How to write a scientific paper Attilio Castellarin

Scientific writing and communication: How to write a scientific paper Attilio Castellarin – Department of Civil Chemical Environmental and Materials Engineering (DICAM), Università di Bologna

Origin of this talk • This talk builds on my own experience (Author, Reviewer, Associate Editor, Co-Editor), but, most importantly, the talk is largely based on – A similar course for UniBO PhD students by: • Francesco Laio (2011-12) – EGU short courses by: • Jeff McDonnel (2009) • Demetris Koutsoyiannis (2010) • Günter Blöschl (2011) • Niko Verhoest (2013)

EGU presentations can be accessed from the Young Hydrological Society website: https://younghs.com/readings/writing/

Outline of this talk

• Why? Reasons for writing scientific papers

• Where? Choosing the journal

• How? How to get started, write a paper and deal with reviews

• And then what? Contributing to the peer-review-system after getting published (or while waiting to get published…)

Why? Reasons for writing scientific papers

Introduction Abundant material on the subject

No shortcuts Early stage researchers need to develop skills for writing scientific papers • it needs practice • it needs proper guidance

Why? Reasons for writing scientific papers • You believe your research could be of interest/useful to others • It is required in the framework of your PhD • Your advisor/sponsor demands you to • You aim at an academic career What is important? • number of papers (per year) you have published • quality of the journals you publish in • number of citations for your publications

Why? Reasons for writing scientific papers If you consider to publish (and you should), then the following questions should be posed: • What journal should I choose? • How can I get cited?

• How should I write a paper? For whom do I want to bring my message? (Identify your Readership)

Why? Reasons for writing scientific papers For whom do I want to bring my message? (Identify your Readership) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Define your message Define who would be most interested in this message Search for journals that are read by the target public Rank them according to their bibliometric performance (e.g. IF) Choose among the highest ranked journals the one for which your message best fits the scope of the journal 6. Write your paper – considering the background of the journal’s readership – trying to be crystal clear, and describing the problem and your solution or message

Where? Choosing the journal

Where? Choosing the journal JOURNAL STATISTICS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliometrics; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientometrics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

Impact Factor (IF) The average number of citations to recent articles published in the journal (ISI Journal Citation Reports, JCR, ISI Web of Knowledge, now Thomson Reuters Web of Sciences: http://apps.webofknowledge.com/) Example: if a journal has an impact factor of 3 in 2015, then its papers published in 2013 and 2014 received 3 citations each on average in 2015 A = the number of times that articles published in that journal in 2013 and 2014, were cited by articles in indexed journals during 2015. B = the total number of "citable items" published by that journal in 2013 and 2014. ("Citable items" are usually articles, reviews, proceedings, or notes; not editorials or letters to the editor.) 2015 impact factor = A/B.

The Journal Citation Reports (JCR) also includes a 5-year impact factor

Where? Choosing the journal Immediacy Index A measure of how topical and urgent work published in a scientific journal is. The immediacy index is calculated based on the papers published in a journal in a single calendar year. Example: if a journal has an Immediacy Index in 2005 equal to 0.8, it means that each article published in that journal in 2005 received on average 0.8 citations in 2005. A = the number of times articles published by the journal in 2005 were cited in indexed journals during 2005 B = the number of articles, reviews, proceedings or notes published by the journal in 2005 2005 immediacy index = A/B

Where? Choosing the journal Journal Cited Half-Life The median age of the articles that were cited in Journal Citation Reports each year. Example: if a journal has a cited half-life of 7 in 2011, it means that articles published in that journal between 2005-2011 (inclusive) account for 50% of all citations to articles from that journal in 2011.

Where? Choosing the journal

2015 TOP TEN (JCR IF) Subject category**: WATER RESOURCES (85 entries)

Is Web of Science the only database?

Q1: first quartile (rank#: 1st – 21st) ** Agricultural Engineering; Engineering, Civil; Energy & Fuels; Engineering, Environmental; Engineering, Ocean; Environmental Sciences; Geosciences, Multidisciplinary; etc.

