Peer review response

It appears that there is a misunderstanding.

letter to editor peer review

However, it is also important to recognize that the scope of a given manuscript is often difficult to define precisely. The summary is accurate at a high-level, but misses some key details like A, B and C.

Write clearly in your response letter; if English is not your native language, consider professional editing help. We have considered both solutions and decided to keep Table 1, but we have also asked the assistant editor, Dr Wordsmith, for her feedback on this issue and are certainly willing to remove the table as you suggested if that proves best for the paper and the journal.

In this case, the best strategy is to apologize for the confusion and provide clarification. Writing them often induces anxiety in graduate students.

responding to reviewers comments on submitted articles

The objective in a rebuttal is to convey confidence to reviewers: We acknowledge your criticism and advice; we understand your misunderstanding; and we can fully integrate this feedback.

Rule 7: Whenever possible, begin your response to each comment with a direct answer to the point being raised You can provide background information, but you should do so after giving your primary response.

Peer review letter of response

This can have a major impact on how the paper is perceived by the editor, which in turn can affect his or her decision to either publish or reject your manuscript. Types of rebuttals There are two kinds of rebuttals: journal-submission rebuttals and conference-submission rebuttals. This document can be helpful to you and your coauthors as you decide how to formulate a final response document. Would you be satisfied with your answers if you were them? Comment 3: Table 1 seems too selective. How you respond to reviewers and editors can also go a long way toward a favorable decision about your manuscript. In the end, the author gets the credit for the final product, but reviewers often contribute substantially to the shaping of the manuscript. It appears that there is a misunderstanding. Here and elsewhere corrections are required. Step 5: Polish Now you've got a starting point by for editing. Justify all changes to the manuscript in your response letter. Funding: The author received no specific funding for this work. Changes: We have added a number of subsections with informative headings that summarise key points in the discussion. Keep in mind that if the reviewer failed to understand something, the fault likely lies, at least in part, with you for not making the point clear enough.

Z But, I see the real contribution as W. It will make for a better final version or a for a stronger resubmission, whatever the case may ultimately be. Share with your colleagues.

Peer review example

Z However, I don't agree that X is novel. Rule 3: Accept the blame If the reviewer failed to understand something, apologize for not making it clear. In writing these responses, remember that your goal is to convince the editor and reviewers that your manuscript should be published by the journal, and your responses should therefore convey a number of impressions. These additional results can be mentioned in your Introduction. Reviewer 2 Comment 1: It is clear that the authors know a good deal more about medieval manuscripts than about seamanship, but the manuscript is worthy of publication provided the following matters are addressed. When specific comments seem off-base, and especially when a single reviewer has many such comments, this may be because the manuscript does not sufficiently explain the hypothesis it aims to address. General principles However you decide to reply to a reviewer, several principles always apply: Be polite. In the end, the author gets the credit for the final product, but reviewers often contribute substantially to the shaping of the manuscript. Good luck! When you decide to not make a suggested change, provide a brief note by the comment justifying why you think the change would not be appropriate.
Rated 6/10 based on 16 review
The Final Hurdle: Persuasive Responses to Peer Review