Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments–from an Editor’s or Reviewer’s Points of View

Grace Lai-Hung Wong

摘要

Peer review is the indispensable part of publishing a scientific paper, in particulars in high-impact journals. This is to ensure the quality, originality and accuracy of the work submitted to the journals. 1 The next immediate step after peer review, if the authors are lucky enough, is to revise the manuscript according to editors’ and reviewers’ comments. 2 This is an important step as the valuable and insightful comments from the editors and reviewers, who are often the experts in the field, would improve the manuscript substantially. These comments are vital means of communication between the authors and reviewers. Most journals would invite at least two to three reviewers, and occasionally even up to six reviewers. However, the brutal reality is that the more reviewers being invited, the higher the likelihood of getting some harsh, conflicting comments on the manuscript. Even majority of the revised manuscripts will get accepted by the journals, it is not uncommon to encounter rejection after first, second, or rarely third round of revision. 3 In order to minimize the chance of this “mishap”–rejection after revision, the authors should try to address the comments as complete as possible. There is never any hard-and-fast rules leading to a secured, guaranteed acceptance after revision. The following is the discussion on some general principles and sharing from personal experience, be it good or bad one, in responding reviewers’ comments. HOW LIKELY IS MY PAPER BEING ACCEPTED AFTER REVISION? The first sign of the probability of being accepted (and the reverse, rejected) after revision is the categories of decision–“Accept,” “Accept after Revision/Minor Revision,” “Reject with Hope/Major revision,” or “Reject.” The most challenging category is likely the “Reject with Hope/Major revision” ( Table 1 ). These sentences allow rooms for the editors and reviewers to reserve the right of rejecting the papers even after revision. HOW TO START ADDRESSING THE REVIEWERS–DIGEST THEIR COMMENTS The key reason of rejection after revision is the major comments have not been adequately addressed. 3 Hence digesting the reviewers’ comments, preferably over a few days would be helpful. 3 One approach suggested for digesting the reviewers’ comments involves reading the reviews once, putting it aside for a couple of days, followed by reading the reviews again, and finally discussing the reviews with the co-authors to create the plan of response. It is a must to address all the comments; yet addressing does not always mean changing the manuscript. 4 The key authors (most often first, second and corresponding authors) should discuss and decide what to change, and what to defend. Changing according to the comments is often the easiest route, as this demonstrates openness to suggestions. Nonetheless, disagreement is also fine, or it is indeed part of the revision process. Just that it would be important that the authors can back it up and support with data and facts. Occasionally the reviewers’ comments may be partial. It would be nice and decent to have a complete, solid and polite rebuttal to the editor. Always write in such a manner that the response can be forwarded to the reviewers, which often makes the life of editors easier by copying and pasting the responses in their decision e-mails. MATERIALS TO BE PREPARED FOR RESUBMISSION 1. Cover letter/Letter to the editor Letter to the editor summarizing the changes and, if necessary, defending the manuscript, should be written towards the end, right before the resubmission. 3 Instead letters to each of the reviewers, or a combined point-by-point response to address all reviewers’ comments should be the first thing to prepare. 2. Point-by-point response/Letter to the reviewers The point-by-point response is the most important part of the resubmission. 3 This should always be the first thing to be prepared. It should start by thanking the reviewers for their time spent on the review, and the insightful, constructive comments which are going to improve the manuscript. Then, add a short summary of key changes. The key part would be a specific, dialogue-type list of comments and responses. 5 For any changes, the authors should indicate the location (page and paragraph numbers) in the new version of manuscript file. For any defenses, try our best to be polite and write professionally ( Table 2 ). 3 The authors may choose to respond to the easy changes first, which include rewording, adding extra references, an extra paragraph, table, or figure, or an appendix. 3 All these easy changes should be all addressed accordingly. The authors should always change technical errors as it is the reviewer’s job to find these out. Errors in references should always be fixed as skilled reviewers know the history better than newer authors; experts in the field know the correct papers in the correct order. Unfortunately, life is not always that easy. There are often more difficult changes needed, namel

