WheatOmics WheatOmics

全部
  • 全部
  • 产品管理
  • 新闻资讯
  • 介绍内容
  • 企业网点
  • 常见问题
  • 企业视频
  • 企业图册
  • 刊物
Search

Home

>

Authors Info

Revising and Responding

Authors are encouraged to submit a revised version of their manuscript, with all changes clearly marked (e.g., using the track changes functionality of their word processing program or colored text). The revised manuscript must be accompanied by a cover letter, which includes an itemized response to the reviewer's comments.

When revising your manuscript and responding to peer review comments, please adhere to the following guidelines:

◆  Thank the reviewers and editors for their time and comments.

◆  Address all points raised by the editor and reviewers.

◆  Describe the major revisions to your manuscript in your response letter followed by point-by-point responses to the comments raised.

◆  Perform any additional experiments or analyses the reviewers recommend (unless you feel that they would not make your paper better; if so, please provide sufficient explanation as to why you believe this to be the case in your response letter).

◆  Provide a polite and scientific denial to any points or comments you disagree with. Remember if your manuscript is sent for a second round of peer review the reviewers will see this letter too.

◆  Differentiate between reviewer comments and your responses in your letter.

◆  Clearly show the major revisions in the text, either with a different color text, by highlighting the changes, or with Microsoft Word’s Track Changes feature. This is in addition to describing the changes in your point by point cover letter.

◆  Return the revised manuscript and response letter within the time period allotted by the editor.

The following is an example illustrating how to respond to a reviewer comment:

Reviewer comment: “In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response in agreement with the reviewer: “We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function does make it impossible to fully interpret the data in terms of the prevailing theories. In addition, in its current form, we agree it would be difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We have therefore re-analyzed the data using a Gaussian fitting function.”

Response disagreeing with the reviewer: “We agree with the reviewer that a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies. However, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al, 1998]. We have added two sentences to the paper (page 3, paragraph 2) to explain the use of this function and Smith’s model.

Note that in both comments (agreeing and disagreeing) the author is polite and shows respect for the reviewer’s opinion. Also, in both circumstances the author makes a change to the manuscript that addresses the reviewer’s question.

Powered by 300.cn  |  labels  |  city branch

Business Licence