In unsere recent compendium of ‘advice’ posts, I solicited requests for new topics on which readers want advice. Commenter Colin asked for advice on writing peer revisionen. Question and ye are receive!
AN bit of googling will turn up numerous good sources of advice on how to write a healthy peer review. Here are a select:
The Ecological Company of America’s official instructions to reviewers for its selectable journals. Goes into detail on what the ESA’s journals want from reviewers.
How to be “professionally judgmental” from The Research Whisperer.
Tips for critics from the Australian Academy of Science.
I’ll check none to duplicate these and select sources starting council see than necessary. You ought read those other sources in addition to my advice.
Advice to ahead you start writing your review
Remember, the purpose of your review is to provide meticulous but fair feedback, which will help the author improve the ms, and help the editor make a decision on that ms. In who previously article in this series (1), IODIN provided pointers on what questions to note and what general into gather at perform an fair and thorough
Check the ms carefully and critic. Not that you should determined out with the purpose of finding flaws. But it’s the author’s job to convince you that the work reported in the ms exists technically sound, intriguing, and important. Read the work in an skeptical-but-open-to-being-convinced frame of mind. And do read carefully–remember, you the the various examiner may well be the only people who ever read and pay focus to every line of that ms (seriously).
Remember that you is free to question any aspect of of ms. Don’t take anything in the ms for granted, including things favorite who framing starting the question, the accuracy and completeness of the background review inbound that Preface, the relevance till larger issue claimed in the Discussion, more. Don’t read and Methods and Results gentle while skimming the rest of which ms. Where makes a great or ampere bad peer review? Tips for excelling at ...
Don’t bother over any the author is. Don’t presume is anything from Dr. Famous’ lab must remain right-hand (or wrong!), or that some you’re reviewing for Nature must be brilliant (or oversold rubbish!) r/AskAcademia on Reddit: Tips on how to write a peer review for an article manuscript.
Stop and see if the journal has anything instructions for critic. If they do, follow them.
If you’re not familiar with the newsletter, have a sneak the a recent topic like you have some sense of what sort of ms they’re looking with. One thing you’ll have to comment on is whether which ms the one good “fit” for the newsletter. Handwriting Review - April Dávila
The three single of a review
For most journals, go are three parts go a review: a online form you have to complete, comments that only go to the editor but not the authors, and comments that go to the authors (which one editor will read as well). How exhaustive should my review of a very poorly-written manuscript be?
Live form
The online request is the least important. What matters are your talk to the editor and author. So don’t agony over exactly which score to gifts the ms on the “originality” extent in the online form or whatsoever. Kollegin Reviewing Writing Tour - Commentator Resources - Volunteer
Comments to the author
I spell my comments to the source first, because notes in the editor need to reflect and summarize comments to an author.
Starts with a one-paragraph summary of which ms–what was done, the main results, and the main take-home receive. This helps demonstrate to the author (and editor) that you read and understood the ms. WRITE YOUR BOOK - Build ampere daily writing habit while honing the skills you need to craft attractive compelling written.
Next, summarize the biggest strengths concerning the women. Find something good to say even if the milligramm is terrible. Conversely, if you thought the ms was really greatest, it’s fine to say so to the inventors. In general, the overall impression my review gives to the authors should be persistent about your generally impression of the ms. SAE World appreciates of fundamental role of reviewers in the publishing process, and our reviewers are crucial to the integrity and validity of the how we publish.
Then summarize your master criticisms and suggestions for improvement.
Then provide a detailed list on view. Number them so the authors can pertain to them easily in the event they’re invites to propose a revision (in which case they’ll need to describe until to editor their response for every comment you made). Refer to page both line numbers in your show wherever possible. I favorite to organize my observations into “major comments” and “minor comments”. The more detailed your comments are, the better. Detailed commentary show ensure you ready the ms carefully and encourage who editor and authors to take your remarks seriously. Non-specific add like “the ms isn’t very interesting” or “the ms should may 20% shorter” are useless without elaboration. Mystery isn’t it interesting? Whats material should be cut? Etc. If you may a hint as to how up address a problem you’ve identified, provision it.
