Respond to Reviewer We Apologize for Missing Such Important
How to write a response to the reviewers of your manuscript
Abstruse
Organising the process of writing a response to reviewers' comments and making best use of the expertise of your co-authors increases your chances of beingness successful in getting your paper published http://ow.ly/WAxV30lF1g3
Preparation programmes for scientists usually include modules on writing a scientific manuscript but rarely pay attention to dealing with comments from reviewers. The two principal outcomes of the decision process following submission of a manuscript to a journal are: 1) the journal rejects your manuscript; or 2) the journal shows an involvement provided that you adequately deal with the comments of the reviewers (major or minor revision). But how do you deal with these comments and how do you write a rebuttal letter of the alphabet in which you deal with these comments? Is the "reviewer ever right" and if non, how do you signal this? In this commodity, some suggestions are provided for writing a rebuttal letter based on personal experiences, including my experience every bit Department Editor for Basic Science for the European Respiratory Journal. Whereas this article is focussed on writing rebuttals to comments on submitted manuscripts, some of its content may besides be useful for writing rebuttals for, for example, grant writing.
How to write a response letter
Consider the following: you have submitted a manuscript to a scientific periodical, awaited the response from the periodical and then you lot get an eastward-mail saying that it is prissy merely not acceptable in its present form. Is this good news or bad news? Really, it is good news considering the journal is manifestly interested, and manuscripts rarely get accepted without any comments and subsequent revisions. So, now yous take read the comments from the editor and the reviewers. What do you lot demand to do next?
It is essential that y'all "sleep on information technology" earlier starting to write your rebuttal. You should carefully read the accompanying letter from the editor again to detect out what they accept highlighted in the reviewers' comments and whether whatever additional points have been raised. Next, read the reviewers' comments again advisedly and check the issues raised by the reviewer with the manuscript you lot submitted. If you feel that none of the comments are worth making changes to your manuscript, you are most likely wrong. Read the comments once more and sleep on it over again.
The next thing to exercise is to advisedly discuss the comments, a reply and the performance of boosted experiments (if applicative) with your co-authors. After you take done that, decided whether and which additional experiments are needed, and you have performed and analysed these experiments, yous can first to piece of work on your reply to the comments: the rebuttal letter. Really, it may be better to start earlier (the sooner the improve) because that unremarkably volition increment the quality of your response. You tin can use the outline below to construction your work on the response.
When writing your answer or rebuttal, it is best to go on in heed that the ameliorate yous construction this, the easier it is for the editor and reviewers to see what you take done. In addition, it helps you non to forget any consequence raised past the journal. Here is a suggested outline for writing your response.
-
Include a heading for every page with "Reply to the comments on manuscript [title of your manuscript] [manuscript ID number]" and "[your name] et al."
-
Write an introduction to your response to the comments and summarise major changes you take made, and include this with this response or employ it for a separate embrace letter for the Editor. Exercise not forget to thank the editor and reviewers for their efforts.
-
Organise the comments/questions from the editor and each reviewer and your response, for example, every bit follows.
-
i) Comment one.1. (for annotate ane from reviewer 1) followed by a copy–paste of the comment or question, or a brusque summary of the point raised. If the reviewer's comments are not numbered, divide the review into individual comments. You lot tin use italics to highlight the comments from the reviewer.
-
2) Respond i.one. (the reply to comment ane from reviewer 1). This is why this is often chosen a bespeak-past-point reply to the comments.
-
Prepare this certificate in the early phase to structure how y'all handle the comments. In the beginning yous can apply the "respond" space to just blazon what you think the reply should be (east.g. with keywords) or whether additional experiments are (actually) needed.
Here are some ground rules for the content of your respond.
-
Hash out the comments in particular in advance with your co-authors and ever send the proposed reply to the comments to your co-authors before submitting it. Carefully consider their comments and suggestions to improve the quality of your rebuttal alphabetic character, and call back that you respond on behalf of them.
-
Carefully read the requirements from the journal for submitting a revised version (e.g. marked-up version).
-
Realise that the reviewer has taken fourth dimension to evaluate your manuscript and aims to help you to improve it (although it may sometimes appear otherwise). Be polite to the reviewer and editor, and do non be dismissive of their comments. Fifty-fifty if they appear to exist making "stupid" remarks and you feel that "they have non understood your paper" or actually missed something. Please realise that this ways that i of the key readers of your manuscript has not understood what yous wanted to say, so you have to try harder. You tin can (and should) suit the manuscript and answer past saying, "this has been clarified in the original manuscript on page x, but possibly we accept not made this sufficiently clear. Therefore, we have now stressed this item on …"
-
Always be very specific in your response and address all points raised. A i-line reply is rarely sufficient. Withal, sometimes, in the instance of, for example, an editorial annotate or spelling mistake, you can respond "This has at present been amended", "We concur" or "We apologise for this omission". If more than one reviewer has raised the same bespeak, refer to this ("this point has been addressed in the answer to annotate x of reviewer y"). Consider including additional information, data or figures for the reviewer that were not included in the manuscript if it helps you to make your bespeak. If you cannot address a point raised by the reviewer, explain why. If you feel that a certain comment is outside the scope of your study, please explain this. If you disagree with the reviewer (yeah, this may happen) and/or call up that an boosted experiment or analysis is not needed, explain why. Carefully consider also mentioning this in the Discussion, for example, in the paragraph with limitations, since readers may share the reviewer'south stance. Never claim to have made changes if you have not washed so.
-
If y'all have been asked to shorten some part of your manuscript, do so. You can even indicate by how much (words or percentage) you have shortened it.
-
Make life like shooting fish in a barrel for the reviewer and the editor. Always indicate where yous have made a change in your manuscript in response to the question/comments: "This is at present addressed in the Discussion department of the revised manuscript on page 10, line y." If appropriate, cite relevant references in your answer.
-
The response that you write should be directed to the Editor and not to the Reviewers. You should write for instance "We agree with the reviewer …"rather than "Nosotros hold with you". Always refer to the reviewer in third person.
Final remarks and further reading
We all know that rejection rates can exist high, especially for high-profile journals. E'er be aware that your resubmitted and revised manuscript may withal be rejected. Writing a response or rebuttal letter, perchance performing additional experiments and revising your manuscript takes time, and there is usually also a deadline from the journal. Organising this procedure and making best employ of the expertise of your co-authors (and the reviewers) increases your chances of being successful in getting your paper published. If your manuscript is rejected, either in its revised or original form, make sure to contain suggestions from the reviewers into the manuscript to brand it improve when you submit it to another periodical.
In addition to this contribution to Breathe, several websites provide information for writing response or rebuttal messages, including the "dos and don'ts" that come with writing such a letter. Suggestions tin can be found in the Further Reading section of this article.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Martin Kolb and James Chalmers, Principal Editor and Deputy Chief Editor of the European Respiratory Journal, for critical review of the manuscript and helpful suggestions.
Footnotes
-
Conflict of involvement: P.Southward. Hiemstra reports receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and Galapagos NV, outside the submitted piece of work.
- Copyright ©ERS 2018
References
bermudezlicninhat.blogspot.com
Source: https://breathe.ersjournals.com/content/14/4/319
0 Response to "Respond to Reviewer We Apologize for Missing Such Important"
Post a Comment