Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript.

Int J Endocrinol Metab

Endocrine Physiology Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Published: January 2022

Getting feedback from the journals' editorial office upon the peer-review process, revising the manuscript, and responding to reviewers' comments are the essential parts of scientific publishing. The process of revising seems cumbersome and time-consuming as authors must be engaged probably with many comments and requested changes. Authors are advised to approach the reviewer as a consultant rather than an adversary. They should carefully read and understand comments and then decide how to proceed with each requested change/suggestion. In the case of serious disagreement with reviewer comments or misunderstanding, authors can defer the issue to the editor. Preparing a scientific and well-organized "response to reviews" and the revised version of the manuscript can increase the chance of acceptance. Here, we provide a practical guide on dealing with different types of comments (i.e., minor or major revisions, conflicting comments, or those that authors disagree with or cannot adhere to) and how to craft a response to reviews. We also provide the dos and don'ts for making a successful revision.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8994827PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5812/ijem.120366DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

scientific publishing
8
process revising
8
comments
6
publishing biomedicine
4
biomedicine revising
4
revising peer-reviewed
4
peer-reviewed manuscript
4
manuscript feedback
4
feedback journals'
4
journals' editorial
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!