This document is submitted alongside your revised manuscript, summarizing the changes that you made in response to the critiques. However, in practice, the review process can be emotionally charged as you grapple with comments that may seem to you to be ill-informed, biased, or otherwise problematic.Ī well-crafted "response to reviewers" document is a critical part of your response. Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that papers that have undergone multiple rounds of peer review fare better in terms of citation counts than papers that are quickly accepted.
Ideally, the reviewing process can significantly improve your manuscript by allowing you to take into account the advice of multiple experts in your field. Now you have gotten the reviews back, and the editor has asked you to revise your manuscript in light of the reviewers' comments. You recently submitted your first manuscript for publication, and you were pleased when the editor decided to send the manuscript out for peer review.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.įunding: The author received no specific funding for this work.Ĭompeting interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist. PLoS Comput Biol 13(10):Ĭopyright: © 2017 William Stafford Noble.
Citation: Noble WS (2017) Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers.
0 kommentar(er)
