations in the drawings.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors addressed my comments in a matter-of-fact way, so I think that the paper may be considered for publication.
