Peer Review in Manuscript Submission Process
Parte 4
Peer
Review
Section 6
Download at: http://www.edanzediting.com/sa2015
Accepted—
publication!
Editor
Manuscript
Peer review
Revision
Reject
Results novel?
Topic relevant?
Journal requirements met?
New experiments
Improve readability
Add information
Submission process frames
El proceso de presentación de manuscritos
Peer review improves your
manuscript
•
Few papers are accepted without revision
•
Rejection and revision are integral
•
Peer review should be a positive process
La revisión por pares mejora su manuscrito
What reviewers
are looking for
The science
The manuscript
Relevant hypothesis
Good experimental design
Appropriate methodology
Good data analysis
Valid conclusions
Logical flow of information
Manuscript structure and formatting
Appropriate references
High readability
Abstract and Introduction
Methods
Results and Figures
Discussion
Un manuscrito puede ser rechazado si la investigación científica no es
de buena calidad
Response
letter
Respond to
every
reviewer comment
Easy
to see
changes
Refer to line and page numbers
Use a different color font
Highlight the text
Revision
No ignore los comentarios con los que no esté de acuerdo
Writing a response letter
Marc Lippman, MD
Editor-in-Chief
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
3 September 2013
Dear Dr Lippman,
Re:
Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739
Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “
Evaluation of the Glasgow prognostic
score in patients undergoing curative resection for breast cancer liver metastases
,”
which we would like to resubmit
for consideration for publication in the
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.
The reviewer’s comments were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In
the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments.
Revisions in the manuscript are shown as underlined text. In accordance with the first comment, the title has been
revised and the entire manuscript has undergone substantial English editing.
We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our
manuscript suitable for publication in the
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
.
Address editor personally
Manuscript ID number
Thank reviewers
Highlight major changes
Al escribir la carta de respuesta a los revisores,
diríjase al editor directamente, agradezca a los
revisores, enfatice cambios mayores
Agreeing with reviewers
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:
We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of the
analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult
to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant
improvement over previously reported values. We describe our
new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results
section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).
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:
We agree with the reviewer’s assessment
of the
analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult
to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant
improvement over previously reported values. We describe our
new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results
section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).
Agreeing with reviewers
Agreement
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:
We agree with the reviewer’s assessment
of the
analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult
to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant
improvement over previously reported values.
We describe our
new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function
in our revised Results
section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).
Agreeing with reviewers
Agreement
Revisions
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:
We agree with the reviewer’s assessment
of the
analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult
to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant
improvement over previously reported values.
We describe our
new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function
in our revised Results
section
(Page 6, Lines 12–18).
Agreeing with reviewers
Agreement
Revisions
Location
Disagreeing with reviewers
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:
Although
a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate
comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function
allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model
[Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this
function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section
(Page 12, Lines 2–6).
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:
Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate
comparison with the results of other studies,
our tailored function
allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model
[Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this
function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section
(Page 12, Lines 2–6).
Evidence
Disagreeing with reviewers
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:
Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate
comparison with the results of other studies,
our tailored function
allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model
[Smith et al., 1998]. We have now
explained the use of this
function and the Smith model
in our revised Discussion section
(Page 12, Lines 2–6).
Revisions
Evidence
Disagreeing with reviewers
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:
Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate
comparison with the results of other studies,
our tailored function
allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model
[Smith et al., 1998]. We have now
explained the use of this
function and the Smith model
in our revised Discussion section
(Page 12, Lines 2–6).
Revisions
Location
Evidence
Disagreeing with reviewers
“Unfair” reviewer
comments
Reviewer comment
: Currently, the authors’ conclusion that this
gene is involved in heart development is not completely validated
by their in vitro analyses. They should do additional in vivo
experiments using a genetic mouse model to show that heart
development is regulated by this gene.
Reasons why reviewers might make these comments
Current results are not appropriate for the impact factor of
the journal
Reviewer is being “unfair”
Resultados no son apropiados para el factor de
impacto de la revista o el revisor fue injusto
If rejected, what
should you do?