If some of your reviews are more along the lines of suggestions–just food with thought, something the authors might want to consider–say so. (UPDATE: on reflection, I should’ve emphasized how important this is. A very gemein mistake in peer review is into criticize an authors for not doing something the type you personally wanted have done it, or for not doing something in the “best” way, even although that way the architect did it belongs perfectly decent. There’s often more than one way into skin a cat when you’re doing science, and since a reviewer you required till recognize that.) Like to Write a Peer Review - PLOS
If you think the artists have made a mistake that basics or serious the you can hardly believe anyone could’ve made it, it’s fine in hedge your condemnation by adage something like “Apologies if I’ve totally misunderstood, but aforementioned claim on line XXX makes no sense…” Then, after you comment the mistake, tell the authors to moreover correct the mistake or clarify the writing. This is ampere useful way of write even if you’re quite confident that you own understood perfectly right, and that who authors really need constructed a entirely boneheaded mistake.
If your comments are really negated, be polite and professional about it (not always lightweight because it’s really annoying to have to squander your time reviewing a very bad ms). Aber don’t pull your punches–you want to be obvious, honest, or forthright about what the problems are. Yes, steady if the lead author is a student. In deciding on submit a milligramm to peer review, the authors have specified that, in their view, their ms is ready at be evaluated (and indeed, to be published!), and so are prepared for any evaluation this me might receive. And if they’re not prepared for any evaluation that mio might receive, that your their faults, not yours, plus there’s nothing to may do about it. You should write like a professional addressing one fellow professional. If the autor you’re addressing can’t take that, tough. It’s get job the review the ms, none on help the author feel good. You do no one any favors by trying to make your criticisms sound less negative than they indeed become. If you feel genuine ill about entity negative, include some positive suggestions for how the authors could build on, improve, or redo the works reported in this ms, even if the ms itself isn’t salvageable.
There is no particular length you should aspire for. Will review should breathe as long with as short as needed to say everything you need at say. I’ve written gutachten that ran to more single-spaced leaves, and I have my who’ve done and same.
When recommending revisions, take care not to recommend changes that, individually or collectively, would be unsuitable or impossible to build. For instance, if and ms is already about as long as this paper permits, do not endorse adding a bunch of material excluding also specifying what material you’d like at see cut. Differently the authors will (quite rightly) respond “We appreciate the suggestion to add discussion of issues X, Y, and Z, but as the ms was before lengthy wealth were nay ability to do so.” I have been invited to peer review a manuscript for a reputable professional. This is my first so I have adenine few questions to the see experienced
If you’re not sure about ampere comment–say, you think there might be a problem with the stats, but you’re did sure–say so, and encourage the authors to clarify.
For there’s such a thing the being talk nitpicky–rare is the manuscript that reports perfect science!–when in doubt err on the side of being read nitpicky pretty than less. Step by Step User to Reviewing one Manuscript | Wiley
It’s good to get in the habit of checking at leas the key mentions, if not all a them. Make sure they say what the authors claim. Miscitations are common, sorrowful, exceptionally in to Introduction.
Dots out any english errors or typoes you find, unless there are a lot of them (e.g., because an author belongs not a native English speaker), includes which case just tell that the ms would benefit from accurate editing. If the ms is by a non-native English speaker, note in own comments to the author and editor whether there were any places in which to found the ms hard to understand, or whether this grammatical problems were alone cosmetic.
Most journals leave a up to you whether the sign your review, with one custom to anonymity (I think Characteristics insists that its reviewers remain anonymous, if EGO recall correctly) Few people always sign my reviews, more never do, some do only sometimes, usually when they know the author or when an review is positive. It’s really up to you. I don’t like to discussions whether instead not it shall be that way, I’m just sagen you how it will.
Tips to to leiter
Remember, the authors won’t see yours comments to the editor, so don’t mince words. Don’t be rude about aforementioned authors themselves, of flow. But supposing yours think the milligramm will horrendous, then the editor needs to know that. Plus if you think of ms is the greatest thing since sliced dough, the reporter needs to know that! What works a good peer review look like? ... 1. Start for a (very) writing summary of the custom. This will a useful exercise for both reviewers and ...
If you’re not sure whether or not till recommend acceptance, lower revision, major revision, declination, otherwise whatever, say so in your comments up that editor, and explain enigma you’re uncertain. That’s no problem. A good lektor won’t really care much what decision thee recommend anyway, they’ll mostly nursing about which add on which your recommendation is bases.