Where? Choosing the journal SJR SCImago Journal & Country Rank (database: SCOPUS; http://www.scopus.com/) SCImago Journal Rank (SJR indicator) is a measure of scientific influence of scholarly journals that accounts for both the number of citations received by a journal and the importance or prestige of the journals where such citations come from. This way, citations coming from highly important journals will be more valuable and hence will provide more prestige to the journals receiving them. It is a size-independent indicator and its values order journals by their "average prestige per article" and can be used for journal comparisons in science evaluation processes. The SJR indicator is a journal metric, which provides an alternative to the impact factor (IF).

Where? Choosing the journal 2015 TOP TEN (SCImago SJR) Subject Area: Environmental Science; Subject Category: Water Science and Technology (230 entries)

Q1: first quartile (rank#: 1st – 57th)

Where? Choosing the journal Other considerations than ISI impact factor are often more important for journal choice. Relevant features of top hydrological journals: • Hydrol Earth Syst Sc fast, transparent reviews (EGU) • Water Resour Res theory/methods (AGU) Open • J Hydrol methods/applications Access • J Hydrol: Reg. Studies case studies • Adv Water Resour methods • Hydrol Process field studies • Hydrolog Sci J truly international journal (IAHS) • Hydrol Res cold regions

Where? Choosing the journal Traditional journals: vs. Open access journals:

subscription fee

publication/processing fee

Open Access Publication Fee To provide Open Access, some journals have introduced a publication fee, which needs to be met by the authors, or their research funders, for each article published Open Access. Journal of Hydrology $USD 2500 excluding taxes

(IF 2015: 3.043)

Hydrological Sciences Journal € 2150 excluding taxes

(IF 2015: 2.182)

Where? Choosing the journal Open access jungle…

Where? Choosing the journal Open access jungle…

An example

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS) is an international two-stage open-access journal for the publication of original research in hydrology, placed within a holistic Earth system science context. The discussion and peer review of submitted papers are handled in the open-access discussion journal HESSD. Final papers, upon acceptance, appear in HESS (see review process under the heading review).

How to get cited? • Tell reader something that is useful to him/her Example: New method that is likely to be used such as van Genuchten infiltration equation • Chose topic that is of much interest (if you can) Example: Estimating runoff model parameters in ungauged catchment related to GIS (browse Scopus or WoS for citations). • Chose appealing title: a science question is often good title Example: Is spatial distance a better similarity measure than catchment attributes?

• Perhaps consider to write a review paper. These are very well cited but a lot of work. Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

How?

How to get started, write a paper and deal with reviews

How? Before you start, build on the literature… • Critical for framing your study in the first place! • Valuable for introduction and building to your objectives • Essential for: – showing hat no one else has already done this! – validating your questions – supporting that these are the obvious “next step” questions to be addressed • Important for discussion - to define the relevance of your study vis-à-vis other work • Fundamental to prove how you added incrementally to existing body of knowledge

How? Before you start, build on the literature… Avoiding plagiarism!

How? Before you start, identify your Readership • Mostly: Hydrologists like yourself • Or: Practitioners (require different message, style, ..) • Or: General public (again, different message, style, ..) Reader’s perspective means: • Make paper useful to the type of reader your are envisaging Example: Focus on Take Home Message (THM, see later) • Make the paper clear (and concise) for the type of reader your are envisaging Example: Reader is likely familiar with hydrology (so no need to repeat hydrology 101 in the paper) but is not familiar with your data/method (do say exactly what you have been doing) • Adjust the style to the readership Example: Use technical language for fellow hydrologists, use every day language for general public Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

How? Writing style: keep it simple, make it clear • Write in the active tense instead of passive tense: “We collected samples of blah...” instead of “Samples of blah were collected...” • Avoid all jargon if at all possible. Never assume the reader knows any jargon. • Write in simple sentences Unit 1: Communicating as a Scientist is an integral • Subject and verb up-front inCommunication all part of the research you perform as a scientist. Your written sentences papers serve as a gauge of your scientific productivity and provide a long-lasting body of • You can use personal pronouns: knowledge from which other scientists can build their “We sampled…” research. The oral presentations you deliver make your latest research known to the community, helping your peers stay up to date. Discussions enable you to exchange ideas and points of view. Letters, memos, and résumés help you build and maintain relationships with colleagues, suppliers, employers, and so on. Scientific communication is not

