Behind the Reviewer Replies: Recommendations
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Peer review is a fundamental part of scientific publishing, ensuring the originality and quality of published work. After the peer review process, authors may receive a range of decisions, such as acceptance pending minor or major revisions, which typically require a formal response letter addressed to the reviewers and the editor. While this step can be challenging, it often brings valuable opportunities to improve the manuscript. This article aims to analyze the types of feedback authors may receive from reviewers and to offer strategies for crafting effective responses, ultimately increasing the chances of publication.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res. 2017;6:588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2.
Wong GL. Tips for responding to reviewers' comments-from an editor's or reviewer's Points of view. Gut Liver. 2019;13(1):7-10. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl18361.
Rosenkrantz AB, Harisinghani M. Metrics for original research articles in the AJR: from first submission to final publication. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204(6):1152-1156. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13944.
Cummings P, Rivara FP. Responding to reviewers' comments on submitted articles. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002;156(2):105-107. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.156.2.105.
Provenzale JM. Revising a manuscript: ten principles to guide success for publication. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(6):W382-W387. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5553.
Carnovale C. How to respond to reviewer comments – the CALM way [Internet]. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2019 Apr 3 [citado 2024 ago 30]. Disponible en: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/how-to-respond-to-reviewer-comments-the-calm-way.
Annesley TM. Top 10 tips for responding to reviewer and editor comments. Clin Chem. 2011 Apr;57(4):551-554. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2011.162388.
Pázsit I, van Harten J. 3 top tips for responding to reviewer comments on your manuscript [Internet]. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2015 Feb 12 [citado 2024 sep 6]. Disponible en: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/3-top-tips-for-responding-to-reviewer-comments-on-your-manuscript.
Ganga-Contreras F, Alarcón-Henríquez N, Suárez-Amaya W, et al. Causas que originan rechazo de artículos científicos en revistas científicas latinoamericanas. Ingeniare Rev Chil Ing. 2022; 30(3):602-618. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-33052022000300602.
Björk BC. Acceptance rates of scholarly peer-reviewed journals: a literature survey. El profesional de la información. 2019;28(4):e280407. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.jul.07.
Bordage G. Reasons reviewers reject and accept manuscripts: the strengths and weaknesses in medical education reports. Acad Med. 2001;76(9):889-896. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200109000-00010.
Herber OR, Bradbury-Jones C, Böling S, et al. What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01005-y.
Lor P. Scholarly publising and peer review in the global south: thr role of the reviewer. JLIS. It. 2023;14(1):10-29. https://doi.org/10.36253/jlis.it-512.
Barrera JV, Bayona Molano MP, Kumar V, et al. Medical research disparities in Latin America. Dig Dis Interv. 2024;8(1):3-6. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1775580.
Beigel F, Almeida AM, Gallardo O, et al. Scientific production and gender inequalities in two academic elites: Brazil and Argentina. Rev Hist Sci Hum. 2023;42:255-280. https://doi.org/10.4000/rhsh.8374.