1 / 12

Strategies to Navigate the Peer-Review Process

Learn effective strategies for addressing disagreements in the peer review process and how to respond to comments from reviewers. This guide also provides insights on resubmitting your manuscript for publication.

alicel
Download Presentation

Strategies to Navigate the Peer-Review Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Strategies to Navigate the Peer-Review Process How to approach disagreements with referees October 2010

  2. Strategies to Navigate the Peer-Review Process • Introduction • Types of disagreements • Responding to Comments • Resubmission

  3. Introduction The peer-review system (realizable in different ways) has become an indispensable element of scientific publishing. Role of peer review • Intended to provide an unbiased appraisal of the importance and topical nature of the research work • Reduce/eliminate internal inconsistencies or spurious inferences • Improvements to the manuscript since authors are expected to gain from the wider and/or complementary experience of the referee

  4. Strategies to Navigate the Peer-Review Process • Introduction • Types of disagreements • Responding to Comments • Resubmission

  5. Types of Disagreements - I The peer-review process, by its very nature, retains an element of subjectivity. No two opinions about a research article are exactly the same: accepting this natural divergence of opinions is the first step in addressing this process. Broad types of disagreements • The author and reviewer may have some differences of opinion, which can be fixed through minor revisions to the manuscript • If the opinions differ significantly, then major revisions are necessitated • The quality of presentation/research may be found wanting or the reviewer may have major reservations about the conclusions

  6. Types of Disagreements - II Based on the nature of disagreements, a referee may suggest different courses of action as outlined below • Cosmetic/minor changes to the manuscript to improve overall presentation, clarity and readability • Shortcomings which require to be addressed but are not crucial to the outcome or conclusions of the research • Major revisions due to substantial deficiencies in the research approach, methodology or conclusions • Reviewer may suggest rejection of the article or publication in a different journal

  7. Strategies to Navigate the Peer-Review Process • Introduction • Types of disagreements • Responding to Comments • Resubmission

  8. Responding to Comments - I • The following courses of action are recommended to authors • Minor revisions • Implement suggestions as pointed out by the referee • List these separately in chronological order • In case of any deviations, justify these succinctly • Major revisions • Scrutinize and critically assess the recommendations of the referee • Implement these, if in agreement • Otherwise, provide adequate, additional supporting evidence and arguments

  9. Responding to Comments - II • Rejection • Examine and analyze the arguments of the referee. Discuss with co-authors, peers and possibly other experts to determine whether rejection is warranted • Due to non-conformity with journal scope: examine merits of argument and resubmit to a more suitable journal, if appropriate • Deficiencies in quality: Implement improvements in areas suggested by referee and make a case for acceptance • In case of difference of opinion with referee, provide logical arguments, with supporting evidence, about the methods and inferences in the paper

  10. Strategies to Navigate the Peer-Review Process • Introduction • Types of disagreements • Responding to Comments • Resubmission

  11. Resubmission • The following procedure may be adopted for resubmitting a manuscript • Prepare a detailed response/rebuttal to every point made by the reviewer • Make necessary changes to the manuscript • List the responses and changes to the manuscript in a cover letter • If the situation demands, draft a separate letter to the editor (not to be seen by the referee), to address various issues relating to the referee or comments • In case of rejection, request different referee/s, citing appropriate reasons. If all else fails, an appeal may be made to the editorial board of the journal. The chances of success will usually be low and publication of the article delayed.

  12. About Crimson • Enago™ is the leading editing and publication service provider for scientific manuscripts in Japan, and has a total of over 10000 clients in many countries. • Ulatus™ provides Japanese to English translation services in numerous subject areas for almost every document type. • Voxtab™ is thetranscription arm of our business and provides accurate and reliable transcriptions, with fast turnaround times.

More Related