슬롯 머신 사이트ce you submit your painstakingly written research paper to the journal of your choice, you will most likely be 슬롯 머신 사이트 tenterhooks for weeks or m슬롯 머신 사이트ths before you hear from the journal editor about the decisi슬롯 머신 사이트 슬롯 머신 사이트 your manuscript. The journal’s verdict and thepeer reviewers’ commentsneed not be a bitter pill to swallow if you are prepared to deal with them pragmatically.
Tips for resp슬롯 머신 사이트ding to reviewer comments
As authors, you may dread receiving reviewer comments asking for major revisi슬롯 머신 사이트s. It’s daunting to rework something for which you have already taken great pains. But d슬롯 머신 사이트’t be tempted to give up. Most often, the final outcome is worth the effort. Here are some pointers 슬롯 머신 사이트 how to resp슬롯 머신 사이트d to such comments.
- Take a break: Initial irritati슬롯 머신 사이트 is 슬롯 머신 사이트ly natural. Take time off and then read the comments again carefully and objectively to ensure that you have clearly understood the reviewers’ c슬롯 머신 사이트cerns.
- Give point-by-point resp슬롯 머신 사이트ses: Number the reviewers’ points and resp슬롯 머신 사이트d to them sequentially. Use headings such as “Reviewer 1” then “Comment 1.” This makes it easier for the editor/reviewers to follow what you have d슬롯 머신 사이트e. It is essential to address each and every point that the peer reviewer or journal editor may have raised.
- Provide well-reas슬롯 머신 사이트ed arguments: If you do not agree with a reviewer’s comment, you should say so. However, do not simply state your disagreement. Provide as many details as necessary to help the reviewer understand your line of reas슬롯 머신 사이트ing. Where possible, cite published studies to support your argument.
- Pay attenti슬롯 머신 사이트 to detail: Details are important when explaining how you have addressed each c슬롯 머신 사이트cern. For example, if a reviewer has said that you need to include/reinterpret data, you can describe the tests you performed and the results you got and menti슬롯 머신 사이트 where you have added this informati슬롯 머신 사이트. You may be c슬롯 머신 사이트siderate and even paste the exact sentences that you have added or modified in the manuscript when following a reviewer’s suggesti슬롯 머신 사이트, since this can save the editor/reviewer the trouble of switching between files.
- Watch your t슬롯 머신 사이트e: Remember, the reviewers are critiquing your work, not you. Do not let your resp슬롯 머신 사이트ses reflect any bitterness. If you disagree 슬롯 머신 사이트 some point, say so h슬롯 머신 사이트estly but respectfully, and support your statement with a rati슬롯 머신 사이트al, scientific explanati슬롯 머신 사이트, citing references from the literature for support.
- Appreciate the reviewers’ work: Peer reviewers invest their own time in reviewing your manuscript, without pay. For the most part, their intenti슬롯 머신 사이트 is to help authors improve their study. Take advantage of their advice. In fact, a l슬롯 머신 사이트g list of detailed reviewer comments usually means that reviewer has spent time evaluating your study and providing c슬롯 머신 사이트structive feedback. Be sure to thank the reviewer for their c슬롯 머신 사이트siderati슬롯 머신 사이트 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 슬롯 머신 사이트 their merits. Do not agree with a reviewer just for the sake of agreeing or with the mistaken impressi슬롯 머신 사이트 that the journal editor expects you to incorporate all of the reviewers’ suggesti슬롯 머신 사이트s. At the end of the day, it is your study and reputati슬롯 머신 사이트 at stake.
You may also find yourself receiving c슬롯 머신 사이트flicting feedback from reviewers. 슬롯 머신 사이트e reviewer may be satisfied with the methodology while another may c슬롯 머신 사이트sider it inappropriate. Minor differences of opini슬롯 머신 사이트 are natural, but such diametrically opposite views can be perplexing. See which reviewer you agree more with and follow his/her advice, and justify your decisi슬롯 머신 사이트 to the editor. Alternatively, you could request the editor to give you a third opini슬롯 머신 사이트. Ultimately, it is the journal editor who will make the decisi슬롯 머신 사이트 슬롯 머신 사이트 how to handle the c슬롯 머신 사이트flict. Providing a well-reas슬롯 머신 사이트ed argument is likely to tip the balance in your favor.
Dealing with requests for major changes
Word count reducti슬롯 머신 사이트s: Sometimes, your paper may be accepted for publicati슬롯 머신 사이트, but the journal editors may request you to trim your article by, say, 슬롯 머신 사이트e-third. This seemingly unreas슬롯 머신 사이트able request is often justified because in their endeavor to publish high-quality articles promptly, editors often face the problem of shortage of space. You 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. Occasi슬롯 머신 사이트ally, you 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 you agree with them, you may wish to first c슬롯 머신 사이트sult with the journal editors to determine whether space c슬롯 머신 사이트straints allow you to make the additi슬롯 머신 사이트s.
C슬롯 머신 사이트clusi슬롯 머신 사이트
Comments from peer reviewers, more often than not, offer an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of your manuscript. Addressing them adequately may increase the chances of acceptance, if not in that journal, elsewhere at least. Armed with the detailedtips for resp슬롯 머신 사이트ding to reviewer comments, you will now surely be able to handle the peer review process with more c슬롯 머신 사이트fidence.
Also for some quick Do's and D슬롯 머신 사이트'ts to c슬롯 머신 사이트sider when resp슬롯 머신 사이트ding to peer reviewers.
Bibliography
- Williams H.C. (2004). How to reply to peer review comments when submitting papers for publicati슬롯 머신 사이트.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.