Option 1: New submission to the
same
journal
Fully revise manuscript
Prepare point-by-point responses
Include the original manuscript ID number
Option 2: New submission to a
different
journal
Revise manuscript
Reformat according to the author guidelines
Si el manuscrito fue rechazado, se puede
presentar nuevamente a la misma revista o
presentarse a una nueva revista
If accepted, what’s next?
Promote your work on social networks
•
Twitter, LinkedIn, Research Gate
Respond to post-publication comments
Present your work at conferences
•
Promote your publication
•
Allows you to discuss your work personally with your peers
•
Get feedback about your work and future directions
Si el manuscrito fue aceptado, promueva su trabajo
en redes sociales, responda a comentarios sobre su
publicación, presente sus hallazgos en conferencias
Be an effective communicator
S
Your goal is not only to be published,
but also to be widely read/cited
Write effectively
Choose the best journal to reach your target audience
Logically present your research in your manuscript
Convey the significance of your work to journal editors
Properly revise your manuscript after peer review
S
What we do
Language editing for the academic publishing industry
Support individual authors
Work with authors, universities and
institutes
Collaborate with publishers
We prepare manuscripts to pass
through submission and peer review
S
How are we different?
Native English speakers
Research experience
Publishing experience
In-depth knowledge of the
manuscript’s content
High language and editorial skills
Our experts
S
Our experts
Daniel wheeler
2009 -
DM Critical Care and Anaesthesiology, University of Oxford
2006 -
PhD Neurobiology, University of Cambridge
1994 -
BM BCh Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford
•
Lecturer and honorary consultant anaesthetist at the University of Cambridge
•
Member of the Royal College of Physicians since 1997
•
Published over 40 scientific papers
Ludovic Croxford
2000 - PhD Medical Immunology, University College London
1994 - BSc Biochemistry and Toxicology, University of Surrey
•
Multi-disciplinary immunologist with research experience in a wide
range of fields, especially neuroimmunology, autoimmunity and
oncology
•
Published
over 40 peer-reviewed papers
, reviews and book chapters in
journals including
Nature
,
Nature Immunology
and
Nature Medicine
S
Our publisher partnerships
S
1.
Assess which services you need
2.
Use our order webform
www.edanzediting.com/order
3.
Send us all the appropriate files
Using our services
S
Our services
1. Language editing
•
Language edit
•
Second edit
•
Review edit
•
Point by point edit
2. Content services
•
Journal selection
•
Expert scientific review
•
Cover letter development
•
Reviewer recommendation
•
Abstract development
•
Custom services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)
S
Which service, when?
Manuscript preparation
Final pre-submission checks
Submission to journal
Revise after peer review
Resubmit to journal
Language editing
Expert Scientific Review
Journal Selection
Reviewer Recommendation
Cover letter Development
Point by Point review
Thank you!
Any questions?
global
@edanzediting.com
Peer review plays a crucial role in the manuscript submission process, ensuring the quality and validity of scientific research. Reviewers look for various aspects such as hypothesis relevance, experimental design, methodology, data analysis, and conclusions. Responding to reviewer comments and revisions are essential steps for manuscript improvement and publication acceptance.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
You are allowed to download the files provided on this website for personal or commercial use, subject to the condition that they are used lawfully. All files are the property of their respective owners.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Download at: http://www.edanzediting.com/sa2015 Section 6 Peer Review
Submission process frames El proceso de presentaci n de manuscritos Peer review Peer review Results novel? Topic relevant? Journal requirements met? Manuscript Editor Reject New experiments Improve readability Add information Accepted publication! Revision
Peer review improves your manuscript Peer review Rejection Acceptance Minor revision Major revision La revisi n por pares mejora su manuscrito Few papers are accepted without revision Rejection and revision are integral Peer review should be a positive process
What reviewers are looking for Peer review Un manuscrito puede ser rechazado si la investigaci n cient fica no es de buena calidad Relevant hypothesis Good experimental design Appropriate methodology Good data analysis Valid conclusions The science Logical flow of information Manuscript structure and formatting Appropriate references High readability Abstract and Introduction Methods Results and Figures Discussion The manuscript
Peer review Revision No ignore los comentarios con los que no est de acuerdo Respond to every reviewer comment Response letter Refer to line and page numbers Easy to see changes Use a different color font Highlight the text
Writing a response letter Peer review Marc Lippman, MD Editor-in-Chief Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Address editor personally 3 September 2013 Manuscript ID number Dear Dr Lippman, Thank reviewers Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739 Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled Evaluation of the Glasgow prognostic score in patients undergoing curative resection for breast cancer liver metastases, which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. Al escribir la carta de respuesta a los revisores, dir jase al editor directamente, agradezca a los revisores, enfatice cambios mayores The reviewer s comments were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments. Revisions in the manuscript are shown as underlined text. In accordance with the first comment, the title has been revised and the entire manuscript has undergone substantial English editing. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. Highlight major changes
Agreeing with reviewers Peer review 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: We agree with the reviewer s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12 18). constitutes a significant
Agreeing with reviewers Peer review 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. Agreement Response: We agree with the reviewer s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12 18). constitutes a significant
Agreeing with reviewers Peer review 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. Agreement Response: We agree with the reviewer s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12 18). constitutes a significant Revisions
Agreeing with reviewers Peer review 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. Agreement Response: We agree with the reviewer s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12 18). constitutes a significant Revisions Location
Peer review Disagreeing with reviewers 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: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2 6).
