Diferenças
Aqui você vê as diferenças entre duas revisões dessa página.
| Ambos lados da revisão anteriorRevisão anteriorPróxima revisão | Revisão anterior | ||
| artigos:ernesto2 [2008/02/21 19:04] – paulojus | artigos:ernesto2 [2008/02/26 18:53] (atual) – ernesto | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Linha 14: | Linha 14: | ||
| * [[http:// | * [[http:// | ||
| * submetido em 23/10/2007. {{artigos: | * submetido em 23/10/2007. {{artigos: | ||
| + | |||
| ===== Submissão para Scientia Marina (aceito - minor changes) ===== | ===== Submissão para Scientia Marina (aceito - minor changes) ===== | ||
| Linha 20: | Linha 21: | ||
| * Referees reports: {{artigos: | * Referees reports: {{artigos: | ||
| * Artigo resubmetido após sugestões dos revisores | * Artigo resubmetido após sugestões dos revisores | ||
| - | - arquivo PDF | + | - arquivo PDF (FAZER UPLOAD AQUI) |
| - | - arquivos FONTE | + | - arquivos FONTE (FAZER UPLOAD AQUI) |
| * Resposta dos editores (aceitação com "minor changes" | * Resposta dos editores (aceitação com "minor changes" | ||
| Linha 85: | Linha 86: | ||
| * Stelzenmüller, | * Stelzenmüller, | ||
| + | == Reply to referee 1 == | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{artigos: | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{artigos: | ||
| === Referee 2 === | === Referee 2 === | ||
| Linha 96: | Linha 102: | ||
| - Page 7, line 178-179, do you mean “hybrid design had lower sill and range”? | - Page 7, line 178-179, do you mean “hybrid design had lower sill and range”? | ||
| - Page 8, although the results presented in the paper are useful and informative, | - Page 8, although the results presented in the paper are useful and informative, | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Reply to referee 2 == | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{artigos: | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{artigos: | ||
| ===== Submissão para Fisheries Research (rejeitado) ===== | ===== Submissão para Fisheries Research (rejeitado) ===== | ||
| Linha 194: | Linha 206: | ||
| In the light of the many comments made by the reviewers I conclude with regret that this manuscript is not acceptabe as it stands.Questions on the paucity of the data, the lack of statistical power, difficulty of generalising the results, and the possibility of redundancy with other papers are only some of the matters raised. However, there is good material in this manuscript, and if the authors are able to take full account of the reviewers concerns, a resubmission is possible. | In the light of the many comments made by the reviewers I conclude with regret that this manuscript is not acceptabe as it stands.Questions on the paucity of the data, the lack of statistical power, difficulty of generalising the results, and the possibility of redundancy with other papers are only some of the matters raised. However, there is good material in this manuscript, and if the authors are able to take full account of the reviewers concerns, a resubmission is possible. | ||
| - | ===== Resubmissão ===== | + | ===== Resubmissão |
| Idéia básica ao redor da sugestao do segundo referee de enfatizar a metodologia, | Idéia básica ao redor da sugestao do segundo referee de enfatizar a metodologia, | ||
