Document 6513860

2013/11/12
How to Respond to Reviewer
and Editor Comments
Dr. Steve Wallace
Outline
Reviewers and editors decide the fate of our paper.
Managing the relationship with them is vital to
successful publication.
What are reviewers really saying?
How can we respond to them?
What do we do when reviewers don't agree?
How important is the editor in the decisiondecision-making
process?
1
2013/11/12
Academic writers use the competitive, political,
and supportive energy of other researchers
Supportive energy:
energy: Writing support groups, journal clubs,
review groups.
groups.
Competitive energy:
energy: Researchers compare themselves
with other researchers and keep score.
score.
Political:: Researchers are political.
Political
The negative side is that half of peer reviewed articles in
top rated journals are never referenced by anyone,
including the author. This shows that low impact papers
are often published in the best journals because the
articles are reviewed by friends of the author (Holub,
Tappeiner, and Eberharter, SEJ 1991).
Practice:
Don’t Criticize References
I think that the author knows his subject better
than I do. I usually use his references to find a
suitable reviewer - Associate Editor, Journal of
Retailing
Avoid emphasizing
emphasizing the importance of your paper
by putting down on other papers. Your references
are probably your reviewers and they are sensitive.
2
2013/11/12
Your Research Area is Small
It is very likely that either your reference or
one of his friends will be your reviewer.
Rejected for “Poor English”
English”
Cite Researchers Who Like You
Include references to authors who like your
papers. They might become referees.
Include references to people whom you met
at conferences.
This is to get a fair chance. Referees have
to make an effort to be fair to unknown
authors.
3
2013/11/12
Meet 100 Active Researchers
There are about a hundred people in your research field who are likely
to be referees of your papers.
Prepare a list of one hundred active people in your main research area.
Try to meet them within a fivefive-year period.
Present papers at (or at least attend)
attend) two professional meetings a year.
When presenting papers or attending regional, national, or international
meetings, try to get to know these people.
This is your best opportunity for networking. When you go to
conferences,, smile and “work the room.”
conferences
room.”
Examples of Offensive Citation:
"The deficiency of Smith's approach is..."
“The problems with Smith’
Smith’s paper are…"
“A serious weakness with Smith’
Smith’s argument,
however, is that ......”
“The key problem with Smith’
Smith’s explanation is
that ......”
“It seems that Smith’
Smith’s understanding of the X
framework is questionable.”
4
2013/11/12
A better citation would be:
“Smith
Smith’’s model was effective in the X
problem, however in the Y…”
“The X benefit of Smith’
Smith’s approach is not
applicable to Y…”
Practice:
Pay Attention to Reviewer Comments
“I don’t’ think you treated Smith fairly in your
literature review. His insights deserve more
respect.”
“You forgot to include Smith as a reference
in you paper. His work is fundamental to
understanding your research.”
5
2013/11/12
Complement Potential Reviewers
Important references should be mentioned on the
first page.
The editor usually chooses reviewers from those
mentioned in the introduction and references.
Be generous to all authors, and explain why their
research is important for your analysis.
This uses less than 1% of the space, but
significantly affects the probability of acceptance.
acceptance.
Scan Journal for Related Articles
Try to find some related articles in the
journal to which you wish to submit your
paper.
Authors who published a paper on a related
subject are likely to be referees.
The editor still remembers them and has a
connection to them. You need to cite their
papers..
papers
Even if they are slightly related, try to use
their references. Explain how your work is
related.
6
2013/11/12
Suggesting Reviewers
Suggest
Researchers whose hypotheses and ideas your
work supports
Researchers whose work yours builds on
International collaborators in the same field
Don’t suggest
Researchers working closely on the same
research question
Researchers whose work is refuted by your study
Researchers whose ideas run counter to your own
or to the findings in your manuscript
Williams HC. How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2004;
51:79–83
Suggesting Reviewers (continued)
Compared to editor-selected reviewers,
author-suggested reviewers may be more
likely to recommend acceptance
Nominating nonreviewers may increase the
odds of publication success even more than
that of nominating reviewers
Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by
editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 2006; 4:13
Goldsmith LA, Blalock EN, Bobkova H, et al. Picking your peers. J Invest Dermatol ,2006; 126:1429–
1430
7
2013/11/12
Practice:
Incorporate English Editing into Your Supply Chain
Use professional editorial assistance
Particularly if you are not a native English
speaker
Editors will not publish papers with
grammatical errors
Referees are often biased; they have an
excuse to recommend rejection because of
grammatical errors
Reasons for Major Revision or Rejection of Taiwanese
Journal Papers
Faulty methodology
Inadequate references
7%
7%
4%
Poor quality supporting figures
9%
16%
Outside the scope of journal
Not enough contribution to field
7%
2%
Authors did not follow manuscript instructions
Poor writing style and use of English
Title not representative of study
8%
English Errors
27%
13%
Subject of little novel interest or not generally
applicable
8
2013/11/12
Everyone Gets Criticized
The peer-review process means that almost
all authors receive criticism.
Reviewers’ comments were deemed
valuable by 76% (176 of 231 authors) of
authors whose manuscripts were eventually
accepted and 60% (21 of 35 authors) of
authors whose manuscripts were rejected or
withdrawn.
Ernst E. A beginner’s guide to criticism. Med J Aust 2007;187:649
Green R, Del Mar C. The fate of papers rejected by Australian Family Physician. Aust Fam Physician 2006; 35:655–656
Authors Use Comments in Revision
A study on rejected manuscripts showed that 82%
of authors used at least one change suggested by
the reviewers from the original journal.
Even though most of these rejected manuscripts
were later published in lower-impact, secondchoice journals, some manuscripts incorporating
at least one of the changes suggested by the
reviewers of the first journal were published in
higher-impact, second choice journals.
