To: James Annan <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: FW: 2009JD012960 (Editor - Steve Ghan):Decision Letter
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:55:24 -0600
Cc: Jim Salinger <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Grant Foster <email@example.com>, Mike Mann <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Gavin Schmidt <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
Thanks for doing this and let's keep it moving as fast as possible. Yes
the formatting in places is disconcerting and the line numbering is a
bit on and off.
I have suggestions for changing two words.
Line 13 "severely" to "greatly"
Line 79 "more dramatic" to "greater"
As they stand, words like those used carry a lot of extra subjective
tone that implies "bad" or has a commentary that is not desirable as per
Rev 3. I wonder if you should not be a bit more specific in responding
to Rev 3 and say what other words were changed in the abstract at
least? If it were "word" I would send in a version of the abstract with
tracking on. It might make the difference between having the editor
approve it and sending it back to Rev 3.
James Annan wrote:
> Dear All,
> I had a reply from Grant, and have made some changes to the paper -
> very little of substance, but I've lightly edited the wording
> throughout. I also added refs to Newell and Weare, and Angell (not
> A+Korshover), which seem relevant. Despite this, I've managed to cut a
> few lines off in total. I have also drafted replies to the reviewers
> (with their comments appended for reference).
> We do have a 2 week extension agreed, to 11 Nov. However it doesn't
> really seem like there is much more that needs doing. More suggestions
> are welcome, however, and before resubmitting, *I need an explicit OK
> from each author*.
Street address: 1850 Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80305