How? Paper structure and relative level of writing difficulty • • • • • • • •

Possibility to swap Study Area with Methods to highlight the general validity of the methodology

Title (difficult) Abstract (difficult) Introduction (Most difficult) Study Area or Background (easy) Methods (easy) Results (easy - just the facts) Discussion (Second-most difficult) Conclusions (easy)

How? Günter Blöschl’s recipe for writing a paper 12 steps to submission

A stepwise guide to writing a paper Step 1: Start with the “take home message” (THM) Try to think what could be the things you have learned in your research that could be useful to hydrologists outside your group

This is an iterative process, as often you will have to do extra research to identify nice Take Home Messages. Example (for a paper on regional flood frequency): THM1: “Spatial distance is a better similarity measure than catchment attributes.” THM2: “Auxiliary information improves spatial-distance based regionalisation.”

Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

Do’s and don’ts of THM •Try to be quantitative Example: “The normalised jack-knife validation error is 0.15 in 37 Austrian catchments for the period 1980-2010.” •And again, try to be useful to others (by being quantitative and by generalisable messages) Example: “In the wet catchments, regionalisation performance was significantly better than in the dry catchments (normalised errors of 0.12 and 0.23, respectively).” • Avoid messages that are only relevant to yourself Example: “The model provided an excellent fit to the data” Note: You are happy that you made the model fit the data, but this is only relevant to others if it supports other model results. Example: “The project was successful.” Note: Rather present your results that imply you have done a good job, don’t praise yourself. Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

Do’s and don’ts of THM (cont’d) •The THM should be “new”. Focus on the new thing (what sets it apart from the literature). Example: “While most of previous regionalisation studies have used daily models, this papers analyses the model performance at an hourly time step.” Special problem: Your research was part of an applied project and it is difficult for you to find what is new. Additional analyses are probably needed.

Example: Applying model for flood forecasting. Additional analyses: Model performance as a function of catchment characteristics Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

Step 2: Formulate science question(s) This is simple once the THM is identified. For the above THM the science questions (SQs) are. SQ1: Is spatial distance a better similarity measure than catchment attributes? SQ2: What is the value of auxiliary information in flood regionalisation? Note: The easiest way for a reviewer to kill your paper is to say there is no science question. So make it explicit (in the introduction, see later).


Step 3: Write a preliminary title and select journal, select authors Title: • Should address the science question • Specific titles should be preferred over general titles Journal: See later (how to publish a paper) Authorship: • First author: Who actually did the work, usually the doctoral student • Last author: Senior author, supervisor • Who deserves to be a co-author? Those contributing to paper, including ideas (when in doubt be inclusive) http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/10/6321/2013/hessd-10-6321-2013.html


Step 3: Write a preliminary title and select journal, select authors Title: • Should address the science question • Specific titles should be preferred over general titles Journal: See previous slides Authorship: • First author: Who actually did the work and/or designed the framework of the analysis (usually the doctoral student) • Last author: Senior author, supervisor • Who deserves to be a co-author? Those contributing to paper, including ideas (when in doubt be inclusive)

So this is what your document should now look like:


Step 3: Write a preliminary abstract Part 1: Context (no more than 1 sentence, can be omitted) Part 2: Methods and data (i.e. what you did) (should be no more than 1/3 of abstract) Part 3: Results (should be at least 1/3 of abstract), be quantitative Note: The results include the THM. They are of most use to the reader, so should represent the main part of the abstract Part 4: Discussion/outlook (no more than 1 sentence, can be omitted) Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

Example 2: an effective abstract

From: “how to write.pdf”

Step 4: Make an outline of the paper including the figures Write an outline: • Introduction

Draft figures and assign them to the sections of the paper

• Data • Model (data and model can be combined into methods)

• Results • Discussion • Conclusions (last 2 can be combined)