Peer review Disagreeing with reviewers 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: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2 6). Evidence
Peer review Disagreeing with reviewers 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: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2 6). Evidence Revisions
Peer review Disagreeing with reviewers 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: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2 6). Evidence Revisions Location
Unfair reviewer comments Peer review Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors conclusion that this gene is involved in heart development is not completely validated by their in vitro analyses. They should do additional in vivo experiments using a genetic mouse model to show that heart development is regulated by this gene. Reasons why reviewers might make these comments Current results are not appropriate for the impact factor of the journal Resultados no son apropiados para el factor de impacto de la revista o el revisor fue injusto Reviewer is being unfair
If rejected, what should you do? Peer review Option 1: New submission to the same journal Fully revise manuscript Prepare point-by-point responses Include the original manuscript ID number Option 2: New submission to a different journal Revise manuscript Reformat according to the author guidelines Si el manuscrito fue rechazado, se puede presentar nuevamente a la misma revista o presentarse a una nueva revista
If accepted, whats next? Promote your work on social networks Twitter, LinkedIn, Research Gate Respond to post-publication comments Present your work at conferences Promote your publication Allows you to discuss your work personally with your peers Get feedback about your work and future directions publicaci n, presente sus hallazgos en conferencias Si el manuscrito fue aceptado, promueva su trabajo en redes sociales, responda a comentarios sobre su
Be an effective communicator Your goal is not only to be published, but also to be widely read/cited Write effectively Choose the best journal to reach your target audience S Logically present your research in your manuscript Convey the significance of your work to journal editors Properly revise your manuscript after peer review
What we do Language editing for the academic publishing industry Support individual authors Work with authors, universities and institutes S Collaborate with publishers We prepare manuscripts to pass through submission and peer review
Our experts How are we different? Native English speakers Research experience Publishing experience In-depth knowledge of the manuscript s content High language and editorial skills S
Our experts Daniel wheeler 2009 - DM Critical Care and Anaesthesiology, University of Oxford 2006 - PhD Neurobiology, University of Cambridge 1994 - BM BCh Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford Lecturer and honorary consultant anaesthetist at the University of Cambridge Member of the Royal College of Physicians since 1997 Published over 40 scientific papers S Ludovic Croxford 2000 - PhD Medical Immunology, University College London 1994 - BSc Biochemistry and Toxicology, University of Surrey Multi-disciplinary immunologist with research experience in a wide range of fields, especially neuroimmunology, autoimmunity and oncology Published over 40 peer-reviewed papers, reviews and book chapters in journals including Nature, Nature Immunology and Nature Medicine
Using our services 1. Assess which services you need 2. Use our order webform www.edanzediting.com/order S 3. Send us all the appropriate files
Our services 1. Language editing Language edit Second edit Review edit Point by point edit 2. Content services Journal selection Expert scientific review Cover letter development Reviewer recommendation Abstract development Custom services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting) S
Any questions? Thank you! global@edanzediting.com http://www.edanzediting.com/sa2015 Download and further reading @EdanzEditing Follow us on Twitter facebook.com/EdanzEditing Like us on Facebook