机译：同行评审是发表科学论文必不可少的部分，尤其是在影响力大的期刊上。这是为了确保提交给期刊的作品的质量，原创性和准确性。 1如果作者足够幸运，同行评审后的下一个直接步骤就是根据编辑和审稿人的评论对稿件进行修改。 2这是重要的一步，因为通常是本领域专家的编辑和审稿人的宝贵而有见地的评论将极大地改善手稿。这些评论是作者和审稿人之间交流的重要手段。大多数期刊都会邀请至少2至3名审稿人，有时甚至邀请6名审稿人。但是，残酷的现实是，邀请的审稿人越多，对稿件提出苛刻，矛盾的评论的可能性就越大。甚至大多数修订稿都会被期刊接受，在第一轮，第二轮或很少第三轮修订后遭到拒绝的情况并不少见。 3为了最大程度地减少修订后被“不幸”拒绝的可能性，作者应尝试尽可能完整地解决评论。从来没有任何严格的规则导致修订后得到安全，有保证的接受。以下是一些一般性原则的讨论，以及在回应审阅者的评论时分享的个人经验，无论是好是坏。修订后我的纸张有多被接受？修订后被接受（或相反，被拒绝）的可能性的第一个迹象是决策类别–“接受”，“修订/次要修订后接受”，“对希望/重大修订表示拒绝”或“拒绝”。 ”最具挑战性的类别可能是“怀有希望/重大修订的拒绝”（表1）。这些句子为编辑和审稿人保留了即使在修改后仍保留拒绝论文的权利。如何开始评论审稿人-征求他们的意见修订后遭到拒绝的主要原因是主要评论意见尚未得到适当解决。 3因此，最好在几天之内消化审阅者的意见将很有帮助。 3建议的一种用于消化审阅者评论的方法包括阅读审阅一次，将其搁置几天，然后再次阅读审阅，最后与合著者讨论审阅以制定响应计划。必须解决所有评论;然而，寻址并不总是意味着要更改稿件。 4关键作者（通常是第一，第二和相应的作者）应讨论并确定要更改的内容以及应捍卫的内容。根据评论进行更改通常是最简单的方法，因为这表明了对建议的开放性。尽管如此，分歧也可以，或者确实是修订过程的一部分。只是作者可以对其进行备份并提供数据和事实支持非常重要。有时候，审阅者的评论可能是不完整的。对编辑进行全面，扎实和礼貌的反驳将是一件既不错又体面的事情。始终以这样的方式进行写作：可以将答复转发给审阅者，这通常是通过将答复复制并粘贴到决策电子邮件中来简化编辑的工作。需准备的材料1.致求职者的求职信/信函给求职者的信，其中概述了改动，并在必要时为稿件加了辩护，应写在最后，即重新提交之前。 3相反，写给每个审阅者的信，或者是针对所有审阅者评论的逐点回应，应该是第一件事。 2.逐点回应/致审稿人的信逐点回应是重新提交过程中最重要的部分。 3这应该始终是准备的第一件事。首先，要感谢审稿人花在审稿上的时间，以及感谢有见地，建设性的意见，这些意见将有助于改进稿件。然后，添加关键更改的简短摘要。关键部分将是具体的对话式评论和回应列表。 5对于任何更改，作者应在新版本的手稿文件中注明位置（页码和段落编号）。对于任何防御措施，请尽最大努力保持礼貌并专业写作（表2）。 3作者可以选择首先对容易的更改做出响应，包括重新措词，添加额外的参考文献，额外的段落，表格或图形或附录。 3所有这些简单的更改都应相应解决。作者应始终更改技术错误，因为发现这些错误是审阅者的工作。参考文献中的错误应始终固定，因为熟练的审阅者比新作者更了解历史。该领域的专家按正确的顺序知道正确的论文。不幸的是，生活并不总是那么容易。通常，需要进行更困难的更改

Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments–from an Editor’s or Reviewer’s Points of View

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