Often, the testers will decide that the article is ideal for distribution “as is,” this means this may involve no adjustments on your part. But typically, they will suggest changes, or revisions, of the manuscript. These revisions might be small or substantive, but either way, you need to anticipate to react to them effectively when they will return your medical article one or two weeks following submission.
But how, just, can you handle the version process? What certain requirements in case you bear in mind when responding to remarks or questions? You have to be complete and answer each review one by one. I suggest that you achieve this immediately beneath the reviewer’s comment, breaking your solution into many items, if necessary.
Your answer should be obvious and certain, addressing all of the reviewer’s concerns. Provide due respect to the changes your peers recommend, and include these in your paper. Highlight your answers in yellow so your testers can easily recognize them, and if at all possible, give equally a clean and outlined version due to their convenience.
Obviously indicate wherever you made the requested changes, noting the site number, and describing the way you revised it. Duplicate and substance the first word or phrase just below the reviewer’s review and your modified phrase or expression, creating an easy-to-understand “before and after” series to make sure your meaning is clear. Use estimates, striking face, and italics to obviously separate the reviewer’s review, your answer, and your improvements to the manuscript.
Be courteous and respectful. Show concern and thank the reviewers because of their comments Comprar TCC. Don’t get the opinions or queries individually, or as opinions; in fact, requests for revisions suggest the testers want to publish your paper and are giving you the opportunity to transform your article with their journal’s standards. Take it as a compliment! Even although you believe the testers’comments are not just, react to them with respect.
If you return the content without creating specific changes, defend this choice in a respective review to the reviewer. Describe why a change is extremely hard and provide effective arguments in these cases. If you don’t trust a reviewer on a certain stage, you should however respect the reviewer’s perception and integrity. But eventually, it’s your choice whether to add the change or not. Your paper is going to be published under your name, and the reviewer’s title won’t be mentioned.
Eventually, when sending your response to the reviewers, remember to incorporate an address page to the publisher, explaining that you modified the manuscript based on the testers’concerns and that you wish to submit it again for a fresh evaluation.