Step 5: Write Introduction

Part 1: Context (This is the “wall where to hang the picture” the picture is your paper) Example: “Analysing flood response is important from both practical and theoretical perspectives. From a practical ..” Part 2: State the issue (this must relate to your THM!) Example: “However, it is unclear what is the best method for estimating flood flow in ungauged catchments ..” Part 3: State what others in the literature have found on this issue Example: “Results of Pfaundler (2001) suggest that flood regionalisation errors using the ROI method are less than 0.20 for the 50 Swiss catchments he examined. However, this is at variance with Tasker ….” Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

Step 5: Write Introduction Part 3 (cont’d): Important!!!!: Do not write about your topic in general, but summarise findings in the literature on the science question. There is little value in writing: “Tasker (1987), Pfaundler (2001), Stedinger (1995) applied regional flood estimation methods” because reader learns little from it.

Much better to write what they found. Summarise their Take Home Messages in the context of your science question. This part should be organised by science questions (or subscience questions – science questions split into parts) in a similar way as the discussion section (see later). This part can be 2-3 pages. Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

Part 4: State the purpose of the paper This is identical with the science question you identified earlier. Example: “The aim of the paper is to asses the relative performance of methods based on spatial distance and methods based on catchment attributes” Note: The easiest way for a reviewer to kill your paper is to say there is no science question. So make it explicit. Start the sentence with “The aim of this paper is ..“, “The objective of the paper is ..” or something similar, so it is clear to the reader what you are trying to achieve in this paper.


Part 5 (usually omitted): Readers’ guide Perhaps summarise structure of paper to guide the reader but avoid writing a summary (including methods, findings) of the paper. Example: “Section 2 presents the data used in the study, section 3 summarises the model ..”


Introduction …as an inverted pyramid

Status Quo No. of references increases

What’s wrong with the status quo

Very general References

Why this is a problem How you intend to fix it

Specific Objectives

Very specific references

Step 6: Write data section Strike a balance of what would be of interest to the reader and what would not. Avoid general statements (that can be found in a text book). Example: “A raingauge consists of a cylindrical container ...” But give the local details of your data, including study area, geographical location, number of stations, record length, experimental setup etc. Example: “We used a Hellmann XX raingauge Type YY”


Step 7: Write model section The same principles apply as for the data section, i.e. avoid general statements but give the details of what you actually did. Reader will have knowledge of hydrology but is not familiar with the particularities of your study. Again, say what you did. Examples: Avoid: “can be calculated”, “may be analysed” Rather say: “We calculated”, “In this study we analysed … “

If the model description is long it can go into an appendix.


Step 8: Write results section Summarise the findings of your research. This sections contains most of the figures (with the results). State the facts, no speculation is allowed here. The results section follows the order of the figures. Example: “Fig. 3 shows the error statistics of regionalising the 100 year floods using the ROI method. As can be seen from the figure, the errors tend to decrease with ..”


Step 9: Write discussion section Here you interpret your findings in the light of the literature. Need to connect partial findings of your paper to each other. Also need to connect your findings to the literature. Are your results consistent with the literature? Why? Why not? Give the reasons. Just stating that they are different is not enough. You need to say why. Example: “Unlike Pfaundler (2001) the results in this study indicate that the geostatistical method outperforms the ROI method. The difference in the two studies are likely due to .. “

Some speculation is allowed here, provided you are explicit about it. Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

Discussion section often organised differently from results section (but not always). •Results section: organised by figures (the way you did the analysis)

• Discussion section: organised by sub-science questions Example: “The results in this paper indicated that spatial distance is a better similarity measure than catchment attributes. …“ This relates to THM1.

Then in the next paragraph you can write: “We also found that auxiliary information improves spatial distance based regionalisation. This would be expected as Merz et al. (2004) …” This relates to THM2. Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

Paper is symmetric (apple core)

• Introduction: literature with interpretation • Data/model and results: hard facts (what you did and what you found)

• Discussion: literature with interpretation and connected to your results

coreeducationllc.com

Note: As an indication of the symmetry, the introduction and discussion sections should relate to similar references. - Introduction & discussion sections correspond

- Data/model & results sections correspond Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