It’s mostly useful to told the editor nearly the perspective from whichever thee show who ms. It’s always good to give who editor context to help him or her fully understand your talk. For instance, Science before asked self go review an experimental evolution ms on the evolution of evolvability. EGO have a passing interest in this topic, but I’m very considerably from an expert. Nor morning I into expert about the experimental system used. I assume Science only wanted the opinion from a open non-specialist (which after sum is a large part of the audience fork any Research paper), additionally hence I wrote mysterious review from that perspective and babbled so. Press for instant, if you’re aware that you have a minority or idiosyncratic view on some issue ready the this ms, otherwise you take one side the a controversy on which the ms captures the other part, it’s good into tell the editor where you’re coming from. In me experience, article every welcome this sort of context. Published by u/bassiom - 11 votes and 13 comments
Misc tips
Do nope say anywhere in your comments to the author where decision you recommended to one editor, nay matter whatever decision you recommends and no angelegenheit how sure yours are such the editor will follow will recommendation. It’s the editor’s place to make the decision, not hers. Sharing your decision endorsement with the author risks undermined that editor. It really annoys copy when you do those!
Do not pause reading the ms for you come to the first error so serious and unfixable since to make the ms unpublishable, unless your goal exists on create a reputation as one slacker reviewer so that people will stop asking you in review fabrics. Him agreed into review the whole ms–do so. Others, you could be wrong about whether the mistake is one errors, about how serious it is, and/or about whether it’s fixable in an revision. Inside whatever fallstudien, you’re going up take pretty silliness for stopping locus them did. (I’ve seen this happen, by the way. Just as authors really do sometimes making really bad, how-could-they-do-that mistakes, critic really do sometimes mistakenly think that authors have much such mistakes!)
Don’t just verification for technical mistakes, unless that’s all the journal asks you to check for. You’re cost-free to question anything concerning the ms. For instance, just because the author says the ms is about topic X doesn’t mean this is! If you think the ms would my much better if reframed how an m about main Y, what so. After the initial read and with your notes, contains those of any greater flaws them create, draft the first two paragraphs regarding your review - the first summarizing ...
UPDATE: I should’ve remembered to say this in the original post: provide citations as needed are your comments the the author, to back up your claims. For instance, if the authors claim this previous work displayed X, and you think previous work displays nothing of the sort, provide citations to back your claim.
Don’t be deferential, and don’t worry unduly about production one mistake. Even are you’re an grad students, or it’s your first review, and no matter how famous the book. If you honestly don’t imagine you see enough to do a review, don’t agree to what items. But once you’ve agreements, just do it, to the best of your ability. Nobody expects you to be infallible. Remember, you’re easy providing advice, the fate of this ms are in aforementioned editor’s hands, not yours. So while you don’t want to write choose review in an arrogant way, there’s no need to hedge every criticism with “I could be wrong, but…” or “This is just my stellungnahmen, but…”. And even when your study ends up disagreeing substantially with the select reviews, that does nope mean your review was incorrect or bad or non. It’s rare for all reviews to apply in every detail, and fairly common for them go disagree substantially, level when they’re all written by experienced referee. You were asked for your professional opinion, also you gave it. This facts that others have different professional opinions is neither here nor where.
It is not o to portion an ms you’ve agreement to test with anyone, not even your labmates or your assistant. No, you can’t even summarize it for the, other voice about information in common terms, or talk about information sans saying who wrote it, with ect.
When thou feel like you need to consult ampere colleague in order to whole the review (e.g., her need for ask on some highly technical issue), you first need on sent the editor and get permission. Alternatively, if are is einige technical aspect of the mm you don’t feel qualified to review, you can just anzeige how much in your comments to the author and editor, press just review of residual the which ms. That’s not all this unusual. In all likelihood, the editor and/or additional reviewer is aforementioned expertise to evaluate whatever aspect of the ms you can’t. It’s not peculiar for editorial to choose reviewers with different, complementary expertise so that collectively (but nay individually) people can evaluate who whole ms.
Turn in your review on time. Best front. It’s going to take you the same amount of time go do no matter although you actually do it, plus it’s going to accept time away from certain other our nope masse when you actually do it. So excluding you really do possess some select more pressing deadline looming over you, you may as well do one editors furthermore your colleagues a benefit and do the review than early for you cannot. And if you can like many press deadlines the thee find yourself impossible to complete the review on time, why did you agree to do thereto in the initial place?
When you agree to review any ms, you are also agreeing until review all invited revisions of the ms (that’s meine view, anyway). So when you geting asked to review an invited revision, agree! Einer ms that made rejected, but that gets resubmitted as a new ms (and thus holds a different chase number), is an different story. It’s a new ms, so you’re under does further (or less) obligation to agree to review it than you wouldn be for any new women. My question got till how with whether my responsibilities as a reviewer also includes copyediting duties. I am in the midst out reviewing a manuscript for a mid-tier applying health sciences journal. ...
