RESPONDING TO REVIEWER COMMENTS Irwan Supriyanto Bagian Ilmu Kedokteran Jiwa Fakultas Kedokteran UGM 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Peer Review Process and Responding to Reviewers APS Professional Skills Course: Writing and Reviewing for Scientific Journals.
Advertisements

Critical Reading Strategies: Overview of Research Process
An introductory tutorial
1 Publishing in European Journal of Teacher Education 28th August 2010 Kay Livingston, Editor, EJTE Geri Smyth, Co-Editor, EJTE Katie Peace, Publisher,
The Art of Publishing Aka “just the facts ma’am”.
Work Flows of the Online Review System Copernicus Office Editor Copernicus Publications | April 2014.
Tips for Publishing Qualitative Research Sandra Mathison University of British Columbia Editor-in-Chief, New Directions for Evaluation.
What happens after submission? Sadeghi Ramin, MD Nuclear Medicine Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences.
Publishing Journal Articles Simon Hix Prof. of European & Comparative Politics LSE Government Department My experience How journals work Choosing a journal.
Getting Your Article Published: The Mysteries of Peer-Review and the Decisions of Journals Howard Bauchner, MD, FAAP, FRCPCH Editor-in-Chief, ADC Professor.
Paper written! Now for the harder part: getting it published! Sue Silver, PhD Editor in Chief Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment Ecological Society.
Reviewing Papers: What Reviewers Look For Session 19 C507 Scientific Writing.
Reviewing the work of others Referee reports. Components of a referee report Summary of the paper Overall evaluation Comments about content Comments about.
Scholarship Skills Tim Sheard & Todd Leen 1 Lecture 19 Scholarship Skills Tim Sheard, PSU Todd Leen, OGI-OHSU All material © 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000 David.
Publishing your work in English in international journals October Prof. Arthur P. Cracknell Editor, International Journal of Remote Sensing Modified.
Reasons of rejection Paolo Russo Università di Napoli Federico II Dipartimento di Fisica Napoli, Italy 8th ECMP, Athens, Sep. 13th,
Manuscript Writing and the Peer-Review Process
Publishing a Journal Article: An Overview of the Process Barbara Gastel, MD, MPH Texas A&M University
Peer Review for Addiction Journals Robert L. Balster Editor-in-Chief Drug and Alcohol Dependence.
Top Ten Ways to Get Published (in a scholarly journal) with apologies to David Letterman Jim Levin Education Studies University of California, San Diego.
Academic Article Writing Dr. Edward Robeck Visiting Faculty Member, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)
The Submission Process Jane Pritchard Learning and Teaching Advisor.
11 Reasons Why Manuscripts are Rejected
Procedures for reviewing and/or editing an article Role of the members of the editorial board in the reviewing process:. 1.Role of the editor in chief.
Writing a research paper in science/physics education The first episode! Apisit Tongchai.
So you want to publish an article? The process of publishing scientific papers Williams lab meeting 14 Sept 2015.
Submitting Medical Papers for Publication (How to avoid getting kicked in the stomach) and Reviewing Medical Papers (How to kick others in the stomach.
Submitting Manuscripts to Journals: An Editor’s Perspective Michael K. Lindell Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center Texas A&M University.
How to Write Defne Apul and Jill Shalabi. Papers Summarized Johnson, T.M Tips on how to write a paper. J Am Acad Dermatol 59:6, Lee,
Margunn Aanestad and Tiwonge Manda
Writing a Research Manuscript GradWRITE! Presentation Student Development Services Writing Support Centre University of Western Ontario.
How should it respond to reviewers’ views? Prof. Suleyman Kaplan Department of Histology and Embryology Medical School Ondokuz Mayıs University Samsun,
Morten Blomhøj and Paola Valero Our agenda: 1.The journal NOMAD’s mission, review policy and process 2.Two reviews of a paper 3.Frequent comments in reviews.
"Writing for Researchers" Monday, July :35-3:45PM. Laurence R Weatherley– Spahr Professor of Chemical Engineering, Department of Chemical and.
Publication Vehicles Engineering society journals Papers usually refereed Prestigious Technical trade magazines Emphasize practical applications, processes,
THE REVIEW PROCESS –HOW TO EFFECTIVELY REVISE A PAPER David Smallbone Professor of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, SBRC, Kingston University Associate.
How to Satisfy Reviewer B and Other Thoughts on the Publication Process: Reviewers’ Perspectives Don Roy Past Editor, Marketing Management Journal.
PUBLISHING THE RESEARCH RESULTS: Researcher Motivation is an Important Step Dr.rer.nat. Heru Susanto Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat.
FOR 500 The Publication Process Karl Williard & John Groninger.
Responding to Reviewers. Rare to get an acceptance with no changes So two paths, rejection or revise and resubmit Rejection Revise and Resubmit.
FEMS Microbiology Ecology Getting Your Work Published Telling a Compelling Story Working with Editors and Reviewers Jim Prosser Chief Editor FEMS Microbiology.
Medical Writing How to get funded and published November 2003.
Dealing with Reviews. Rejection hurts, but is it fatal?
Cleveland State University ESC 720 Technical Communications How to Respond to Peer Reviews Dan Simon 1.
COLD READING UNIT. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU HEAR “COLD READING?”
Publishing Papers© Dr. Ayman Abdel-Hamid, CS5014, Fall CS5014 Research Methods in CS Dr. Ayman Abdel-Hamid Computer Science Department Virginia.
Pointers for Surviving the Editorial Process Peter B. Imrey, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Case Western Reserve University.
Dr. Sundar Christopher Navigating Graduate School and Beyond: Sow Well Now To Reap Big Later Writing Papers.
Lab Report Conclusion. Grading *Restate your hypothesis. (3 points) Do you accept or reject your hypothesis (3 points), and why using evidence. Describe.
Warwick Business School James Hayton Associate Dean & Professor of HRM & Entrepreneurship Editor in Chief Human Resource Management (Wiley) Past Editor:
What’s Included in a Review Irving H. Zucker, Ph.D. University of Nebraska Medical Center A Primer for Potential Reviewers Experimental Biology 2014 San.
UEF // University of Eastern Finland How to publish scientific journal articles? 10 STEPS TO SUCCESS lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.
Publishing research in a peer review journal: Strategies for success
The peer review process
Taylor’s University, Malaysia
Role of peer review in journal evaluation
How to publish from your MEd or PhD research
Academic Writing and Publishing
Procedural review of initial WG ballot on P802.1CF
Dealing with reviewer comments
Tessa West New York University
Advice on getting published
Business The test… The peer reviews….
Manuscripts and publishing
Appeals Do you really want to publish in this journal?
Strategi Memperbaiki dan Menyiapkan Naskah (Manuscript) Hasil Review
Post-submission Outcomes The review black box Editorial rejection
Before you appeal, ask yourself:
Presentation transcript:

