- Everybody makes errors, therefore don’t let yourself be disheartened. The review procedure should enable you to boost your paper.
- The review procedure is normally “blind”, so the reviewer will maybe not understand author names or affiliations.
Do the following
- Then do so if you can fix the problem with your paper.
- If this involves more experimental research, ask the Editor before proceeding, 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?
Just how to react:
- We have been acutely grateful to Reviewer X for pointing down this issue. We have [recalculated the data]/[revised Table 1]/[re-examined the initial scans] 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 thing about that topic area?
- Don’t assume all reviewer is a specialist into the field that is exact asked to review. It is difficult for the log to find sufficient reviewers for a paper. Or maybe the Editor-in-Chief isn’t acquainted with this area, and assigned the paper to a reviewer from a various field.
- Nonetheless, the reviewer offered their viewpoint, along with to answer it.
Author: i do believe this reviewer is biased!
- The review procedure is generally “blind”, therefore the reviewer doesn’t understand whom the writer is.
- Perchance you think the reviewer guessed you had been non-English speaking, as well as from Asia, and ended up being prejudiced as a result of that.
- Possibly you might think mcdougal is biased against particular view points, or research industries.
- As with any humans, also reviewers have actually preferences, they could be unacquainted with their very own prejudices.
- As above, the reviewer offered their viewpoint, along with to answer it.
Do the following
- Stick to the reality. Stay courteous, but keep feeling from the jawhorse.
- In the event that reviewers remark just isn’t well created in reality, it ought to be rather easy to offer a response that is successful.
- If you were to think the paper doesn’t require a big change, provide a brief description with supporting sources or information.
- Maybe a change that is small your paper might make clear the purpose. Any indicator that the reviewer misinterpreted your paper recommends you may need certainly to make some modifications.
- In the event the paper had been refused due to the review, you have to chance to appeal your choice. 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 misjudged your paper.
- You may submit your paper to some other log after rejection. But keep in mind that you can find a restricted wide range of reviewers in virtually any industry of research. Your paper can be assigned into the reviewer that is same a various log, in which he won’t be impressed if he views that their reviewer responses happen ignored.
How exactly to react:
Here’s an illustration where the writer felt it had been not required in order to make any modification
and has now write my eassy tactfully recommended to your Editor that the paper is aligned along with other posted research in this field.
- The reviewer has commented we used the method that is wrong test for ABC. Although we buy into 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 sources in cited within our paper). We’ve currently included a citation towards the paper that is original White et al. in the event that you require further conversation with this technique, we are thrilled to put in a supporting paragraph to your paper.