Because of this, the review should be more than a simple "accept" or "reject". When writing a review, you should describe the reasons for the recommendation so that the editor can make an informed decision. It is far more important to comment on the academic content of a paper Comments: The research project is very well structured, ideas are clear and the writing is concise and argumentative. Your literature review is comprehensive and you managed to successfully discuss the importance of your research, from both a theoretical and an applied perspective invaluable comments. We have carefully addressed all the comments. The corresponding changes and refinements made in the revised paper are summarized in our response below. Reviewer #2: This paper has a potential to be accepted, but some important points have to be clarified or fixed before we can proceed and a positive action can be taken
Giving an effective peer review: sample framework and comments
Posted by Rene Tetzner Sep 11, Help with Peer Review 0. Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Free Example Letter Responding to the comments peer reviewers offer when they assess your research paper can be as challenging as writing the original manuscript, especially when the necessity of revising your paper to resolve problems is considered as well. How you respond to the criticism you receive can have a significant impact on whether your paper will ultimately be published or not, so getting your letter right is imperative.
Although the process of responding, reviews comments on my research paper, revising and perhaps responding and revising yet again can be frustrating and time consuming, it is important to remember that you, the journal editor with whom you are communicating and the peer reviewers who are assessing your writing and research are all working toward the same goal — the timely publication of an excellent research paper.
A professional collegial approach that adopts a courteous and objective tone to deal clearly and thoroughly with every detail and issue will make the work of the editor and reviewers more efficient and the publication cycle as a whole smoother and more successful. Your prose should, of course, be formal and correct in every way, so do read and polish your response until every sentence is as clear, accurate and precise as you can make it.
Since each response letter to reviewer comments is unique, the letter below can only serve as a constructive example as you craft your own response. The names, titles, reviews comments on my research paper, contact information and publishing situation used in this letter are entirely fictional, but the principles and procedures are realistic and sound. The complete date and full mailing addresses are used in the style of a traditional business letter despite the assumption of an email format.
You may or may not want to adopt this approach, but do be sure to provide your current contact information and the name of the editor you are addressing normally the editor who sent you the decision letterhis or her title and the title of the journal. The way in which changes should be made and the revised manuscript submitted vary among journals and editors, reviews comments on my research paper.
This letter assumes that the authors have been asked to mark changes by using red font and resubmit their revised manuscript with their response via email, but do check guidelines and the decision letter you received for the requirements for your responses and revised manuscript, including any information on deadlines. Keep in mind as you write that not just the editor but all of the reviewers may end up seeing everything you have written.
Editors may cut and paste and reviews comments on my research paper your responses as they see fit to achieve the results they envision for your paper, so be prepared for this possibility. You should definitely address each of the reviewers individually as you respond to his or her comments, aiming for a layout that makes it absolutely clear which comment you are responding to at any given moment and exactly what you have changed in your manuscript, reviews comments on my research paper.
Some authors use different fonts and colours to distinguish reviewer comments from author responses and changes, but do be aware that these features can be lost in online formats, reviews comments on my research paper, so a Word document or pdf file would be a more reliable choice for such formatting.
Do not hesitate to repeat information as necessary, incorporating small adjustments geared at the person you are addressing in each case the discussion of Table 1 in the letter below is an example of thisbut remember not to write anything to one reviewer that you would not want another one to read. If there are matters of a particularly sensitive nature that you wish to communicate to the editor only, be sure to discuss them in a separate document that is clearly not intended for reviewer eyes.
Finally, do not neglect to thank the editor and reviewers for their observations and comments. Their time is precious and many comments on your manuscript mean that they have dedicated a significant portion of it to help you improve your work.
Be careful not to overstate your gratitude, however, and risk the impression of hollow flattery. Thoughtful attention to each of the observations and suggestions your reviewers offer will repay their efforts far more effectively.
I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded to them individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The changes are marked in red in the paper as you requested, and the revised manuscript is attached to this email message. It does not list hands and scripts about which we remain uncertain, and for this reason Reviewer 1 suggests that it be removed and the descriptions of hands that it contains used to lengthen the descriptions in the main text of the paper.
Reviewer 2, on the other hand, would like to see the table longer, with all possible hands and scripts included and tentative dates provided wherever possible. We considered both solutions and finally decided on a longer table as a tool that sets the information out clearly and comparatively. This allowed us to shorten and simplify the discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text of the paper, but it has resulted in a larger table, so we are eager to know your perspective on the matter, reviews comments on my research paper.
In fact, we tried the revisions that way at first and would be happy to send that version along as well if it might be helpful. It had been miraculously preserved for years in a hidden chamber carved into the keelson of a recently excavated Mediterranean brigantine named Pantofola di Seta the Silk Slipper. Regarding more minor matters, we have now changed our spelling and phrasing patterns from American to British English. I apologise for neglecting that requirement in the author instructions when we originally submitted the manuscript.
We have also made good use of the two articles you mentioned. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society but are happy to consider further revisions, and we thank you for your continued interest in our research.
The paper is perfect for the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society. I am uncertain that Table 1 is necessary and I have discovered one grammatical error which unfortunately appears throughout the manuscript and must be repaired, but beyond that I have very little helpful commentary to offer.
Comment 2: Table 1 reviews comments on my research paper not contain all the scripts and hands discussed in the paper, so it seems incomplete. I preferred the lengthier descriptions in the main text and would recommend that the table be removed and the descriptions of the more certain hands it contains be used to lengthen those descriptions in the main text. Response: Thank you so much for catching these glaring and confusing errors, which we have now corrected.
Changes: We have gone through the entire manuscript carefully and adjusted every relevant sentence to avoid dangling modifiers and clarify our meaning. Reviewer 2. Comment 1: It is clear that the authors know a good deal more about medieval manuscripts than about seamanship, but the manuscript is worthy of publication provided the following matters are addressed.
