Rules for iterative revisions of manuscripts

1. General

To maximize our productivity in iterative revisions of a draft of a research letter/article, you are encouraged to follow guidelines described as follows:

2. Microsoft Word

2.1.  Version Management

Every revision, please update a version of your manuscript.  For example, you may send a draft of your manuscript Saito_and_Yang_JAS_v2.docx to your adviser, and your adviser may add comments and edits your draft and send you an updated version of the draft Saito_and_Yang_JAS_v2_PY.docx.   In the next round of your revision, you may send an updated version of the draft to your adviser with updating the filename as Saito_and_Yang_JAS_v3.docx.

2.2. Accept/Reject the Edited Descriptions

You may accept or reject your advisor's edits to clean up your manuscript.   If you have certain reasons to reject the advisor's edits, you can also add comments besides the edit to describe why you reject the edits (to let your adviser know the motivation).  

2.3. Reply to Comments

Your advisor sometimes leave comments in the manuscript.  Do NOT delete these comments but reply to the comments.  Only a person who leave the comments can delete the corresponding comments.  

2.4. Revise a Whole Manuscript in Response to Comments

Your advisor may not point out similar errors each time.  If you advisor points out generic suggested edits at a specific sentence, please correct ones in other sentences.  For example, if one highlight "cloud optical thickness" and leaves comment "this needs to be abbreviated", then you need to abbreviate "cloud optical thickness" to be "COT" throughout the manuscript. 

3. LaTeX

TBD