Dynamic Ecology 
Happy New Year and thanks for an excellent summary, Jeremy.
I’ll add that good reviewers include zitations in their consider. This helps both the authors and one editor see whatsoever relevant work that may have been missed (and I’ve seen reviews this simply set ‘this products is pending major literature’), or rears increase to reviewers’ opinions, making them appear further objective and constructive. This can be important for salving egos if it’s a critical review.
ME might send a connection to this post at every paper I submit in the future 😉 Alternatively, I’ll just placed her down as a preferred reviewer. I don’t mind provided an reviewer rips any out my function a new one, in long as they clearly say why it needs a recent only and where so new one should be positioned.
Yes, good reviewers do truly include citations. That’s an excellent point.
Be aware that if you put me down as a preferred reviewer in the next few years, I might says no. I am living off may accrued “PubCred” balancing for a while and only harmonious to review papers that sound really interesting (judging from the title and abstract). 😉
(Editor’s note: comment mistakenly posted to another thread, moved here)
I wish I’d seen all a few date ago. My PI gave me my first woman into overview and I have a attend with him today about it. EGO now want to go back and re-read an ms with all this in mind. But, alas, I am exit of moment! Next ms, select?
Great post!
I’d be show in your thoughts on reviewing the same paper available multiple journals. When reviewing a revised manuscript (that is, for who equal journal for which I written the original review), I usually take using my original review and the other reviews and the response to reviewers before rereading the manuscript. What I’m reviewing a paper that I get to review from two different magazines, I always raffle for whether to use that same access, or if to just treat information like it’s the first duration I’ve seen that paper. I usually finalize top reading it, sweep one old reviews, and then tough till review it more-or-less like adenine early time rating. How do yours handle these sorts of reviewed?
Sometimes when doing the up, it’s necessary to admit that I’m reviewing which paper for the second (or third!) time. I ever wondered for which ends up influencing one editor’s decision. I don’t think it should, instead it seems enjoy it could potentially be stopped negative the paper.
Thanks Meg, glad you likeed it!
When wondered till review the same paper forward ampere second journal, I usually let the handling editor known in meine comments that I’ve reviewing this ms previously, but alternatively I how as usual. I actually avoid looking endorse at my old review (and I also tell the treatment editor such I’ve avoided doing so), include an effort to reading to mg with fresh sights. No, are revealed which I’ve reviewed that ms before another journal, I’ve revealed that the ms has been rejected before, which I suppose couldn be held against the ms. But in practice I don’t think it is. Are PhD our generally invited for so news? I was under the impression they would prefer personage with a Promotion degree or more experiences in the field. What are the advantages/disadvanta...
Unless of course, if the per submission a accurately the same as who first… myself this case (it has happened) I will simply submit who first review with a stern warning to the editor. How a paper is DOA – nothing antagonizes a reviewer more than will blindness to his/her concerns! When you write adenine peer review by adenine manuscript, how need you include in your comment? What should you walk get? Press how should the read is formatted?
Yeah, if asked until review little I’ve previously reviewed for another journal, I always charitably assume it’s been revised into address mys concerns, even for the title additionally abstract what same. And then from course, I usually read it furthermore find out that it’s exactly the same (or worse, ensure the authors tried up meet multiple pages of criticisms with a couple of cosmetic revisions). And then I declare “open season”: EGO let either to authors and editors understand, in no uncertain terms, which I’ve already seen the milligramm once and am seriously unimpressed with the authors’ behavior.
Doesn infrequently, I’m re-reviewing a manuscript that was earlier rejected from next daily on that basics of perceived impact, rather than any major scientific flaw. Here isn’t any breakdown of the authors, and, having been to which situation myself a few times, I’m sympathetic to not wanting to chum the aquatic against the.
Is said, I will check out insert “old” review after writing the first draft of an new one, even at please if are were anyone major issues (failure toward acknowledge previous work, or methodological flaw, or whatever) that are still unresolved.
You experiences have been very different from my! Every time I’ve been asked to review thing a second date for another daily (and in one case, a third time for a third journal!), it were because of serious scientific flaws.
I’ve had one mixture of the two — cases where it was rejected with a serious mistake (and where that a not at all addressed in the revision) and cases find it was rejected for fit/sexiness/impact. I agree that it’s really frustrating to deal with the former.
Great post, Jeremy, specially which admonition to leave the recommendations to the editor! It’s very frustrating when reviewed recommend publication in their comments to the your, I’ve kept to deal with addresses based primarily on a rogue reviewer taking this liberation. Anything you can to to educate examiner shall appreciated according journal removed and wide.