Correspondence between Introduction and Discussion sections: Example Discussion

Introduction

Step 10: Write conclusions These are the THMs. You can add an outlook at the end of the paper (not more than 2-3 sentences). Example: “Future work will focus on .. “ Most people state here what they are planning for their next paper. Note: Papers that have been written with this framework in mind can be downloaded from: www.hydro.tuwien.ac.at/ forschung/publikationen/download-journal-publications.html

Step 11: Go through the entire manuscript … a couple of times until you are happy with it. Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

Step 12: Ask your coauthors/colleagues/supervisor to read through the manuscript They will likely come back with questions (2 types): (1) Clarification: They did not understand part of what you are writing. Now the ball is in your court. You need to write the manuscript in the way they understand it. If they do not understand it, change the paper rather than arguing with them. (2) Methodological problems: Some discussion is needed, and possibly corrections/additional analyses. Note: The same things apply to the review process. Now the paper is ready for submission. Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

Demetris Koutsoyiannis’ examples and guidelines on: • who to acknowledge, • who to cite, and… • How to deal with guidelines and recipes

Who to acknowledge?  





Acknowledge all people who have directly or indirectly helped in the research and in the specific paper—but not more than those Never forget to acknowledge the reviewers: in many cases some reviewers worked more on a paper than some of the authors did Try to find reasons to acknowledge even the negative reviewers • Example: “We wish to thank the three anonymous reviewers, whose both strongly positive and strongly negative comments were important to us: the former for encouraging us and the latter for making us more confident that we did not err, as well as for forcing us to improve the presentation significantly.” Be careful in the way you acknowledge: do not imply that the acknowledged person agrees with the paper if he does not • Counterexample (quoation from Vit Klemeš): “In my office after the lecture, [the author] asked my advice for the best place to publish his findings. I pointed to my waste basket and changed the topic. To my surprise, I later saw his ‘findings’ published in a paper, with an acknowledgement of my ‘valuable advice’. I have reasons to believe that the acknowledgement should have hinted that I had refereed, and approved of, the paper.” D. Koutsoyiannis, Why (and how) to write and publish a scientific paper




Acknowledge the reviewers by name if they are eponymous In open-review journals like HESS, if a reviewer’s contribution is important, make an explicit reference (citation) to the review rather than just acknowledging it Counterexample from an email exchange with an author of a HESS paper 





Dear professor Koutsoyiannis, I am working on the paper submitted to HESS and am a little puzzled. Your suggestion of improvement of the proposed demonstration is very good and you suggested to include it in the revised version of the paper. But it is your idea and I have some scrupels to resubmit it under my name. Do you know how we could do. Dear xxx, ... Well, the public character of the review process of this journal probably may help to find an optimal (both for you and me) solution for the particular case. That is, in your revised paper you can make a reference to my review. Outcome: Acknowledgements. The author thanks... as well as Demetris Koutsoyiannis who suggested ... D. Koutsoyiannis, Why (and how) to write and publish a scientific paper




Acknowledge the reviewers by name if they are eponymous In open-review journals like HESS, if a reviewer’s contribution is important, explicit reference (citation) to the review rather … and Imake wouldanadd: than just acknowledging it Counterexample from an email exchange with an author of a HESS What to acknowledge? paper Dear professor Koutsoyiannis, Always remember to paper acknowledge: I am working on the submitted to HESS and am a little puzzled. - Funding Agencies/Institutions Your suggestion of improvement of the proposed demonstration is very good and you suggested to include it in the revised version of the paper. - Research grants and fellowships But it providers is your idea and I have some scrupels to resubmit it under my - Data name. Do you know how we could do. - Free and Open Softwarer developers (If you used any)  Dear xxx, - International research initiatives providing an umbrella for ... your as well as collaboration Well, research, the public character of contacts the reviewand process of this journal probably opportunities may help to find an optimal (both for you and me) solution for the particular case. That is, in your revised paper you can make a reference to my review.  Outcome: Acknowledgements. The author thanks... as well as Demetris Koutsoyiannis who suggested ... 

D. Koutsoyiannis, Why (and how) to write and publish a scientific paper

Who to cite? 

