- Everyone makes errors, therefore don’t be disheartened. The review procedure should allow you to enhance your paper.
- The review procedure is generally “blind”, so that the reviewer will perhaps perhaps not understand writer names or affiliations.
List of positive actions
- Whenever you can mend the problem along with your paper, then do this.
- If this involves more experimental research, ask the Editor before continuing, and suggest the time frame that is likely.
- You save anything from your research that is worth publishing if you can’t fix the problem, can?
Simple tips to respond:
- Our company is excessively grateful to Reviewer X for pointing away this issue. We now have [recalculated the data]/[revised Table 1]/[re-examined the scans that are original and modified the writing where highlighted.
Reviewer: highlights a mistake in your paper, however you disagree
Author: This reviewer is definitely an idiot. Doesn’t he know any single thing concerning this area that is subject?
- Its not all reviewer is a professional into the precise industry he’s asked to examine. It is difficult for a log to find sufficient reviewers for a paper. Or maybe the Editor-in-Chief just isn’t acquainted with this area, and assigned the paper to a reviewer from a field that is different.
- Nonetheless, the reviewer offered his viewpoint, along with to answer it.
Author: i do believe this reviewer is biased!
- The review procedure is generally “blind”, so that the reviewer doesn’t understand whom the author is.
- Maybe you think the reviewer guessed you had been speaking that is non-English and even from Asia, and ended up being prejudiced as a result of that.
- Perhaps you would imagine the writer is biased against particular view points, or research areas.
- As with any people, also reviewers have needs and wants, they might be unacquainted with their prejudices that are own.
- As above, the reviewer offered their opinion, along with to answer it.
Do the following
- Keep to the important points. Stay courteous, but keep feeling from the jawhorse.
- In the event that reviewers remark just isn’t well started in reality, it ought to be really simple to provide a response that is successful.
- If you believe the paper doesn’t require a big change, offer an explanation that is brief supporting sources or information.
- Possibly a tiny modification to your paper might make clear the idea. Any indicator that the reviewer misinterpreted your paper indicates you may intend to make some modifications.
- In case your paper had been refused due to the review, you have to possibility to appeal your decision. But understand that it’s the Editor-in-Chief who makes the choice to reject. Only appeal in the event that you think the review really misjudged your paper.
- You might submit your paper to a different log after rejection. But understand that you will find a number that is limited of in virtually any field of research. Your paper can be assigned into the reviewer that is same a different log, and then he won’t be impressed if he sees that their reviewer remarks have already been ignored.
Just how to react:
Here’s an illustration where it had been felt by the writer was not essential to help make any modification
and has now tactfully recommended to your Editor that the paper is aligned along with other published research in this industry.
- The reviewer has commented that people used the incorrect approach to test for ABC. Although we concur with the reviewer that technique X ended up being the accepted technique into the past, since technique Y ended up being introduced by White et al. (J Sci Method 1999:35;1-10) this has grown to become the conventional, and thus happens to be mentioned in research reports without further reason (such as the recommendations in cited inside our paper). We now have currently included a citation towards the initial paper by White et al. in the event that you need further discussion with this technique, we are very happy to put in a supporting paragraph into the paper.