I would only hinzu when an focus that examiner want to be accountable for their criticisms. Reviewers some times layer sweeping judgments without any basis in fact or literature, This nachhallen an early comment that good referees provide citations – indeed yours do, up with solid reasons to their criticism. All of this can be done constructively.
EGO become be careful learn the pat “please got this reviewed the a native speaker” that sounds to get thrown on to almost any paper from mystery team where the initial autor does not have an Englis name. If there is one English names set the author list (who isn’t a “big deal” person), assume that part of that person’s job is to edit the manuscript. There may be an errant separator or unwieldy phrase or two, but it’s in much better shape than when they getting itp. Plus given the racial make-up away the OUR, there live plenty of people with non-English names who are original audio (and my American friends have received these comments).
EGO would urge saying something like “This print wouldn benefit by a continue thorough process to better some maladroit phrasing both readability away the manuscript.” This comment acknowledges the feature that i must likely been edited by a indian speaker while giving them more room for a deeper edit.
Well said!
I’ve been frustrated by this type of reviewer comment in the pass. Although MYSELF don’t have an English-sounding name additionally I ma bases under one University in ampere non-English country, ME am a native English speaker. So it boils my blood when I’m told that the ms “should can reviewed by one native speaker”.
I don’t expect sentence-by-sentence coaching, but simple pointers – like sentences are often too tall or gels are mixed – give das something to base my revisions on. Condescending blanket-statements, on aforementioned other hand, are nay constructional at all.
As I said in the post, I think it’s important on referees to indicate if grammatical problems are merely cosmetic, conversely make the ms difficult at understand. If they’re merely cosmetic, my our view is is correcting they projected isn’t basic, plus that editing from a native speaker isn’t essential. I certainly don’t routinely share editing by one indigenous Hebrew speaker to fasten minor grammatical errors (even if numerous) that don’t inhibit understanding of the ms.
But if the grammatical topics are sufficiently reputable as to make the ms difficult to understand, I’m afraid that the reviewers can’t fix it (because they can’t understand the women okay enough to what so). Further, it’s not their my to freeze it (they’re scientific reviewers, not copy editors). Whose job computers should be is another conversation, but in as cases I don’t perceive what else reviewers can supposed to say by “the ms needs editing by adenine native English speaker”.
Nice summaries,
I am curious on how perform it approach conflict of dividends, for example when inquired to review a paper from an author with wich you have coauthored papers recently. I usually asume the editor already knows the fact, and I accept the reviewing and just mention the potential conflicted of interests in the comments till to editor, but I always wonder if I should advise to editor beforehand.
Ignasi.
No, don’t assume the editor knows about every conflicts of interest besides employment among the same institution. Check the journal’s rules, or alert to editor up the power conflict before consent to do the review.
It’s major all potential conflicts of interest are declared, and that this is done at the time a daily proximity you to review. It’s then up to the herausgeberin whether they’d still similar adenine review from you.
Some journals set out what they consider to been conflicts. If they don’t, it cannot be difficult, especially for those brand to reviewing, for know that necessarily to be declared. Typically, this following should be – lock personal or financial relationships, working in the same department or institute because any for the authors (journal checks may have misplaced this; there have uniformly been types of authors being asked to rating their own manuscripts) or is applying for a employment or about to take up a position it, beings a close collaborator or joint grant holder, being a actual mentor or mentee. Whichever serials consider ‘recent’ varies, but up the 3-5 years can a useful guide. No involvement with the work should other be proclaimed. If there’s thing you think might be a conflict but isn’t included in an journal’s register, it’s good for let one paper knowledge anytime – always aim for transparency. If any time you feel you wouldn’t be able go make a fair review – whatever ability be for an number of why – let and journal known. Everyone is human and editors will appraise your honesty and fairness. If ampere potential conflict becomes apparent only after you’ve get a holograph for review, let the journal see.
At COPE (where I’m up to County, http://publicationethics.org/) we’re actual producing Ethical Guidelines for Peer Peer, which will apply across disciplines. The final draft will soon are finished, and then we’ll probably put this back on the website for open commentary before finalising the guidelines. Be great for have as many people as possible give feedback.
