Journal comments correction

4 Smart Tips for providing journal comments correction

Peer review is a very critical portion of the publication cycle. It helps to make sure the manuscript and journal quality. The process and its motives are to offer written feedback in the form of commentary to the author, prior to the process of the paper publication. Peer review comprises two sections they are reading and evaluating the research work, followed by communicating your evaluation to the author.

But the main motive is to sustain and support the writing in progress. A well-delivered peer review process advances the scientific quality, and also it shows the novelty of the reported research, and most significantly it also helps to advances the researcher’s career. Here we have notified some of the important peer-review processes by offering clear guidelines and resources. In this, we offer several tips on how to distribute effectual feedback to advance manuscript quality.

How to respond to the reviewer comments journal example?

• You must speak to all the point augmented by the editor and reviewers.
• Give particulars of the revisions to your manuscript in your answer letter.
• Carry out any additional experiments or study the advice of the reviewer. If not you suffer that they would not make your paper better.
• Give a polite and scientific cancellation to any points or comments you oppose with
• Differentiate between reviewer comments and your responses in your letter
• Clearly demonstrate the main revision in the text, either with a diverse color text, by highlighting the alteration, or with Microsoft Word’s track changes aspect.
• Return the revised manuscript and response letter within the time phase the editor tells you.

Examples

Comments from the reviewer

In your analysis of the data you have preferred to use a somewhat obscure fitting function. In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Furthermore, the outcome would be more informative and easier to evaluate earlier results.

Response in accord with the reviewer

We concur with the reviewer’s evaluation of the analysis. Our customized function does create it not likely to fully understand the data by means of the established theories. Additionally, in its existing form, we concur it would be hard to tell that this measurement comprises a significant growth over formerly reported principles.

You must note that in both comments the author is polite and demonstrates respect for the reviewer’s belief. Also, in both conditions, the author modifies the manuscript that addresses the reviewer’s question. While commenting, one must always remember, the reviewer is possibly a highly knowledgeable person. If their suggestion is wrong, it is likely because they misunderstand your document correctly, representing that you should make your text clearer.