Response: Thank you for your assessment. We are indeed manuscript specialists who are learning more about ships and the sea via our studies of the Brigantine Manuscript. Response: We agree that better use of nautical terminology would be more accurate and precise and have taken your advice. Changes: We consulted the nautical glossary compiled by General Saltydog that was recommended by the assistant editor, Dr Wordsmith, and improved or corrected every ambiguous or inaccurate term we detected, reviews comments on my research paper.
Each changed word is marked in red in the reviews comments on my research paper paper, and we would be happy to make further alterations. Comment 3: Table 1 seems too selective. Response: Thank you for reminding us how important it is to present complex material like details of hands and scripts in reviews comments on my research paper concise and readily accessible way. We agree that the table would be better if it included all hands in the manuscript and have made the following changes.
Changes: We lengthened the table by adding the remaining hands and scripts, describing each briefly and offering an approximate date, reviews comments on my research paper. We have not entirely removed the descriptions of hands and scripts from the main text of the paper, but lengthening the table has allowed us to shorten and simplify the overall discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text.
The changes in both table and text reviews comments on my research paper in red type in the revised paper. The discussion itself follows a logical line of reasoning for the most part and presents persuasive interpretations and conclusions, but it is a little complex at times, so more divisions and a more defined system of organisation would be helpful.
Response: Thank you for this excellent observation. The discussion section is a little dense at times and could use more structure and clear guidance for the reader. Changes: We have added a number of subsections with informative headings that summarise key points in the discussion. We used as a model an article published by the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society and recommended by Dr Wordsmith, and we believe that the argument is clearer as a result, but we would welcome comments on particular sections and headings if you have further concerns.
The new material is marked in red in the revised paper, reviews comments on my research paper. You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service. com i Journal Editing Journal editing and proofreading services. Scientific editing services for publication success. Grant editing and proofreading services.
Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments on Submitted Articles This Free Example address Comments of Peer Reviewers. Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments Posted by Rene Tetzner Sep 11, Help with Peer Review 0. Name Email Subscribe, reviews comments on my research paper.
uk November 14, Subject: Revision and resubmission of manuscript JSMS N Sincerely, Edward Researcher Edward Researcher Professor of Medieval Latin Palaeography Institute. Response: Thank you! We found your comments extremely helpful and have revised accordingly. Response: Both you and the other reviewer commented on this table, so we are grateful to know that our current approach requires some rethinking. Unfortunately, your suggestions differ, with the second reviewer asking that Table 1 be lengthened to include all hands and scripts in the manuscript.
Reviews comments on my research paper have considered both solutions and decided to keep Table 1, but we have also asked the assistant editor, Dr Wordsmith, for her feedback on this issue and are certainly willing to remove the table as you suggested if that proves best for the paper and the journal. Changes: We lengthened the table by adding the rest of the hands and scripts we have detected in the manuscript, describing each briefly and offering an approximate date.
We have reviews comments on my research paper removed the descriptions of hands and scripts that you found useful in the main text, but lengthening the table has allowed us to shorten and simplify the overall discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text of the paper. For example, this sentence appears on p.
Here and elsewhere corrections are required. Reviewer 2 Comment 1: It is clear that the authors know a good deal more about medieval manuscripts than reviews comments on my research paper seamanship, reviews comments on my research paper, but the manuscript is worthy of publication provided the following matters are addressed. Journal Editing Journal editing and proofreading services. Scientific Editing Scientific editing services for publication success. Grant Editing Grant editing and proofreading services.
Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments on Submitted Articles. Previous Choosing the Right Journal. Related Posts. Our Recent Posts Examples of Research Paper Topics in Different Study Areas Sep 19, How To Get Published. Making Good Use of a Professional Proofreader Sep 17, How To Get Published. How To Format Your Journal Paper Using Published Articles Sep 16, How To Get Published.
Journal Rejection as Inspiration for a New Perspective Sep 14, Dealing with Paper Rejection. Journal Article Editing Services. Our academic and scientific journal editors and proofreaders can help you to avoid any problems with your language, adjusting your formatting and references to conform consistently to journal requirements and correcting any errors.
Scientific Editing Services. The professional scientific editors at PRS can help you to meet the rigorous demands of scientific writing and reduce the risk of rejection or failure by checking and correcting your grammar, spelling, punctuation, formatting and many other aspects of your documents.
Dissertation Proofreading Services. Medical Editing Services. The members of the medical editing team have the aptitude, reviews comments on my research paper, expertise and training needed to check and correct errors in language and formatting, reviews comments on my research paper, ensuring that your writing is polished to perfection. PhD Thesis Reviews comments on my research paper Services. Please send your PhD thesis or dissertation to Proof-Reading-Service.
com along with any guidelines that you are following, and one of our professional PhD thesis and dissertation editors will be happy to help you to succeed.
How to review a research paper?
, time: 2:35How to Respond to Reviewer Comments and Revise Your Research Paper - Enago Academy
This section includes a response written by a professor to a student who was working on an independent study project. Reading through the response may provide you a better understanding of the application of concepts mentioned elsewhere on this writing web site. You may be able to apply the professor's comments to your own paper as you edit one of your rough drafts Because of this, the review should be more than a simple "accept" or "reject". When writing a review, you should describe the reasons for the recommendation so that the editor can make an informed decision. It is far more important to comment on the academic content of a paper Aug 25, · Writing helpful peer review comments, like the art of tightrope walking, requires honing the ability to balance on many fine lines. Referees have to find a balance between overstepping the lines of being too critical or too careful, too specific or too vague,
No comments:
Post a Comment