1

How should it respond to reviewers’ views?

Prof. Suleyman KaplanDepartment of Histology and Embryology

Medical School Ondokuz Mayıs University

Samsun, Turkeyskaplan@omu.edu.tr

2

Revising the manuscript

• Decision on the manuscript– Reject– Accept– Accept with minor revision– Accept with major revision

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

4

Revising the manuscript

• 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

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

6

Responding to the comments of referees

Example:

7

Responding to the comments of referees

8

Responding to the comments of referees

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

9

Responding to the comments of referees

Reject the referee's comments on the technic of study:

10

Responding to the comments of referees

Accept/reject the referee's comments on the some part of study:

11

Responding to the comments of referees

Give some explanation for persuading editor and referee:

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

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

14

Proof reading

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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”

**

Thank you very muchskaplan@omu.edu.tr