The manuscript was sent out for a further review based on the revised version.

Dear Prof Xu,

The third reviewer found some of the presented data and figures (same or slightly modified) that were previously published in another paper (Wang, Y. H., Y. P. Xu, R. G. M. Spencer, P. Zito, A. Kellerman, D. Podgorski, W. J. Xiao, D. D. Wei, H. Rashid and Y. H. Yang (2018). "Selective Leaching of Dissolved Organic Matter From Alpine Permafrost Soils on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau." Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences 123(3): 1005-1016. This include Fig. 5 top panels in this ms with Fig 3 top panels in the other paper. Also Table 1 first two rows can be found in Table 3 in the other paper. However, no acknowledgment is provided nor a proper referencing or hint in the method and result section that some of the data were already published was given.

Considering we are currently receiving many more manuscripts than we can publish in Biogeosciences, we have to be highly selective in reviewing articles to demonstrate its novel and the quality. Thus, I have to decide that this MS should not be sent out for review although some merits certainly can be obtained from this work. Thank you for considering BG for the publication of your future research.

Kind Regards
Yu Luo

Dear dr. Xu
I have now carefully gone through the original review reports, author replies, and the evaluation of the revised version by a third reviewer.
While I feel you have adequately addressed the relatively minor comments and suggestions by Ref#1 and Ref#2, Referee#3 raises a number of additional points that should be addressed before a final decision can be made. I anticipate however that these can be accommodated and I would therefore like to encourage you to provide a detailed point-by-point reply to the 3rd review report and a revised version of your manuscript that integrates the new suggestions.
With best regards
Steven Bouillon

Dear dr. Xu,
I have now gone through the detailed replies to the referee comments and suggestions as well as the revision of your manuscript. I feel you and your co-authors have adequately addressed the main issues raised and that the new version of the manuscript is sufficiently improved and provides the reader sufficient critical discussion to put the data and interpretation into a broader context. The current version can be accepted for publication in BG in its current form.

With best regards
Steven Bouillon