Citations are much more that a recognition of (and credit to) others’ work  Proper citations enhance the value of the paper, by making it more convincing and by providing the links to existing literature  Also, they help make the paper more concise by avoiding repetition of stuff appearing elsewhere  They help the reader to easily locate further/original information on the issue  If the paper is good, the author may himself become a reader after some time (so they may also help the author himself)



Citing should be accurate: never cite papers if you did not read them

D. Koutsoyiannis, Why (and how) to write and publish a scientific paper

From a recipe-based to a scientific approach    





A good paper is not a brick identical with other bricks A good paper is original and unique There cannot be a recipe for originality Reading other good papers is much more useful than reading guidelines about how to write and publish papers Writing a good paper presupposes good understanding of the subject studied Publishing the paper presupposes good understanding of how the peer review process works

Allthat guidelines should All guidelines follow should, thus,be befollowed treated with caution and sceptical attitude with caution and critical attitude D. Koutsoyiannis, Why (and how) to write and publish a scientific paper

How? How to deal with reviews (and rejections)

http://plazamoyua.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/peer_review_cartoon.jpg

‘How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in hydrology’

How to deal with reviews? The review processThe peer-review process Once paper is submitted: 1. Paper is sent out by (associate) editor generally to 2-3 reviewers

0.5 TO 2 YEARS

2. Based on the (anonymous) review comments, editor makes one of following decisions: a) b) c) d)

accept as is minor revision major revision reject

(Rare) (Not often) (Common) (Common)

3. In case of b) or c): respond to review comments and revise paper 4. Submit revised paper along with a rebuttal letter 5. Editor decides: a), b), c) or d), possibly based on re-review 6. In case accepted: paper gets type set, you have to check the proofs 7. Paper is published in journal (maybe first online) Source: Niko Verhoest

How to speed up the reviewing process Armstrong’s (1982) hexalogue to increase the likelihood and speed of acceptance of a paper 1. Do not pick an important problem 2. Do not challenge existing beliefs 3. Do not obtain surprising results 4. Do not use simple methods 5. Do not provide full disclosure 6. Do not write clearly

Armstrong, J. S., Barriers to scientific contributions: the author’s formula, Behavioral and Brain Sci., 5(2), 197–199, 1982. Adapted from D. Koutsoyiannis, Why (and how) to write and publish a scientific paper

How to speed up the reviewing process when targeting high impact magazines 1. 2. 3.

4.

Be extraordinarily concise Give emphasis to the title and abstract Dramatize as much as possible Be consistent with the political aims of the magazine

Note: These are just hypotheses and interpretations from reading papers of other authors and from a personal negative experience (I have no paper published in glorious journals) Adapted from D. Koutsoyiannis, Why (and how) to write and publish a scientific paper

How to deal with reviews Possible concerns of reviewers: (1) Clarification, language (2) Methodological problems (3) Science question / relevance is unclear (Strong) recommendation: You need to write manuscript in the way reviewers understand it. If they do not understand it, change the paper rather than arguing with them. Note: There are exceptions of poor reviews. Also, reviews are often not well correlated.


How to deal with reviews (cont’d) Recommendation: Take the reviewers’ concerns seriously. Their task is (a) screening and (b) improving your paper. Papers can always be improved! Prepare a detailed list of how you respond to each review comment (and send it to Editor along with revision). Example (reviewer comments in italics, response in plain font): “However, it seems unclear how the split sample test was performed given that only 3 yrs of data were available”. “This issue was indeed unclear in the original paper. We have clarified it by stating that the split sample test was performed on data from neighbouring catchments.” Source: “How to write (and publish) a scientific paper in Hydrology”, Günter Blöschl (Short Course: EGU 2011)

How to deal with reviews (cont’d) If you disagree with a review comment you may say so and not change this aspect of your paper but explain why. Do not argue but state your view. Example (reviewer comments in italics, response in plain font): “L as used on p. 12 of the manuscript is not a formal likelihood function. The paper is therefore flawed”. “We believe L is indeed a formal likelihood function. This is because … We have therefore chosen not to change this aspect of the paper.” The editor will tend to side with the reviewers, so explain it well. Also do not disagree with too many items of the reviewers (