• Everybody makes errors, therefore avoid being disheartened. The review procedure should enable you to boost your paper.
• The review procedure is generally “blind”, so that the reviewer will maybe maybe perhaps not understand writer names or affiliations.

List of positive actions

• Then do so if you can fix the problem with your paper.
• If this calls for more experimental research, ask the Editor before proceeding, and indicate the time frame that is likely.
• You save anything from your research that is worth publishing if you can’t fix the problem, can?

Just how to react:

• We’re incredibly grateful to Reviewer X for pointing away this problem. We now have [recalculated the data]/[revised Table 1]/[re-examined the initial scans] and modified the writing where highlighted.

Reviewer: highlights a mistake in your paper, however you disagree

Author: This reviewer is an idiot. Does not he know any thing relating to this topic area?

• Its not all reviewer is a https://essaywriters.us/ specialist into the field that is exact asked to examine. It’s hard for the log to find sufficient reviewers for a paper. Or maybe the Editor-in-Chief just isn’t acquainted with this area, and assigned the paper to a reviewer from the field that is different.
• Nonetheless, the reviewer offered their viewpoint, along with to answer it.

Author: i do believe this reviewer is biased!

• The review procedure is generally “blind”, so that the reviewer will not understand whom the author is.
• Perchance you think the reviewer guessed you had been speaking that is non-English as well as from Asia, and ended up being prejudiced as a result of that.
• Maybe you might think the writer is biased against specific view points, or research areas.
• As with any people, also reviewers have actually needs and wants, they could be unacquainted with their prejudices that are own.
• As above, the reviewer provided their viewpoint, and you have to react to it.

Do the following

• Stick to the reality. Stay courteous, but keep feeling from it.
• In the event that reviewers remark isn’t well established in reality, it must be rather easy to provide a response that is successful.
• If you were to think the paper doesn’t need a big change, provide an explanation that is brief supporting sources or information.
• Maybe a change that is small your paper might explain the purpose. Any indicator that the reviewer misinterpreted your paper implies you may have to make some modifications.
• When your paper had been refused due to the review, you have to possibility to appeal your decision. But understand that it will be the Editor-in-Chief who makes the choice to reject. Only appeal in the event that you think the review really misjudged your paper.
• You may submit your paper to a different log after rejection. But keep in mind that you can find a restricted quantity of reviewers in every industry of research. Your paper might be assigned to your exact same reviewer by a various log, and then he will never be impressed if he views that their reviewer reviews were ignored.

Simple tips to react:

Here’s an illustration where mcdougal felt it ended up being not required in order to make any change

and has now tactfully recommended into the Editor that the paper is aligned along with other posted research in this industry.

• The reviewer has commented we purchased the method that is wrong test for ABC. Although we concur with the reviewer that technique X was the accepted technique into the past, since technique Y had been introduced by White et al. (J Sci Method 1999:35;1-10) this has become the typical, and so happens to be mentioned in research reports without further reason (like in the recommendations in cited inside our paper). We now have currently included a citation towards the paper that is original White et al. We will be happy to add a supporting paragraph to the paper if you require further discussion of this method.