Thank you very much for your email on 9 Mar 2009 with which you sent us the reviewer’s report on our paper with the reference number L09-01810. We also wish to take this opportunity to thank the reviewer for his constructive comments and valuable recommendations. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to reviewer’s suggestion.Our responses to several comments are listed below:Comment 1: Authors discussed their results in the frame of the surface phase separation (PS) scenario. Unfortunately, I am not sure that authors presented enough data to prove this scenario. Authors explain the presence of exchange bias (EB) effect as result of the coexistence of AFM and FM phases. Indeed, the most of observation of the EB effect were studied on AFM/FM interface.. But recent studies have shown that in addition to FM/AFM systems, the EB effect was also observed in samples involving a ferrimagnet (FI) or a spin-glass phase (FI/AFM, FM/FI, FI/SG, AFM/SG), see recent review of Nogues et al. Physics Reports 422 (2005) 65 (2005) (page 77). The surface phase may behave as SG phase, see again review of Nogues.Reply: Indeed, the phase separation (PS) scenario in original manuscript is ill-considered. We have noted that a clear bifurcation of ZFC and FC magnetization curves in Fig. 3, which is an indication of a glassy behavior at low temperature (Ref. 1). In addition, the observed hysteresis curve at 3 K did not show the saturation in fields up to 5 KOe like other conventional SG systems, and they reveal weak ferromagnetism may be due to spin freezing, where the SG-like surface layers may act as the weak “FM” on AFM nanoribbons. The SG-like order probably arises as a result of the higher surface-to-volume ratio afforded by the nanoribbon geometry, i.e., surface effects, which can result in uncompensated spin and a suppression of the long-range AFM order observed in the bulk. These results suggest that the surface phase in the SrMn3O6-δnanoribbons could behave as SG phase induced by surface effect of nanoribbons. Therefore, we reinterpret the presence of exchange bias effect as result of the coexistence of AFM and SG-like phase in the revised manuscript.In the revised manuscript, Page 4, Line 15, we replace “Furthermore, it is very relevant to note that .…a suppression of the long-range AFM order observed in the bulk.” with “Recently, studies have shown that the antiferromagnetism in bulk manganites is suppressed in both nanowires and nanoparticles, accompanied with an appearance of weak ferromagnetism.6,19 A core-shell phenomenological model was proposed, where the relaxation of superexchange interaction on the surface of nanowires or nanoparticles allows the formation of a FM or SG shell, resulting in natural AFM/FM or FM/SG interface.17,20 Considering the SG-like characteristic of magnetization curves in Fig. 3, which is further indicated by the unsaturated M-H curve at 3 K in fields up to 5 KOe like other conventional SG systems in Fig. 4, a similar description for the magnetic structure of the SrMn3O6-δnanoribbons could be suggested, that is, an AFM core and a SG-like shell, where the SG-like surface layers may act as the weak “FM” on AFM nanoribbons.15 The SG-like order probably arises as a result of the higher surface-to-volume ratio afforded by the nanoribbon geometry, i.e., surface effects, which can result in uncompensated spin and a suppression of the long-range AFM order observed in the bulk.”Page 5, Line 10, we insert “It is also observed in the hysteresis curve, which did not show the saturation in fields up to 5 KOe like other conventional SG systems.16 The observed M-H curve at 3 K reveals weak ferromagnetism may be due to spin freezing.”Reference No. 16 is added in the revised manuscript.Comment 2: Page 4, lines 5-7 from the top: “It can be seen that the M(T) curves display a weak AFM transition at T N (~ 46 K), which is typical of the AFM ordering in bulk SrMn3O6-δ reported previously (Ref. 10).” In contrast with results of Ref. 10 where the Neel temperature for the bulk was determined form ac susceptibility, from results presented in Fig. 3 it is impossible to determine the Neel temperature. The deviation of 1/M from CW law may not correspond T N, and it may differ significantly from T N of the bulk.Reply: Yes, from the M(T) curves and the deviation of 1/M from CW law in Fig. 3 it is impossible to determine the Neel temperature.In the revised manuscript, Page 4, Line 5, we delete the sentence “It can be seen that the M(T) curves display a weak AFM transition at T N (~ 46 K), which is typical of the AFM ordering in bulk SrMn3O6-δ reported previously (Ref. 10).” and insert the sentence “The ZFC magnetization curve exhibit a sharp peak at T m (~26 K) accompanied by a clear bifurcation of ZFC and FC magnetization curves, which is an indication of a glassy behavior at low temperature.9,16 ”Comment 3: Page 4, lines 13-14 from the top. “The formation of ferromagnetism at low temperature is further confirmed by the open hysteresis curves at 3 K shown in Fig. 4.” Unfortunately, I don't see any indication of spontaneous magnetization characteristic of FM phase.Reply: Considering the SG-like characteristic, the observed M-H curve at 3 K reveals weak ferromagnetism in the present nonoribbons may be due to spin freezing. Therefore, in our revised manuscript, the sentence “The formation of ferromagnetism at low temperature is further confirmed by the open hysteresis curves at 3 K shown in Fig. 4.” is deleted.Comment 4: Page 6, lines 2-3 from the top: “Results indicate that the exchange bias in the SrMn3O6-δnanoribbons increase with the increasing cooling field.” I believe that the results presented are not enough for such statement. Authors present the results of measurements for 0.5 kOe and 2 kOe only and they don't know the behavior of the exchange bias parameters in magnetic fields between 0.5 and 2 kOe and in H > 2 kOe.Reply: We measured the hysteresis loop at 3 K after the FC in magnetic field of 5 KOe, and show the additional result of measurement for H cool = 5 KOe in FIG. 4 in the revised manuscript. It can be seen that the exchange bias field H E increase with the increasing cooling field.Other modifications include:1.[Abstract, Page 1, Line 8] Replace “In contrast with the antiferromagnetic … may induce aninterfacial exchange anisotropy.” with “In contrast with the antiferromagnetic bulk material, magnetization measurements reveal weak ferromagnetism at low temperature in thesenanoribbons. Most interestingly, a notable exchange-bias effect is observed in the SrMn3O6-δnanoribbons, and the exchange bias is strongly dependent on the cooling field. These results suggest that the phase inhomogeneity in one-dimensional nanostructural manganite may induce exchange anisotropy.”2.[Page 2, Line 3 from bottom] Replace “Recently, exchange bias phenomenon has … and AFMmatrix was proposed.” with “But recent studies have shown that in addition to FM/AFM systems, exchange bias phenomenon was also observed in samples involving a ferrimagnet (FI) or a spin-glass phase ( FI/AFM, FM/SG, SG/AFM ).15 ”We hope that our revised version will be satisfactory for publication in APL. Great thanks to you and the referee for the time and effort you expend on this paper.Ref. 1 S. Karmakar, S. Taran, E. Bose, and B. K. Chaudhuri, Phys. Rev. B 77, 144409 (2008).。