1. How should it respond to reviewers’ views? Prof. Suleyman Kaplan Department of Histology and Embryology Medical School Ondokuz Mayıs University Samsun, Turkey skaplan@omu.edu.tr 1

2. Revising the manuscript Decision on the manuscript – Reject – Accept – Accept with minor revision – Accept with major revision 2

3. If the manuscript has serious methodological mistakes... All points of referees’ should be carefully followed and responds Reply to referees’ points are made by point to point. Revising the manuscript 3

4. Read reviewers’ comments dispassionately and do not take offence Note carefully any instructions from the editor or the editorial office We should write a polite letter to editor of journal as well as referee’s comments. All changes and objections must be given in briefly in that letter 4

5. Title: The effect of melatonin and platelet gel on sciatic nerve repair: an electrophysiological and stereological study Manuscript ID: MICR-10-0164.R2 Our responses to Referee(s)' Comments to Author: All changes in the manuscript are shown in blue color. Point 1: I can accept the authors' explanation on that platelet gel may have a positive effect on nerve regeneration. However, the major weak point is that this study did not set up a negative control group, e.g. the nerve was repaired with only conduit. This weakness should be clarified in Discussion. Response 1: A sentence was added to the Discussion section as given in below: “… On the other a major weak point of this experiment is that we did not set up a negative control group, e.g. the nerve was repaired with only conduit… ” Responding to the comments of referees 5

6. Example: 6

7. Responding to the comments of referees 7

8. Accept the referee's comments on adding a new reference: 8

9. Responding to the comments of referees Reject the referee's comments on the technic of study: 9

10. Responding to the comments of referees Accept/reject the referee's comments on the some part of study: 10

11. Responding to the comments of referees Give some explanation for persuading editor and referee: 11

12. “This manuscript is solving a non existing problem”, March, 2000. Prejudice – Does not accept a new member in that subject – Political reasons – Unanticipated reasons (conflict of interest ect.) Responding to the comments of referees 12

13. Last sentence of your respond: Thank you very much for your corrections and suggestions for improving the whole manuscript. Responding to the comments of referees 13

14. Proof reading 14

15. Proof reading You have to read whole manuscript carefully There is no another chance for correction Having many of mistakes blocks reading of your paper. Citations were not been made by readers 15

16. Most Common Reasons for Journal Rejections Rejection is the norm in academic publishing. Even researchers at the top of their field have experienced rejection. Several peer-reviewed studies have investigated the reasons that journals reject papers. 16

17. Lack of originality, novelty, or significance Results that are not generalizable Use of methods that have become obsolete because of new techniques Without adding substantial knowledge Results that are unoriginal, predictable, or ordinary Results that have no clinical, theoretical, or practical implications 17

18. Most Common Reasons for Journal Rejections “Journal editors typically prefer to publish groundbreaking new research.” Academic journals are constantly on the look out for research that is exciting and fresh. 18

19. Most Common Reasons for Journal Rejections Many authors tend to cite the reason that “this has never been studied before” to explain why their paper is significant. Authors should give specific reasons why the research is important. 19

20. Most Common Reasons for Journal Rejections Mismatch with the journal Findings that are of interest to a very narrow Manuscripts lie outside the stated aims and scope of the journal Topics that are not of interest to the journal’s readership Manuscripts that do not follow the format specified by the journal 20

21. Flaws in study design Poorly formulated research question Poor conceptualization of the approach to answering the research question Choice of a weak or unreliable method Choice of an incorrect method or model that is not suitable for the problem to be studied 21

22. Flaws in study design Inappropriate statistical analysis Unreliable or incomplete data Inappropriate or suboptimal instrumentation Small or inappropriately chosen sample Even a well-written paper will not mask flaws in study design. 22

23. “There is no secret recipe for success – just some simple rules, dedication and hard work.” “Editors and reviewers are all busy people, just like you – make things easy to save their time!” “NEVER treat publication as a lottery by resubmitting an unchanged manuscript” 23 **

24. Thank you very much skaplan@omu.edu.tr