Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.

Humans Peer Review, Research / standards Guidelines as Topic Writing / standards Publishing / standards Peer Review / standards
Academic publishing Manuscript evaluation Manuscript review process Peer assessment Peer review Research quality Review Reviewer comments Revision guidelines manuscript assessment

Journal

F1000Research
ISSN: 2046-1402
Titre abrégé: F1000Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101594320

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2024
Historique:
accepted: 05 08 2024
medline: 9 9 2024
pubmed: 9 9 2024
entrez: 9 9 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Opinion article. To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Opinion article.
Aim UNASSIGNED
To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates.
Results UNASSIGNED
Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented.
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.154614.1 PMID: 39246824 PMC: PMC11377928
pubmed: 39246824
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.154614.1
pmc: PMC11377928
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

921

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Hidouri S et al.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

No competing interests were disclosed.

Auteurs

Saida Hidouri (S)

Department of Pediatric surgery, Zaghouan Hospital, Research Laboratory LR12SP13, University of Monastir Faculty de Medicine of Monastir, Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia.
ORCID: 0000-0003-3220-8028

Hela Kamoun (H)

Ibn Nafiss Pneumology Department, Abderrahmene Mami Hospital, Ariana, University of Tunis El Manar Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia.
ORCID: 0000-0003-4431-846X

Sana Salah (S)

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital Monastir, University of Monastir Faculty of Dental Medicine of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia.
ORCID: 0000-0002-2858-8796

Anis Jellad (A)

Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital Monastir, University of Monastir Faculty of Dental Medicine of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia.
ORCID: 0000-0002-1848-2103

Helmi Ben Saad (H)

Hôpital Farhat HACHED, Laboratoire de recherche LR12SP09 «Insuffisance cardiaque», 4000 Sousse, Université de Sousse Faculté de Médecine de Sousse, Sousse, 4000, Tunisia.
ORCID: 0000-0002-7477-2965

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female

Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.

Ciara Duggan, Adam L Beckman, Ishani Ganguli et al.
1.00
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C

Effectiveness of Virtual Yoga for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Hallie Tankha, Devyn Gaskins, Amanda Shallcross et al.
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH

questionsmedicales.fr › Eucaryotes › Animaux › Chordés › Vertébrés › Mammifères › Eutheria › Primates › Haplorhini › Catarrhini › Hominidae › Humains › Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.
questionsmedicales.fr › Organisations et économie des soins de santé › Contrôle social formel › Évaluation par les pairs › Évaluation de la recherche par les pairs › Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.
questionsmedicales.fr › Qualité, accès, évaluation des soins de santé › Assurance de la qualité des soins de santé › Recommandations comme sujet › Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.
questionsmedicales.fr › Sciences de l'information › Langage › Arts du langage › Écriture › Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.
questionsmedicales.fr › Sciences de l'information › Édition › Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.
questionsmedicales.fr › Organisations et économie des soins de santé › Contrôle social formel › Évaluation par les pairs › Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.