Armstrong AW, Idriss SZ, Kimball AB, et al. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the
American Academy of Dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2008; 58:632–635
9
2013/11/12
Revision as Practice
“After finishing a journal paper I don’
don’t immediately submit it
to a journal. It is not finished yet. I always find small errors
in text, notations, explanations, or missing references in my
finished paper. I’
I’m especially careful when rereading the
introduction and abstract before submission. A small error
on the first page of the introduction or abstract indicates I
was careless. Errors here make referees and editors
conclude that the paper should be rejected. They conclude
that the author is likely to be careless in content as well as
English. And they might be right.”
right.”- Educational Psychology Associate
Professor #12
Revision (continued)
“If you don‘
don‘t proofread your own
introduction, why expect the referees to spot
and correct all the errors?”
errors?”- Chinese History Professor # 2
“You should always check spelling before
submission. But there are no substitutes for
reading the papers personally. Spell
Spell
checkers do not check word meanings.”
meanings.” –
Electrical Engineering Post Doctoral Researcher # 102
10
2013/11/12
Revision from Reviewer Comments
– The time limit for resubmission is usually six
months to a year from the date of the invitation
letter.
– This is your last chance to revise the paper.
You a have 50% chance.
– Poor revisions will surely result in rejection.
– If you lose your chance to submit, you may wait
three more years. Go the extra mile.
Be well-prepared, complete, polite,
and use evidence not emotion
– Take every comment seriously.
– First, thank the reviewer.
– Number all comments and respond.
– Indicate that you are doing everything possible.
– If you cannot follow the demands, thank the
referee for the suggestion, explain why they are
beyond the scope of the paper or why it is not
possible at the time.
Williams HC. How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol,
2004; 51:79–83
11
2013/11/12
Do Not Attack Referees
Generally, it is not a good idea to attack the
reviewers.
– Do not say: "The referee's idea is bad, but mine is
good."
– Better to say, “the referee has an interesting idea, but
the proposed idea is also good, particularly because of
this or that fact.”
– If the referee makes a good point (you can almost
always find conditions under which the referee's points
are good), explain why you are not pursuing that
strategy in the paper.
When answering peer review
comments:
Differentiate comments and responses in
the letter file using different font styles
Identify major revisions in the text made in
response to peer review comments with
highlighting, underlining, and
strikethrough fonts or as requested by the
editor
12
2013/11/12
Revising Your Article Based on
Reviewer Comments
Start with small changes
Biggest mistake authors make is planning to
respond too much
Don’t get overwhelmed—
overwhelmed—do a little every
day
Revising Citations
Most reviewers reports do this.
Don’t read all of the articles and books
recommended unless the reviewer says you’re
doing the same research or the citation contradicts
you
Add a brief sentence about each citation, not a
paragraph
Reviewers can be helpful in pointing out recent
studies and avoiding embarrassing mistakes
13
2013/11/12
Revising Terms and Definitions
Use previous research to defend your
definition of the term or revise it
Revising to Shorten
Editorial comment:
What can you cut?
Unnecessary words, block quotes, footnotes,
long summaries of other research, additional
cases
If possible divide into two articles
14
2013/11/12
Revising to Lengthen
Common contradiction between editors and
reviewers
Can be used as an excuse not to revise
unless the editor agrees
May need to ask the editor for more space
Revising Theoretical and
Methodological Approaches
May be better to move to a new journal
15
2013/11/12
Do You Have to Do Everything the
Reviewers Ask?
No, but you must answer every comment
with a detailed defense.
Types of Defense You Can Use in
Your Revision Cover Letter
Dates: Reviewer 1 has disputed my dating
Dates:
of_______. I stand by my dating, but have added
a footnote explaining how I arrived at the dates
and I have provided some additional sources.
Analysis:: Reviewer 2 disagrees with my list of
Analysis
causes for______. Although I think my list is
correct, there is a debate in the literature on the
causes, so I have added a reference to that
debate in the text.
16
2013/11/12
Argument: Reviewer 1 seems to have misread
Argument:
the premise of my article, which was______. I
thought it was clear, but I have taken the
opportunity to clarify this point.
Data:: although the comments of Reviewer 1 on
Data
the relevance of my argument about_____ was
interesting, I could not add material on that topic
because I must adhere to the word limit.
Data: I thought the second reviewer’s comment
regarding the relevance of_____ was brilliant, but
after several attempts, I could not integrate it into
the text in a brief enough space. Instead, I have
inserted a general note.
Cases: because the reviewers were in conflict on
the treatment of the second case ( one
recommended that I say more about it and the
other recommended that I cut it), I have chosen to
follow the second reviewer and cut that section.
17
2013/11/12
Title: I did not modify the title as one reviewer
Title:
recommended, because I think it better suggests
the argument, but I have added more specific key
words so it will more accurately show up on online
searches.
Citation:: the second reviewer recommended that I
Citation
address________, but there wasn’t enough space
for it, so I just added an end note referencing that
reading.
Term: one reviewer thought my use of the
Term:
word_____ was unusual, but I have found it used
in this way more than a dozen times in academic
texts in the field; so, I have chosen to keep it. I can
provide you with those citations if you wish.
Additional:: once I started revising in response to
Additional
the peer reviewers’ helpful comments, I saw some
other problems and revised several sections so
that they were tighter and more to the point. I also
changed my text in the second section from___
to____, since it supports my point better.
18
2013/11/12
Cover Letter
Separate your response from your cover
letter to disguise your name.
Conclusion
www.editing.tw
www.seminars.tw
華樂絲學術英文編修
How to Write and Submit an Academic
Paper in 18 Weeks
19