Split up the feedback you received into concrete tasks. Start filling the reviewer comments into the left column. ![]() (You can also opt for categorising the comments thematically, or in line with different sections of your paper.) Reviewer comment Change / answer The easiest way is to create a table for each reviewer, with a column for each point that the reviewer raises, and one to explain how you address the comment in your revision. You do not want to read the whole peer review over and over again while working on revising your manuscript. The next step is to turn lengthy reviewer comments into actionable steps. Step 2: Turn reviewer comments into actionable steps It is easy to feel overwhelmed, but the following steps make the process easier. Additionally, reviewers may ask for many different changes and can even have conflicting opinions. Reading critical feedback on a manuscript can be upsetting and emotionally challenging. Editors want to see that authors take these reviewers’ comments seriously, and change their manuscript accordingly. This feedback can range from several bullet points to several pages of written text. While revising a manuscript can be annoying, the end result is often an improved academic paper.Īuthors tend to receive feedback from at least two external reviewers. The whole peer review system has been established to uphold academic standards and academic integrity. Receiving minor and even major revisions is a cause for celebrations: It means that a paper will most likely be published.įirst, however, your paper has to be improved. In fact, a manuscript has to go through many stages before it is published, and revising it is an essential part of this process. Manuscripts are hardly ever accepted for publication without any revisions. J Korean Med Sci 35:e138–e138.The importance and challenges of revising manuscripts ACM SIGMIS Database Adv Inf Syst 50:52–70īarroga E (2020) Innovative strategies for peer review. Street C, Ward KW (2019) Cognitive bias in the peer review process: understanding a source of friction between reviewers and researchers. Rasmussen SC (2020) Peer review-critical feedback or necessary evil? Substantia 4:5–6Īgarwal R (2013) Editorial notes. Ralph P (2016) Practical suggestions for improving scholarly peer review quality and reducing cycle times. Ware M (2008) Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. In: Shoja M, Arynchyna A, Loukas M, D'Antoni AV, Buerger SM, Karl M et al (eds) A guide to the scientific career. Kim SD, Petru M, Gielecki J, Loukas M (2019) Causes of manuscript rejection and how to handle a rejected manuscript. Īdib S, Nimehchisalem V (2021) Reasons for manuscript rejection at internal and peer-review stages. Johnson SH (1996) Dealing with conflicting reviewers’ comments. Hites RA (2021) How to convince an editor to accept your paper quickly. Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2020) The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. ![]() Ĭurran-Everett D (2017) The thrill of the paper, the agony of the review. Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD (2019) Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. Hunt MJ, Ochmanska M, Cilulko-Dolega J (2019) How to write an effective response letter to reviewers. Hiemstra PS (2018) How to write a response to the reviewers of your manuscript. Nahata MC, Sorkin EM (2019) Responding to manuscript reviewer and editor comments. Organometallics 37:2655Įnsom MHH (2011) Improving the chances of manuscript acceptance: how to address peer reviewers’ comments. Gabbaï FP, Chirik PJ (2018) Dos and don’ts: thoughts on how to respond to reviewer comments. EJIFCC 25:227–243Īnnesley TM (2011) Top 10 tips for responding to reviewer and editor comments. Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K (2014) Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, and a survival guide. Johnston J, Wilson S, Rix E, Pit SW (2014) Publish or perish: strategies to help rural early career researchers increase publication output. McGrail MR, Rickard CM, Jones R (2006) Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Scholz F (2022) Writing and publishing a scientific paper.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |