感觉还挺顺利的，自己投的第一篇sci，一审意见还挺多的，找了四个审稿人，有两个人比较认可，一个审稿人非常质疑，还挺紧张的，修改了之后二审等了三个月，结果只有四条意见，改好之后三天就录用了。
投稿jms 2019.9.10
awaiting eeic check 2019.9.15
awaiting reviewer assignment 19.10.2
awaiting reviewer scores 19.11.5
awaiting eeic decision 2019.12.12
major revision 2019.12.22
submit revision 1 2020.1.14
minor revision 2020.3.23
submit revision 2 2020.3.24
awaiting eeic decision 2020.3.25
accept 2020.3.27

67 0

审稿速度:7.0
经验分享：16-jan-2019 投稿
04-mar-2019 小修
03-apr-2019 修回
15-may-2019 大修
14-jun-2019 修回
18-sep-2019 接收

75 0

2018.10.16 submitted
2018.12.04 reviewer selection
2019.02.21 major revision
2019.03.26 minor revision
2019.04.08 accepted
中间系统会有编辑与主编之间的确定状态切换，让人看着其实很着急的。不过杂志主编和责任编辑都是很nice的，国内的学术人士可以*他们的交流*，很多干货

57 0

相比其他期刊，该期刊总体来说较快，从投稿到最后见刊6个月。编辑很nice，专家提的意见对文章质量提升很大。
投稿：2018年6月5日；
返修：2018年9月12日；
接收：2018年10月8日；
刊出：2018年12月

68 0

马马虎虎，能毕业就行，我师兄去年发表了一篇，也算成功毕业，就万事大吉了

184 0

投了20天，还是waiting SE assignment.

174 0

审稿速度:3.0
经验分享：因为没有对模型进行适当验证，到最后一刻被拒。给出投稿历程，供大家参考。
7/9 awaiting reviewer selection
......
8/29 awaiting ed recommendation
......
9/19 major revision
......
11/23 awaiting ed recommendation
reject
希望可以帮到大家，投稿周期也算长了，而且好像出版周期也很长。。

64 0

审稿速度:2.0 | 投稿命中率:75.0
经验分享：非常慢，录用了一年半还没见刊！着急毕业的不建议投！

195 0

1月13投稿，25号通知送外审，大概是投稿的3个月的时候给了意见大修，然后自己好好修改找了润色机构把语言润色了下，修改返回去后接着又进入外审，大概两个月的时候给的结果。
编辑的效率还是很高的，非常感谢主编

59 0

Dear Editor, Dear reviewers

Thank you for your letter dated February 22. We were pleased to know that our work was rated as potentially acceptable for publication in Journal, subject to adequate revision.We thank the reviewers for the time and effort that they have put into reviewing the previous version of the manuscript. Their suggestions have enabled us to improve our work. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Accordingly, we have uploaded a copy of the original manuscript with all the changes highlighted by using the track changes mode inMS Word.

Appended to this letter is our point-by-point response to the comments raised by the reviewers. The comments are reproduced and our responses are given directly afterward in a different color (red).

We would like also to thank you for allowing us to resubmit a revised copy of the manuscript.

We hope that the revised manuscript is accepted for publication in the Journal of Mountain Science.

Sincerely,

XXXXXXX



Reviewer 1：

Comments to the Author
Review of the manuscript “CONTINUOUSLY SUSPENDED SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MONITORINGAND ANALYSIS IN TWO ITALIAN INSTRUMENTED CATCHMENTS LOCATED IN ALPINE ANDMEDITERRANEAN ENVIRONMENTS”
The manuscript presents a convincing analysis of suspended sediment transport data gathered into two monitored catchments located in different climatic conditions. The catchments differ also in shape and size, offering the opportunity for an interesting comparison between them. According to the authors, one of the main factor explaining the different relationships between Q and SSC, together with the catchment shape and size, is the different distribution of sediment sources and their coupling in the analyzed basins. I think this is a very interesting explanation but maybe also the different climatic conditions, in terms of rainfall intensity and duration, should be considered as a potential factor. In general, the manuscript is well written and deserves to be published. The analysis is sound and quite well documented but some points, especially in the section dedicated to the methods, need to bebetter clarified. In particular, some more details on the criteria chosen to separate rainfall events should be provided because it is not clear from the text (Lines 12-24, page 6) and Figure 5 how this has been carried out. Did you use any quantitative criteria for the choice between single and multiple events?

We thank the reviewer for the very interesting comment. In fact, the distribution of the sediment sources and the degree of coupling play an essential role in the relationships between Q and SSC in both catchments. Rainfall quantity was analyzed in order to assess the beginning of the events.We studied rainfall intensity as a potential factor explaining the suspended sediment transport, but we decided not to include that analysis since data were not complete in both cases.

