|
Introduction
The Introduction has incorrectly cited [Brown et al. (1981)] who actually
showed that……
Methods
Factors relevant to the choice of Methods are: 1) how old were the
cultures that were used? 2) Does the age of the culture material affect the
results?
Results
The main claim by the authors that their Results showed that… is not
correct. Their statement that the results show… needs correction.
Discussion
Relevant references seem to have been overlooked in both the
Introduction and Discussion sections, including…
Other queries and suggestions are pencilled on the manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
CD Smith
Fig. 13.3 A referee’s report recommending rejection but noting that the paper would be
acceptable with some alterations. Content-specific elements have been deleted.
77
Submitting
a
manuscript
Ch
13
Submitting
a
manusc
ript
Cargill / Writing Scientific Research Articles 9781405186193_4_c13 Final Proof page 77 12.1.2009 6:43pm Compositor Name: KKavitha
13.6 Understanding the editor’s role (continued)
The editor receives the reports from the referees and decides what response will
be made to the author(s). If referees disagree (especially if there are only two
referees) the editor will sometimes send the manuscript to a third referee for an
additional opinion. The editor then writes to the corresponding author with the
decision that has been made. Responding to these letters from journal editors is a
skill in itself, and is the subject of Chapter 14.
Task 13.2 Journal club
Form or join a journal club with between three and 10 colleagues in related
fields of research and arrange to meet regularly (e.g. once a month). Choose
some recent articles of interest to the group and arrange to discuss one of the
articles at each meeting. Each member of the group should use the referee
evaluation report questions in Figure 13.2 to develop a referee’s report on the
article. At the journal club meeting, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of
the paper and any improvements that could have been made. (See Chapter 16 for
additional ideas on journal clubs.)
78
Getting
your
manuscript
published
Cargill / Writing Scientific Research Articles 9781405186193_4_c13 Final Proof page 78 12.1.2009 6:43pm Compositor Name: KKavitha
CHAPTER 1 4
How to respond to editors
and referees
14.1 Rules of thumb
Critical comments about our research or writing can be difficult to accept and
respond to. We recommend the following rules of thumb as a framework for
responding to referee and editor reports on your manuscript.
Rule 1 It is rare that the referee/editor is completely right and the author com-
pletely wrong, or that the author is completely right and the referee
completely wrong.
Rule 2 When responding to a referee, the object is to accommodate the referee
by addressing their comments without compromising the message (story)
of the paper.
Rule 3 Always show the editor that you are doing everything you can to improve
the manuscript.
Rule 4 Rejection and criticism do not automatically mean that the science is not
good or that the paper is not well written: consider other journals,
including additional work, or rewriting some or all of the paper.
14.2 How to deal with manuscript rejection
If your manuscript is rejected it is important to determine the reasons why. The
reasons for rejection will inform your decision about how to proceed. Every
experienced researcher has a story of rejection, and it can be useful to discuss
rejection with a senior colleague to help you see that it is a natural and necessary
part of the process of legitimizing scientific knowledge. Almost every one of these
colleagues will also tell you that all or some of the data from their rejected
manuscripts were eventually published. Remember, everyone gets rejections.
Successful authors are successful at dealing with rejection as well as acceptance.
Reasons why your manuscript may have been rejected and recommendations on
how to proceed are listed in Table 14.1.
Writing Scientific Research Articles: Strategy and Steps, 1st edition. By M. Cargill and
P. O’Connor. Published 2009 by Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 978-1-4051-8619-3 (pb)
and 978-1-4051-9335-1 (hb)
Cargill / Writing Scientific Research Articles 9781405186193_4_c14 Final Proof page 79 13.1.2009 2:32pm Compositor Name: KKavitha
Table
14.1
Reasons
for
manuscript
rejection
and
recommendations
for
author
response.
Reason
for
rejection
Response
option
1
Response
option
2
The
content
of
the
paper
may
not
fit
the
scope
of
the
journal
(this
could
mean
it
is
too
specialized,
focused
on
the
wrong
subject
area,
or
not
of
enough
general
interest
for
the
journal’s
readership).
The
editor
will
have
made
this
decision
(usually
before
it
has
been
reviewed)
and
it
is
usually
necessary
to
revise
the
manuscript
and
submit
it
to
a
more
appropriate
journal
(check
your
list
of
preferred
journals;
see
Table
12.1).
If
the
manuscript
has
been
reviewed,
use
the
referee’s
reports
following
Rules
of
thumb
2
and
3
in
section
14.1
and
submit
it
to
a
more
appropriate
journal
(check
your
list
of
preferred
journals;
see
Table
12.1).
There
are
clear
and
obvious
flaws
in
the
science.
The
editor
may
have
made
this
decision
before
review.
Revise
the
man
uscript
using
the
author
response
guide
(Table
14.2)
and
try
to
publish
the
best
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
