2. Manuscript Rejected! To revise or not to revise?? A case study of how to analyze, evaluate and use reviewer comments.

3. James A. Shymansky E. Desmond Lee Professor of Science Education University of Missouri-- St. Louis

4. Things to think about in making the decision

5. Be objective! Decision to revise should be based on analysis and evaluation of the reviews not an emotional reaction to them. Recommend that you create your own rating/response system for dealing with the reviewer comments.

6. What to consider seriously Everything! But specifically: Criticisms specific to text Suggestions to improve text Comments consistent across reviews

7. What to consider less so Criticisms that contradict Criticisms that reflect a bias Reviews that are hastily done

8. My rating criteria Is the comment valid/reasonable? Can I make the change suggested? Should I make the change suggested? If not, what should I do about it?

9. We all get rejected! Let’s analyze and evaluate the reviews of a manuscript that your two humble conference presenters submitted with two coauthors and had rejected! To revise or not to revise--that is the question!!

26. Final Considerations Is the manuscript salvageable? Can reported data be re-analyzed? Are there other data to consider? Can/should other data be collected? Could a new co-author make a difference? Should another journal be considered? Persevere; don’t give up!!