1. Dealing with reviewer comments
Fi Macnab
Executive Publisher

2. What is peer review’s role in the overall process?
For nearly 400 years, peer review has placed
the reviewer, with the author, at the heart of
scientific publishing
Reviewers make the editorial process work by examining and commenting on manuscripts
Peer review—whatever form it takes—acts as a control on scientific communication
Reviewers are the backbone of the whole process
Fosters debate within the field
Image: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. (2018, January 14). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 17:13, January 23, 2018, from

3. Purpose of peer review To improve quality of the published paper
Ensure previous work is acknowledged
Frequently detects fraud and plagiarism
But authors are responsible for adhering to ethical procedures and standards
Determine the importance of findings
Assess the originality and significance of the work
Identify mistakes in the methodology, lack of originality, conclusions not supported by results
Highlight omissions in the reference list and any ethics concerns

4. Why do reviewers review?
Sense of “duty” to the field
“Sharing economy” of reviewers as authors (and vice versa)
Enjoy reviewing
Awareness of new research and developments at an early stage
Career development
Help with own research or new ideas
Association with journal, editor or scholarly society

5. The main forms of peer review
Single or double blind peer review
Varies massively across disciplines
Single most common
Annals of African Surgery uses double-blind
“Sound science” peer review
Any paper reporting original & technically sound results of primary research, which adheres to accepted ethical and scientific publishing standards, will be published regardless of its perceived impact.
PLOS One, Heliyon, Frontiers, etc.
Pre-publication or post-publication
Pre-pub: vast, vast majority
Post-pub: e.g. F1000, Copernicus

6. Expectation of peer reviewers
State any potential conflicts of interest
Keep comments confidential
Be objective
Be constructive
Be timely

7. “Typical” peer-review process
Author submits article to journal
Journal Editor screens paper
Rejected after screening
Reviewer
Reviewer
Rejected
Makes revisions
Editor assessment of reviews
Accepted no revisions required

8. Getting your paper back
Rejected without review (desk reject) – approx. 35%
Accept
Minor revision
Major revision
Revise and Resubmit
Reject after review
Image: Nick Kim -

9. First steps Stay calm Read the comments Re-read the comments
Once you get your paper back…..
Stay calm
Read the comments
Re-read the comments
Get someone else to read the comments
Take a break
Make a table that details every comment and the changes required

10. Common issues raised by reviewers
Research not original, insightful, definitive
Inappropriate design/methods, including statistical
Ethical concerns
Failure to comprehensively review up-to-date literature in Introduction and Discussion
Over-reliance on older references or references from one research group

11. Peer review—responding to reviewers’ comments
An opportunity, not a criticism
Chance to make a better paper—be conscientious and cooperative
Respond promptly
Ask the editor if you need more time
Provide point-by-point list of
How each comment was addressed; justification for not addressing any comments
Respond to ALL editorial points—e.g., format, style, author statements

12. Resubmit or go elsewhere?
Never submit the same version of the article elsewhere
Always use the reviewers comments

14. Thank you
and
Good Luck