Related Experiment Videos
How to reply to referees' comments when submitting manuscripts for publication
1Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Queen's Medical Centre, United Kingdom. hywel.williams@nottingham.ac.uk
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
|July 10, 2004
Summary
Novice scientific writers can improve manuscript acceptance by addressing peer review comments constructively. Follow three golden rules: respond completely, politely, and with evidence to maximize publication success.
Area of Science:
- Biomedical research
- Scientific publishing
Background:
- Manuscript publication involves responding to peer review comments.
- Limited guidance exists for handling these comments in scientific literature.
Purpose of the Study:
- To guide novice writers in effectively managing peer review feedback.
- To increase the likelihood of manuscript acceptance after revision.
Main Methods:
- Literature review.
- Analysis of author's experience as a writer and peer reviewer.
Main Results:
- Prioritize revising and resubmitting manuscripts over seeking new venues.
- A structured response format is recommended, adhering to three key principles: completeness, politeness, and evidence-based replies.
Conclusions:
- Overcome personal reactions to reviewer feedback.
- Address concerns courteously, objectively, and with supporting evidence to facilitate publication.