- Everybody makes errors, therefore don’t let yourself be disheartened. The review procedure should allow you to boost your paper.
- The review procedure is normally “blind”, therefore the reviewer shall maybe not know author names or affiliations.
List of positive actions
- Whenever you can mend the problem together 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.
- In the event that you can’t mend the problem, is it possible to save your self anything from your own research that is well worth publishing?
Just how to react:
- We have been incredibly grateful to Reviewer X for pointing down this dilemma. We now 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 can be an idiot. Does not he know any thing relating to this area that is subject?
- Its not all reviewer is a specialist within the precise industry he’s asked to examine. It is difficult for the log to find reviewers that are enough a paper. Or simply the Editor-in-Chief just isn’t knowledgeable about this area, and assigned the paper up to a reviewer from a field that is different.
- Nonetheless, the reviewer offered their viewpoint, along with to answer it.
Author: i do believe this reviewer is biased!
- The review procedure is normally “blind”, therefore the reviewer will not understand whom the writer is.
- Maybe you think the reviewer guessed you had been non-English speaking, and even from Asia, and ended up being prejudiced due to that.
- Possibly you imagine the writer is biased against specific view points, or research industries.
- As with any people, also reviewers have needs and wants, they might be unacquainted with their very own prejudices.
- As above, the reviewer provided 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 is certainly not well launched in reality, it must be quite easy to provide a response that is successful.
- If you were to think the paper will not need a big change, provide an explanation that is brief supporting sources or information.
- Maybe a change that is small your paper might make clear the idea. Any indicator that the reviewer misinterpreted your paper indicates you may intend to https://essay-writing.org/research-paper-writing/ earn some modifications.
- When your paper had been refused due to the review, you have to possibility to appeal your choice. But keep in mind that it’s the Editor-in-Chief who makes the decision 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 understand that you will find a restricted amount of reviewers in virtually any industry of study. Your paper could be assigned towards the reviewer that is same a different log, and then he won’t be impressed if he views that their reviewer responses have now been ignored.
Simple tips to react:
Here’s an illustration where the writer felt it had been not required to help make any modification
and has now tactfully recommended to your Editor that the paper is aligned along with other posted research in this field.
- The reviewer has commented that people used the incorrect way to test for ABC. Although we buy into the reviewer that method X was the accepted technique within the past, since technique Y had been introduced by White et al. (J Sci Method 1999:35;1-10) this has become the conventional, and so is currently mentioned in research reports without further justification (like in the sources in cited within our paper). We now have currently included a citation to the paper that is original White et al. We will be happy to add a supporting paragraph to the paper if you require further discussion of this method.