Articles | Volume 11, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-11-755-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.What if publication bias is the rule and net carbon loss from priming the exception?
Download
- Final revised paper (published on 02 Oct 2025)
- Preprint (discussion started on 01 Apr 2025)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor
| : Report abuse
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1067', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Apr 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jenny Michel, 12 May 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1067', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Apr 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jenny Michel, 12 May 2025
- AC3: 'Reply on AC2', Jenny Michel, 12 May 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jenny Michel, 12 May 2025
Peer review completion
AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (21 May 2025) by Karsten Kalbitz

AR by Jenny Michel on behalf of the Authors (02 Jul 2025)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (17 Jul 2025) by Karsten Kalbitz
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (29 Jul 2025)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 Aug 2025) by Karsten Kalbitz

AR by Jenny Michel on behalf of the Authors (19 Aug 2025)
Author's response
Author's tracked changes
Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (29 Aug 2025) by Karsten Kalbitz
ED: Publish as is (29 Aug 2025) by Peter Fiener (Executive editor)

AR by Jenny Michel on behalf of the Authors (02 Sep 2025)
Manuscript
The paper submitted by Michel et al. explores priming effects in soils, which refer to the influence of labile carbon inputs on the mineralization of organic matter by microbes. These effects can be positive (increased mineralization) or negative (reduced mineralization). The article highlights three key aspects to better understand these effects in their ecological context: (i) Evaluation of net carbon balances (ii) Publication bias and (iii) Difference between general priming effects and rhizosphere-specific priming. The article calls for a more nuanced approach to priming research, encouraging the publication of studies on negative or neutral effects, carefully evaluating publication biases, and distinguishing general priming effects from rhizosphere-specific effects. It also emphasizes the importance of conducting field studies to better understand these phenomena under natural conditions.
I think the points developed by the authors are fair and worth to be published but the current version of the paper is a bit disappointing since it skims over the issues without going into depth. It may come from the format which is not very clear. Is it a review or is it an opinion paper? If this is a review, much more literature must be cited if this an opinion paper, the ideas developed must be more attractive and be inspiring for the community to change their ways of doing priming research.
For instance, the authors wrote that “there is little empirical evidence for net C losses”, I fully agree with the statement but it should be better explained why priming is sometimes see as a mechanism leading to net losses and show some papers that suggest it and explain why they are mistaken. So far the authors mostly cite papers that do not observe any net loss.
The second section is simply a re-analysis of the data from Xu et al, which merely confirms the conclusions of the original paper. In my opinion, this does not add much to the message of Xu et al. More details on the effects of bias should be provided and some ideas to avoid them should be also proposed.
Then the third section is mainly focused on the importance of using intact soils instead of sieved soils whereas the title of the section suggests that RPE and PE should be treated differently. So far this section is not really convincing mostly because it lacks more clear examples and it needs some suggestions to improve the current methods.