If you wish to publish
a scientific paper inside a peer-reviewed scientific journal, you have to first
submit your post for publication. The editor from the publication then sends
your article via a rigorous process of evaluation with a panel of external
reviewers, selected through the editor. These reviewers will evaluate your
article as well as send their comments towards the editor, together with their
strategies for or against the article's publication within the journal. The
editor makes the ultimate decision regarding whether your paper is going to be
published. Many scientific journals recruit professors yet others in academia
who tends to be experts in their field to defend myself against this role, and
to examine, evaluate, and determine the validity of the paper's data and thomson
reuters journals.
Sometimes, the
reviewers will decide that the article is suitable with regard to publication
"as is, " and this will require no modifications in your part. But in
the majority of cases, they will recommend improvements, or revisions, from the
manuscript. These revisions might be minor or substantive, but in either case,
you must be ready to respond to them correctly once they will return your
scientific european journal
at http://ojs.journals.cz/
However how, exactly,
do a person handle the revision procedure? What certain standards should you
bear in mind when responding to remarks or questions?
Here is a summary of
the most important things you have to accomplish:
You must be
comprehensive and answer each comment 1 by 1. I recommend that you need to do
so directly under the actual reviewer's comment, breaking your own answer into
several factors, if necessary.
Your answer should be
clear and specific, addressing all of the reviewer's concerns.
Give due respect
towards the improvements your peers recommend, and include all of these in your
paper.
Highlight your answers
in yellow so that your reviewers can easily determine them, and if feasible,
provide both a thoroughly clean and highlighted version for his or her
convenience.
Clearly indicate
exactly where you made the asked for improvements, noting the web page number,
and explaining the way you modified it.
Copy and paste the
first sentence or phrase just beneath the reviewer's comment as well as your
revised sentence or expression, creating an easy-to-understand "before and
after" sequence to make sure your message is obvious.
Use quotes, bold
encounter, and italics to obviously separate the reviewer's remark, your
answer, and your changes towards the manuscript.
Be polite as well as
respectful. Show consideration and thank the reviewers for his or her comments.
Do not consider the
reviews or inquiries personally, or as evaluations; in fact, requests for
revisions mean the reviewers want to publish your paper and therefore are
giving you the opportunity to modify your article for their journal's
standards. Take it like a compliment!
Even if you think the
reviewers' comments aren't just, respond to all of them with respect.
If you return the
content without making certain enhancements, defend this choice inside a respective
comment to the actual reviewer. Explain why a change isn't possible and offer
convincing arguments in these instances.
If you do not trust a
reviewer on a particular point, you should nevertheless respect the reviewer's
viewpoint and integrity. But eventually, it's your choice whether to
incorporate the alteration or not really. Your paper will end up being
published under your title, and the reviewer's name won't be mentioned.
Finally, when sending
your reaction to the reviewers, remember to incorporate a cover letter towards
the editor, explaining that you modified the manuscript based on the reviewers'
concerns and you want to submit it again for any new evaluation.
For more information
about thomson reuters journals visit
the website http://cbuic.cz/?lang=en
No comments:
Post a Comment