- Everyone makes mistakes, therefore don’t be disheartened. The review procedure should enable you to enhance your paper.
- The review process is generally “blind”, so that the reviewer will perhaps maybe maybe not understand writer names or affiliations.
Do the following
- Whenever you can repair the problem along with your paper, then do this.
- If this involves more experimental research, ask the Editor before continuing, and suggest the likely period of time.
- In the event that you can’t repair the problem, could you save your self any such thing from your own research this is certainly well worth publishing?
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 initial scans] and modified the written text where highlighted.
Reviewer: highlights a mistake in your paper, you disagree
Author: This reviewer is definitely an idiot. Does not he know any thing about it topic area?
- Don’t assume all reviewer is a specialist within the precise industry he’s asked to pay someone to write my paper examine. It is difficult for a log to find sufficient reviewers for a paper. Or maybe the Editor-in-Chief isn’t knowledgeable about this area, and assigned the paper up to a reviewer from the field that is different.
- However, the reviewer provided their viewpoint, along with to answer it.
Author: i do believe this reviewer is biased!
- The review procedure is normally “blind”, so that 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.
- Maybe you believe the writer is biased against specific view points, or research industries.
- Like all people, also reviewers have actually needs and wants, they could be unacquainted with their very own prejudices.
- As above, the reviewer provided their opinion, along with to react to it.
Do the following
- Stick to the important points. Stay courteous, but keep feeling from the jawhorse.
- In the event that reviewers remark is certainly not well created in reality, it ought to be really simple to offer a successful reaction.
- If you were to think the paper will not need an alteration, offer a quick description with supporting sources or information.
- Possibly a little switch to your paper might explain the purpose. Any indicator that the reviewer misinterpreted your paper implies you might intend to make some modifications.
- In case 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 might submit your paper to a different log after rejection. But keep in mind that you will find a restricted quantity of reviewers in just about any field of research. Your paper can be assigned to your reviewer that is same a various log, and then he will never be impressed if he views that their reviewer remarks happen ignored.
Simple tips to react:
Here’s an illustration where the writer felt it had been not essential to help make any modification
and it has tactfully recommended towards the Editor that the paper is aligned along with other published research in this industry.
- The reviewer has commented we used the method that is wrong test for ABC. Y was introduced by White et al. (J Sci Method 1999:35;1-10) this has become the standard, and so is now mentioned in research reports without further justification (as in the references in cited in our paper) although we agree with the reviewer that method X was the accepted method in the past, since method. We now have already included a citation to your 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.