Williams Hywel C
Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Queen's Medical Centre, United Kingdom.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Jul;51(1):79-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2004.01.049.
The publication of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals is a fairly complex and step-wise process that involves responding to referees' comments. Little guidance is available in the biomedical literature on how to deal with such comments.
The objective of this article is to provide guidance to novice writers on dealing with peer review comments in a way that maximizes the chance of subsequent acceptance.
This will be a literature review and review of the author's experience as a writer and referee.
Where possible, the author should consider revising and resubmitting rather than sending an article elsewhere. A structured layout for responding to referees' comments is suggested that includes the 3 golden rules: (1) respond completely; (2) respond politely; and (3) respond with evidence.
Responding to referees' comments requires the writer to overcome any feelings of personal attack, and to instead concentrate on addressing referees' concerns in a courteous, objective, and evidence-based way.
在同行评审的科学期刊上发表文章是一个相当复杂且分步骤的过程,其中涉及回应审稿人的意见。生物医学文献中关于如何处理此类意见的指导很少。
本文的目的是为新手作者提供指导,以便他们以一种最大限度提高后续文章被接受几率的方式来处理同行评审意见。
这将是一篇文献综述以及对作者作为作者和审稿人的经验回顾。
只要有可能,作者应考虑修改并重新提交文章,而不是将其投往其他地方。建议采用一种结构化的布局来回应审稿人的意见,其中包括三条黄金法则:(1)全面回应;(2)礼貌回应;(3)提供证据回应。
回应审稿人的意见要求作者克服任何个人受攻击的感觉,而是专注于以礼貌、客观且基于证据的方式解决审稿人的担忧。