9/5/2023 0 Comments Revisions reviewWhich type of regression model was used?” “The methods used on page 6 are unclear.XXX see page 4 of the revised manuscript) Response: We appreciate this concern and have now added a reference (Smith et al. At the very least, this statement requires a reference.” “ The authors assert that biodiversity is declining in their study area, but they do not substantiate this claim.Then explain how you have addressed it, e.g.:.Paste in a given reviewer’s comment in italics.On the following pages, detailed point by point responses, to each of the comments, in a format as follows:.We hope our revised version will be received favourably and look forward to hearing from you in the near future.On the following pages, we outline point by point responses to the comments by the reviewers (and the associate editor, if applicable).We have now addressed these comments, and this has strengthened the paper.We greatly appreciate the constructive comments.Thank you for your decision letter from xyz.An introductory cover note, which follows a logic like this:.Making this job as easy as possible for the editor is what your response letter needs to do. Put yourself in the position of the editor: she wants to understand as easily as possible what you changed or did not change, and why. Your revision ultimately consists of the changed manuscript, as well as a detailed letter outlining point by point your responses to the reviewers. When, despite reflection, you think a reviewer is simply wrong: In this case, you change nothing in the text, but you explain in your cover letter to editor why you did not make the change.Īs a general rule of thumb, if you want your paper to be accepted, and especially if it goes back to the same reviewers, your response to most criticisms needs to be type 1, followed by type 2 – only rarely will you get away with response type 3 above.In this case, you’re still making the same argument as before, but you explain it more clearly. So re-write your text in a way that might convince the reviewer of your position, lends more weight to your argument, or is simply easier to follow. (For minor suggestions, I suggest just do as the reviewers suggest, because there’s nothing to lose but if you truly disagree, just implementing the suggestions is not a satisfactory solution.) Still, in this case, you can often communicate more clearly what your position on the issue is. When, despite reflection, you disagree with the reviewer: You might not want to implement some particular suggestions, especially if they relate to subjective matters, which you simply feel differently about.For example, she may have asked for additional explanation, an additional reference, or the complete re-write of a section, including a different conclusion. When, upon reflection, you agree with the reviewer: You implement a change that does what the reviewer asked for.Broadly speaking, you have three options for how to respond to a particular criticism: You then need to go through the comments by the editor and all reviewers one by one, and address every single one of them. Even in cases where the criticism you received seems unjustified, ask yourself “What can I do better so that this same reviewer will be more likely to buy into my argument next time around?” Even if you are completely satisfied that your argument holds, ask yourself if you can do a better job of communicating it clearly. As the author, it’s your job to communicate your ideas clearly. The first general rule is that you take the criticisms of all reviewers seriously. How can you make sure that when you are asked to submit a revised version, you maximize the chances of your revised paper being accepted? Given this situation, being asked to submit a revised version, even if the revisions are major, is often a ‘success’. As an example, leading international journals in applied ecology now reject 80% of papers – if you look at leading journals like Nature, the percentage of rejections is much higher still. But reality is that many papers are rejected, and those of those that are not, many require revisions, often major. When you first write your paper, of course you hope for it to be accepted.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |