Behind the Reviewer Replies: Recommendations

Authors

  • Agustina Saladino Carrera Medicina, Universidad Hospital Italiano. Argentina https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6099-9794
  • Josefina Ortiz Carrera Ingeniería Biomédica, Universidad Hospital Italiano. Argentina https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4852-7093
  • María L. Posadas-Martinez Carrera Ingeniería Biomédica, Universidad Hospital Italiano. Argentina
  • Marcelina Carretero Sección de Investigación en Medicina Interna, Servicio de Clínica Médica, Hospital Italiano. Argentina https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2259-5626

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51987/rev.hosp.ital.b.aires.v45i2.398

Keywords:

peer review, research studies, response to reviewers, writing skills

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

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Res. 2017;6:588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2. DOI: 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. DOI: 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. DOI: 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. DOI: 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. DOI: 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. DOI: 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. DOI: https://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. DOI: 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. DOI: 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. DOI: 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. DOI: 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. DOI: 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/rhsh.8374

Downloads

Published

2025-04-28

Issue

Vol. 45 No. 2 (2025): Revista del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires

Section

Notes on statistics and research

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Revista del Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

1.
Saladino A, Ortiz J, Posadas-Martinez ML, Carretero M. Behind the Reviewer Replies: Recommendations. Rev Hosp Ital B.Aires [Internet]. 2025 Apr. 28 [cited 2026 Aug. 21];45(2):e0000398. Available from: https://ojs.hospitalitaliano.org.ar/index.php/revistahi/article/view/398

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>