1. Survive Peer Reviews: How to Respond to Peer Reviewers Comments
Salem A Beshyah
MBBCh DIC PhD FRCP FACP FACE
Consultant Physician, SKMC, Abu Dhabi, UAE
EIC, Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences
President-Elect, Gulf Chapter, American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists
3rd Qatar Internal Medicine Conference
Saturday 8th October 2016: 16:15-16:35

2. How to Respond to Peer Reviewers Comments: Disclosures
No conflicts of interest is related to this presentation.

3. How to Respond to Peer Reviewers Comments: Educational Objectives
The intent of this presentation is to provide all authors with an insight into the peer review process and practical suggestions for revising a manuscript in a manner that will ……….
……….. increase the likelihood that the revised manuscript will be accepted for publication.

4. Responding to Peer Reviewers Outlines
Goals of the peer review process.
What happens to your paper when it gets to the journal?
Type of editorial verdicts
Response to editors and reviewers comments?
Preparation
Adjustment
The response letter
What happens next?
Summary and conclusions.

5. “Goals of editorial peer review”
Assist editors in making decisions about publishing a manuscript.
Offer constructive feedback to authors that will enhance the final writing product.
Improve critical thinking and writing skills of editors, reviewers, and authors.
Provide readers, researchers, and other users of the journal with polished, readable article.
Reduce bias and improve the quality of published research.
Ensure that published research adheres to ethical standards for biomedical publishing.

6. What Happened to your paper when it gets to the journal?
The corresponding author makes a submission.
Electronic acknowledgement.
Preliminary check by editorial staff.
Assignment of “a handling editor”.
An editor makes an initial assessment.
Paper sent out for peer reviewers.
Peer reviewers response.
Final editorial decision made.
Editorial decision sent to The corresponding author.

7. Revision: ?? Most Commonly
Types of Editorial Decisions (Verdicts) (and their implications – May vary)
Acceptance:  Rarely
Rejection: X Commonly
Revision: ?? Most Commonly
? - Minor revisions Editor will review
?? - Major Send to reviewer
Other: Submit elsewhere, Change to a letter, Refer to a sister journal.
What you should know There are three types of editorial decisions about submitted papers: acceptance, rejection (immediately by the journal’s editor or after peer review), or revision (usually with peer review). Many published papers have been rejected and/or revised several times before being accepted. Receiving a ‘‘revise and resubmit’’ decision proves that a journal is interested, which is good news because it means there is a good chance of acceptation if you respond satisfactorily to the reviewers’ comments. Journals experience difficulties in obtaining a sufficient number (at least two) of high-quality reviewer reports in time. Such reports contain comments fromthe reviewer to the author (usually anonymously) and additional comments to the editor, which will not be forwarded to the author. Reviewers’ comments and recommendations frequently differ from each other. Editors will use these reports to judge whether the findings reported in a paper are sufficiently substantiated, but they will also base their decision on their judgment about whether these findings are new and relevant to their audience. A ‘‘reject after review’’ decision contains the reviewers’ comments on the paper. A ‘‘revise and resubmit’’ decision contains the reviewers’ comments and sometimes additional editorial comments. A well-written review is structured into ‘‘major comments,’’ which you will definitely need to address in a revision, and ‘‘minor comments.’’ Each comment ideally includes a clear point of criticism with reference to a specific part of the paper and sometimes a suggestion for revision (if possible). The revised version of the paper will be read and judged by the editor and may also be returned to the reviewers to assess whether comments have been addressed satisfactorily. Reviewers and editors may then ask for further revisions.

8. Responding to Reviewers- where to find help?

9. Responding to Reviewers- where to find help?

10. Characteristics that allow an author to successfully revise a manuscript
Acceptance of criticism.
Willingness to revise one’s position.
Perseverance.
Good organizational skills.

11. The THREE Golden Rules for Responding to Rreferees’ comments
Rule 1. Answer completely
Rule 2. Answer politely
Rule 3. Answer with evidence
Williams HC. How to reply to referees’ comment when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 51:79-83

12. The Ten Principles for Revising a Manuscript I.
1. Decide whether to resubmit the manuscript to the same journal.
2. Contact the editor regarding unresolved issues.
3. Prioritize the reviewers’ comments.
4. Approach the reviewer as a consultant rather than an adversary.
5. Deal with reviewer comments with which one does not agree.
Provenzale JM. AJR 2010; 195:W382–W387

13. The Ten Principles for Revising a Manuscript II.
6. Disagree without being disagreeable. 7. Devise a strategy for responding to divergent comments. 8. Put in the work and show all that you have done 9. If requested, shorten the manuscript, consult with statistician and use English revising resources…. 10. Review the medical literature before resubmission.
Provenzale JM. AJR 2010; 195:W382–W387

14. The Components of the Response
The response Letter (both are essential):
Covering note
Point by Point Response.
The Revised Paper (1 or 2 versions):
Marked Copy (using track changes, highlighted or color coded changes)
Final Clean Copy

15. The Response Letter This may be a hurdle for starting authors.
Simply, You are putting words all what was discussed before.
Consult
with an experienced author from your group or
consider using a templete if you need guidance:

16. Example of The Covering Note

17. The Classical Point-by-Point Responses

18. Sit and wait hoping for …..
Dear Author, I am pleased to confirm that you manuscript is now finally accepted for publication. Kindest regards, EIC. The Favorite Journal of All Authors

19. Responding to Reviewers Comments: Final “Pearls of Wisdom”
Where possible, consider revising and resubmitting rather than sending an article elsewhere.
Responding to referees' comments requires the writer to:
overcome any feelings of personal attack
concentrate on addressing referees' concern.
Respond in a courteous, objective, and evidence-based way.
Remember the Williams’ 3 golden rules 1) respond completely; 2) respond politely; and 3) respond with evidence.
Williams HC. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 51:79-83

20. Responding to reviewers: Summary
In case of Revise and Verdict
A. Provide a point-by-point response to all reviewer comments, structured as:
author’s response to the reviewer (in a respectful tone);
changes to the paper (whether and where).
B. Provide a marked revision of your paper.
In case of rejection:
do not get frustrated and motivate yourself to move on quickly.
improve your paper if possible, based on the reviewers’ comments.
Submit the new version to a different journal.
Get co-authors’ approval on revisions & resubmissions.

21. شكراً جزيلاً Thank You 22