- Everyone makes errors, so don’t let yourself be disheartened. The review procedure should enable you to boost your paper.
- The review procedure is generally “blind”, therefore the reviewer shall perhaps not understand writer 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.
- In the event that you can’t repair the problem, could you save yourself any such thing from your own research this is certainly well worth publishing?
Just how to react:
- Our company is excessively grateful to Reviewer X for pointing down this issue. We now have [recalculated the data]/[revised Table 1]/[re-examined the initial scans] and modified the written text where highlighted.
Reviewer: Points out a mistake in your paper, however you disagree
Author: This reviewer is definitely an idiot. Does not he know any single thing about any of it area that is subject?
- Not all reviewer is a specialist when you look at the field that is exact asked to examine. It is difficult for the log to find reviewers that are enough a paper. Or maybe the Editor-in-Chief is certainly not knowledgeable about this area, and assigned the paper to a reviewer from a field that is different.
- However, the reviewer offered their opinion, 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 speaking that is non-English and on occasion even from Asia, and ended up being prejudiced due to that.
- Possibly you imagine the writer is biased against particular view points, or research industries.
- As with any people, also reviewers have actually likes and dislikes, they might be unacquainted with their very own prejudices.
- As above, the reviewer offered their viewpoint, along with to answer it.
List of positive actions
- Stick to the important points. Stay polite, but keep feeling from it.
- In the event that reviewers remark is certainly not well started in reality, it ought to be rather easy to provide a effective reaction.
- If you were to think the paper doesn’t need a big change, offer a quick description with supporting sources or data.
- Maybe a little switch to your paper might make clear the idea. Any indicator that the reviewer misinterpreted your paper indicates you may have to make some modifications.
- In case your paper ended up being rejected due to the review, you have to opportunity to appeal your choice. But understand that it will be 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 understand that you will find a number that is limited of in just about any industry of study. Your paper can be assigned to your reviewer that is same a various log, in which he won’t be impressed if he views that his reviewer commentary have now been ignored.
How exactly to react:
Here’s an illustration where it ended up being felt by the writer had been not essential in order to make any modification
and it has tactfully recommended to your Editor that the paper is aligned along with other posted research in this field.
- The reviewer has commented we purchased 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 currently included a citation towards the paper that is original White et al. in the event that you need further conversation with this technique, we are pleased to put in a supporting paragraph towards the paper.