Regarding the suggestion about the methods, we changed this part, sothe method used to separate rainfall events has been described as follows: “In the case of continuous rainfall causing a multi peak flood event, it was divided into individual events only when it was possible to clearly identify the rising limb and the exhaustion limb for both water discharge and suspended sediment concentration (Figure 5a).Otherwise the event was considered multiple (Figure 5b). In this case, ΔT was calculated considering the absolute Q and SSC maximum values.” (Lines 8 to 15 of page 6).

Another issue on the methodological section is that a description of hysteresis analysis is completely missing. A short paragraph could be added in the Data analysis chapter to briefly describe this techniquef or the benefit of those who are not familiar with this kind of analysis.

We are grateful for the suggestion. To be more clear and in accordance with the reviewer concerns, we have added a brief description as follows: “The suspended sediment concentration was plotted versus water discharge and the shape and direction of the obtained loops were analyzed. The study of hysteretic loops is a technique used to analyze the relationships between water discharge and suspended sediment concentration at the eventscale. If the sediment peak SSCP occurs before the water discharge peak QP, or if the SSC/Q ratios on the rising limb of the Q-graph are greater than those on the falling limb, the events show a clockwise loop.Instead, if the sediment peak SSCP occurs later than the water discharge peak QP, or if SSC/Q ratios on the rising limb of theQ-graph are lower than those on the falling limb, the loops have acounter-clockwise direction. The eight-shaped loop occurs when a combination of a clockwise loop and of a counter-clockwise loop takes place, usually because discharge and/or sediment concentration present more than one peak” (Lines 15to 25 of page 6).


Minor comments:
The title is too long, I suggest shortening. SUSPENDED SEDIMENT TRANSPORTANALYSIS IN TWO ITALIAN INSTRUMENTED CATCHMENTS could be an option.

Thank you for the title suggested. The precedent version of the title has been replaced, becoming “Suspended sediment transport analysis in two Italian instrumented catchment”.


Line 25, page 1: bigger->larger (please correct this also throughout the text)

Modified throughout the text according to the comment (Line 20, page 1).


Line 50, page 1: could mainly be of -> could mainly consist of

We rephrased this sentence according to the comment (Line 8, page 2).

-
Line 3, page 2: here you could already state that the small alpine catchment is the Rio Cordon.

Thank you for the suggestion, the phrase has beenc hanged according to it (Line 18, page 2).


Line 18, page 2: remove “small catchment” if you agree with the previous comment

We have modified the sentence according to the previous comment (Line 30, page 2).


Line 43, page 2: degree of connectivity-> degree of coupling is more correct

We have changed it according to the suggestion(Line 2, page 3).


Line 13, page 3: are to: a) do-> are: a) to carry out…b) to determine

We have modified it according to the comment (Lines 24 to 26, page 3).


Lines 32-33, page 3: these data are taken from a quite old publication.Trevisani et al. (2010) reports slightly different data. Please consider revising land use percentage.

Thank you for underlining this deficiency. This section was revised and modified according to the data presented in the work suggested by the reviewer (Lines 40-41 page 3)


Line 33, page 3: “The sediment source areas cover 5.2% of the basin”-> aquite recent Ph.D thesis (Cavalli, 2009, page 147) calculated that in 2006 sediment source areas cover a total of about 13% of the basin (considering alsoerosion on talus slope class).

Thank you for underlining this deficiency. This section was revised and modified according to the information showed in the work suggested by the reviewer (Line 41, page 3).


Line 59, page 5: the dynamics of sediment -> sediment dynamics

This phrase was modified according to thecomment (Line 30, page 5).


Lines 9-24, page 6: please consider revising this paragraph according to mygeneral comment above

Thank you for the suggestion. We have added the information required as explained above (Lines 6-28, page 6).


Line 11, page 6: “in order to have a better uniformity”-> “for a soundcomparison”

This sentence was rephrased according to the comment (Line 8, page 6).


Line 35, page 13: “exit section”->”outlet” (please check also throughout thetext, e.g. at line 54, page 13)

We have modified this expression throughout the text according to the comment.


Line 35, page 13: “disconnectivity”->”decoupling”

We have changed it according to the comment(Line 25, page 14).


Cited reference:
Trevisani S., Cavalli M., Marchi L., 2010. Reading the bed morphology of a mountain stream: a geomorphometric study on high- resolution topographic data. Hydrology and Earth System Science, 14,393–405.
Cavalli M., 2009. Caratterizzazione idrologica e morfologica dei bacini montanimediante scansione laser da aeromobile. Tesi di dottorato. Dipartimento TESAF,Università di Padova. Supervisore: Prof. Giancarlo Dalla Fontana;Co-supervisore: Dott. Lorenzo Marchi, 186 pp. Availableat https://www.researchgate.net/publication/37677178_Caratterizzazione_idrologica_e_morfologica_dei_bacini_montani_mediante_scansione_laser_da_aeromobile


Thank you for the suggestion, we have added these references in the text.

211 0