Detailed Response to Reviewer Comments Reviewer :

Detailed Responses to Reviewer ' s comments

Interactive comment on “Contribution of residential wood combustion to hourly winter aerosol in Northern Sweden determined by positive matrix factorization” by P. Krecl et al

We thank anonymous referee #2 for the constructive and helpful criticism. A detailed response to the comments of reviewer #2 follows below. Specific comments 1. Title of paper. The title has been changed to better describe the content of the manuscript as suggested by the reviewer: “Contribution of residential wood combustion and other sources to hourly winter aerosol in Northern Sweden d...

Interactive comment on “Role of ambient ammonia in particulate ammonium formation at a rural site in the North China Plain” by Zhaoyang Meng et al

Response to Reviewer #1's comments Anonymous Reviewer #1 Received and published: 5 July 2017 Overview This paper as the other reviewer has pointed out potentially has an amazing dataset which is really needed for greater understanding of air pollution and its impacts in agricultural regions. The paper could be hugely improved by moving away from the gas-particle ratio analysis to more detailed ...

Interactive comment on “Seasonal predictability of the winter precipitation over Iberian Peninsula and its relationship with finite-time Lyapunov exponents” by Daniel Garaboa-Paz et al

We would like to thank the Referee for his/her valuable comments and critics that we tried to take into account in the revised version of the manuscript. Hopefully, all the major and minor corrections pointed out by the reviewer have been corrected now. A detailed answer follows below. We provide replies to the reviewer’ comments in bold. As well, corrections included in the manuscript are mark...

ارزیابی میزان دقت داوران یکی از مجلات علمی پژوهشی فارسی زبان در تشخیص اصلاحات مورد نیاز یک مقاله علمی ارسالی؛ سال 1389

  Background and Objectives: Final corrections on a manuscript sent for publication in a scientific journal are suggested by reviewers. So this qualifies the paper with the least errors for publication. The present study aimed to assess the Persian language peer reviewers' comments on a manuscript sent to an Iranian Scientific Journal (journal of Rafsanjan university of medical sciences), 2010....