Once 카지노사이트 추천 submit 카지노사이트 추천r painstakingly written research paper to the journal of 카지노사이트 추천r choice, 카지노사이트 추천 will most likely be on tenterhooks for weeks or months before 카지노사이트 추천 hear from the journal editor about the decision on 카지노사이트 추천r manuscript. The journal’s verdict and the peer reviewers’ comments need not be a bitter pill to swallow if 카지노사이트 추천 are prepared to deal with them pragmatically.
Tips for responding to reviewer comments
As authors, 카지노사이트 추천 may dread receiving reviewer comments asking for major revisions. It’s daunting to rework something for which 카지노사이트 추천 have already taken great pains. But don’t be tempted to give up. Most often, the final outcome is worth the effort. Here are some pointers on how to respond to such comments.
- 21Skip to main content: Initial irritation is only natural. Take time off and then read the comments again carefully and objectively to ensure that 카지노사이트 추천 have clearly understood the reviewers’ concerns.
- Give point-by-point responses: Number the reviewers’ points and respond to them sequentially. Use headings such as “Reviewer 1” then “Comment 1.” This makes it easier for the editor/reviewers to follow what 카지노사이트 추천 have done. It is essential to address each and every point that the peer reviewer or journal editor may have raised.
- Provide well-reasoned arguments: If 카지노사이트 추천 do not agree with a reviewer’s comment, 카지노사이트 추천 should say so. However, do not simply state 카지노사이트 추천r disagreement. Provide as many details as necessary to help the reviewer understand 카지노사이트 추천r line of reasoning. Where possible, cite published studies to support 카지노사이트 추천r argument.
- Pay attention to detail: Details are important when explaining how 카지노사이트 추천 have addressed each concern. For example, if a reviewer has said that 카지노사이트 추천 need to include/reinterpret data, 카지노사이트 추천 can describe the tests 카지노사이트 추천 performed and the results 카지노사이트 추천 got and mention where 카지노사이트 추천 have added this information. 카지노사이트 추천 may be considerate and even paste the exact sentences that 카지노사이트 추천 have added or modified in the manuscript when following a reviewer’s suggestion, since this can save the editor/reviewer the trouble of switching between files.
- Watch 카지노사이트 추천r tone: Remember, the reviewers are critiquing 카지노사이트 추천r work, not 카지노사이트 추천. Do not let 카지노사이트 추천r responses reflect any bitterness. If 카지노사이트 추천 disagree on some point, say so honestly but respectfully, and support 카지노사이트 추천r statement with a rational, scientific explanation, citing references from the literature for support.
- Appreciate the reviewers’ work: Peer reviewers invest their own time in reviewing 카지노사이트 추천r manuscript, without pay. For the most part, their intention is to help authors improve their study. Take advantage of their advice. In fact, a long list of detailed reviewer comments usually means that reviewer has spent time evaluating 카지노사이트 추천r study and providing constructive feedback. Be sure to thank the reviewer for their consideration and effort.
Are peer reviewers always right?
Peer reviewers are essentially experts in their field. However, this does not mean that their comments should be taken as gospel. Evaluate each of the reviewer comment on their merits. Do not agree with a reviewer just for the sake of agreeing or with the mistaken impression that the journal editor expects 카지노사이트 추천 to incorporate all of the reviewers’ suggestions. At the end of the day, it is 카지노사이트 추천r study and reputation at stake.
카지노사이트 추천 may also find 카지노사이트 추천rself receiving conflicting feedback from reviewers. One reviewer may be satisfied with the methodology while another may consider it inappropriate. Minor differences of opinion are natural, but such diametrically opposite views can be perplexing. See which reviewer 카지노사이트 추천 agree more with and follow his/her advice, and justify 카지노사이트 추천r decision to the editor. Alternatively, 카지노사이트 추천 could request the editor to give 카지노사이트 추천 a third opinion. Ultimately, it is the journal editor who will make the decision on how to handle the conflict. Providing a well-reasoned argument is likely to tip the balance in 카지노사이트 추천r favor.
Dealing with requests for major changes
Word count reductions: Sometimes, 카지노사이트 추천r paper may be accepted for publication, but the journal editors may request 카지노사이트 추천 to trim 카지노사이트 추천r article by, say, one-third. This seemingly unreasonable request is often justified because in their endeavor to publish high-quality articles promptly, editors often face the problem of shortage of space. 카지노사이트 추천 will almost certainly have no choice but to comply with this request.
Requests for extra data or text: Reviewers may suggest various types of changes, from tweaking certain sentences to revising entire paragraphs. Occasionally, 카지노사이트 추천 may be asked to supply large sets of data or include more than a page of text. Provided the suggested changes are within the scope of the manuscript and 카지노사이트 추천 agree with them, 카지노사이트 추천 may wish to first consult with the journal editors to determine whether space constraints allow 카지노사이트 추천 to make the additions.
Conclusion
Comments from peer reviewers, more often than not, offer an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of 카지노사이트 추천r manuscript. Addressing them adequately may increase the chances of acceptance, if not in that journal, elsewhere at least. Armed with the detailed tips for responding to reviewer comments, 카지노사이트 추천 will now surely be able to handle the peer review process with more confidence.
Also read this article for some quick Do's and Don'ts to consider when responding to peer reviewers.
Bibliography
- Williams H.C. (2004). How to reply to peer review comments when submitting papers for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51, 79–83.
- Samet J.M. (1999). Dear Author—Advice from a Retiring Editor. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150, 433–436.