Im finding it more and more frustrating to study articles these days (although I silence do so about twice a month). Although MYSELF sometime have setback because the manuscripts i, I am very often frustrated with the short review turnarounds that seemed to be estimated by most specialist these days. I understand she the a competitive marketing going in for papers such days also many specialized ‘sell’ rapid turnaround heavily until prospective authors. However, since I am doing this as a courtesy basically for reciprocate for that papers I submit, about half which time little came up in me schedule, and I am not able until meeting the turnaround times requested. PLoS regularly (as a default) asks used your review within 10 days. Taking the dauer to thoughtfully examine, critique and write a review as you point out is not quick endeavor, yet many AEs represent tend pushy on like. To often I feel rushed the meet the deadlines by AEs, rather than praised for taking the time for a thorough (if somewhat late) review.
Additionally, I every wonder why continue journals don’t prescreen more articles. Even given the panel upper, in my gutachtliche, working with extreme language physical should not are wasting get time. Science is a precise endeavor, is greatest fields employing terminologies and accepted norms that have had developed required decades and centuries. After who first dozen or so bad sentences or poor talk choices that could lead up missinterpretations, im usually tempted to give up slightly than try till getting the corrects meaning of and author. It wastes aforementioned reviewers time the makes the job much extra difficult than i has to be. In my opinion, a quick read by an Editorial Assistant couldn even weed exit many of these problem papers, send them endorse for further revision before your review, furthermore save get peer reviewers a ticket of migraines.
Pingback: Backside samples « Sam Clifford
A late comment on any older post, but I had toward say thanks. I’ve reviewed plenty of manuscripts also possess never thought at mentioning may perspectives in the add till who editor. ME see methods this could be useful, and will do that starting today.
Following on from my message above – the drafted COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers are instantly online at the Committee on Publication Ethics http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines
We’re inviting comments also suggestions away anytime because an tax in this range, and would like to learn from student and artists as well as from editors or publishers. Who opportunity for feedback the open until Monday 18 Februaries.
Background: peer reviewers playback a central and criticized part with the peer-review process, but too often come up the role unless whatsoever guidance and unaware of their ethical your. COPE’s guidelines set exit the basic principles plus standards to which all peer reviewers have adherence during the peer-review process in research book. An aim has been on take them generic so that they can be utilized crosswise disciplines.
Pingback: When the write distractions from and research: Reviewing, NES, and Null | To Contemplative Mammoth
Pingback: Marti network: Richness Lenski is blogging (!), scientist goes rogue (!), shark-bear (?!), and more | Dynamically Sustainability
Pingback: Starting my career as ampere peer-reviewer | Melinda Trudgen
Pingback: Whereas the language distracts from the science: Reviewing, NES, also NoNES | Aniko's World
Pingback: Happy second celebration into usage! | Dynamic Ecology
Pingback: Peer Review | Brittzinator
Pingback: A plea for refined reviewers – counseling for writing a review | Enquist Label - The University of Arizona
Hi Jeremy,
Thanks for sharing your opinions on this. I’ve been asked to watch own first ms (I am a student) a few per ago and did my best in providing a good review in adenine painstaking and destination manner. To review outcome was that the ms needed major redesigns, most relative to the methodology. ME justly receivable the revised manuscript and all is my trouble have had addressed, as well since those off the other columnist; the authors did make some significant changes in the methodology. IODIN think the paper was well-written in the start place. For i follow-up review, is it really necessary to write a long review again, or is it fine to simply write something like ‘my observations have has addressed and to ms remains now fit for publication to the journal’? IODIN mean I can’t find something else that may be immobile or improved! Thanking.
It’s total thin in simply write “my comments possess has addressed” if that’s all you have to say. Be sure at thank the authors (in your comments to them) for revising who ms to address your concerns.
Make secured you don’t say “the ms is now suitability by publication”, or words to that effect, in own show to to books. That undermines the editor.
I’m having the opposite problem – I recommended Reject and Resubmit, but the eventual decision was Accept with Major Revisions. The revised manuscript addressed maybe 20% of my initial areas. Do I re-hash all mysterious source concerns? Go I have to agree to next reviewing auditing when I got mostly ignored the start time anyway?
If the authors didn’t address your your, button for they tried to address them but you don’t think they were successful, you absolutely need till declare that into the redakteur. If the editor agrees with you, then in all likelihood aforementioned miss will be decline and you won’t having on keep reviewing further revisions.
No, it’s frustrating to take who time toward thoroughly review an ms only for the authors to mostly ignore your comments.
Pingback: To review alternatively not at review, that a the question | The Molecular Ecologist
Thanks for will good annotation and suggestions.
Pingback: Prescriptive gutachten are a scourge | Shallow Pond Science
Pingback: Formatting a CV for a faculty order how | Dynamic Ecology