RESPONDING TO REVIEWER COMMENTS Irwan Supriyanto Bagian Ilmu Kedokteran Jiwa Fakultas Kedokteran UGM 2014

4 types of response from your editor – Accepted without any changes – Accepted with minor revisions (provisional acceptance) – Accepted with major revisions (provisional rejection) – Flat rejection 12/10/20152

REJECTION 12/10/20153

4

8 reasons why editor rejected your manuscript – It fails the technical screening – It does not fall within the Aims and Scope – It’s incomplete – The procedure and/or analysis is seen to be defective – The conclusions cannot be justified on the basis of the rest of the paper – It’s simply an extension of different paper – It’s incomprehensible – Its boring or unattractive 12/10/20155

ACCEPTED WITH REVISIONS 12/10/20156

7

8

Tips responding to reviewer comments 1.Get mad. Then get over it 2.Consider what the editor decision letter really says 3.Wait and gather your thoughts 4.Even if the reviewer is wrong, it does not mean you are right 5.Choose your battle wisely 12/10/20159

6.Do not pit one reviewer against another 7.Be grateful for the reviewers’ and editor’s time 8.Restate the reviewer’s or editor’s comment when responding 9.Be prepared to cut down your manuscript 10.Do not submit the same version to another journal 12/10/201510

What the reviewers usually want 1.Request for clarification of text, addition or omission of text, or additional details 2.Request to re-analyze, re-express, or re-interpret existing data 3.Request for additional experiments or further proof of your concept 4.Request simply you cannot meet 12/10/201511

Changes and Modifications – Change and modify where it makes sense – No requirement to make every suggested change, but address all comments – You must have a good reason for rejecting a suggestion – Sometimes, it’s worth to let go.. 12/10/201512

Conflicting Reviewer Comments – Choose the comment that seems more valid (to the best of your knowledge) – Note your change to the reviewer’s comment you chose to accept – Note the conflict to the other reviewer (and hope you made the best choice) – Never confront the two 12/10/201513

Rejecting Reviewer Comments – You can reject reviewer comments if you have strong arguments – Lay out your arguments and clarify more about your findings – Never states that the reviewer is wrong – There a possibility that you are the cause of this comments 12/10/201514

12/10/201515

12/10/201516