It is always important to improve the manuscript based on the referee’s comments before re-submission. But if the study is really intrinsically flawed, the prospects of acceptance are negligible. The only option is to revise the manuscript based on the referee’s comments and consider re-submission elsewhere. Usually the editor’s decision is final, so no appeals are permissible. Typically, this results from the manuscript not being suitable for the journal or because of some major methodological error that renders it irredeemable. The paper is unclearly written and cannot be recommended for publication.” “We investigated the same matter previously. For example, the referee might not have fully understood the article because you have not explained it well enough. Look for implications that can be remedied. If you are unsure about “reading between the lines” in the editor’s letter or referee’s reports, it is wise to write to the editor seeking further clarification. This is an opportunity to re-submit and should not be taken lightly. The authors need to get over any feelings of personal attack and instead concentrate on dealing comprehensively with the referee’s comments. Such cases would usually require a complete re-write based on suggestions made by the referees. This is the hardest to answer are very general and sometimes destructive comments. Try making it more specific by highlighting the novelty of the study.” “The whole paper is very unclear and not interesting to the specialized audience. Situation 3: Reject but Invite to Re-Submit Where comments on one or more aspects of the manuscript by two referees reports are conflicting, it is reasonable to go with one referee’s comments, justifying your reasons for doing so.
What do I do when the comments by different referees are conflicting?.A complete re-write will take considerable time and needs to be done systematically so that the re-submission is a definitive “re-write” and not just a collection of “minor” revisions. In some cases a complete re-write is required based on suggestions made by the referees. Normally, it will take days to address all the requests so do not underestimate the task involved. It is important to carefully read all the comments/suggestions that have been usually made by more than one referee. It would involve substantive changes such as re-organizing the paper, re-calculating data, writing for a different audience or from a different viewpoint. This sentence is a general comment, which is harder to answer. “Why don’t you apply a better statistical test? It is unclear to me why you have used this method…” Proceed with all changes without argument, aiming to get the revised manuscript back to the editor as quickly as possible to generate speedy acceptance. They are usually very easy to deal with and should be corrected quickly. These short and specific comments would include simple reorganizing, rewriting parts for clarity, adding or correcting specific points as directed by the referees. Figure 2 is redundant and can be deleted”.There is a typographical error in the third paragraph.“The paper is well written, presents new matter, and can be published with minor revisions:
0 kommentar(er)
