Bavdekar Sandeep B
Professor and Head, Dept. of Pediatrics, TN Medical College and BYL Nair Ch. Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra.
J Assoc Physicians India. 2016 Apr;64(4):66-69.
Although peer review process intends to improve the quality of published scientific literature, many authors find the process intimidating and overbearing. Responding to reviewers' comments in a hasty and inappropriate manner is self-defeating. Authors need to answer the reviewers in an objective manner providing additional description, rational arguments and relevant evidence. Peer review is an important element of the research process. It aims to maintain the quality of scientific publications by rejecting manuscripts that are trivial, weak, irrelevant or misleading and by improving the transparency, accuracy and utility of manuscripts accepted for publication.1,2 But, the process can be intimidating for some new authors. They cannot understand, let alone digest the criticism of their submitted manuscript and hence respond in a hurry and in an inappropriate manner, further jeopardizing the chances of acceptability. This article informs new authors about the way a submitted manuscript is handled in the journal office and provides suggestions on how to respond to the reviewers' and editors' comments. More importantly, it intends to provide clues on how to minimize the chances of receiving harsh criticism.
尽管同行评审过程旨在提高已发表科学文献的质量，但许多作者觉得这个过程令人生畏且专横。仓促且不恰当地回应审稿人的意见只会适得其反。作者需要以客观的方式回答审稿人，提供额外的描述、合理的论据和相关证据。同行评审是研究过程的一个重要环节。它旨在通过拒斥琐碎、薄弱、不相关或有误导性的稿件，并提高被接受发表稿件的透明度、准确性和实用性来维持科学出版物的质量。1,2 但是，这个过程对一些新作者来说可能令人生畏。他们无法理解，更不用说消化对其投稿的批评，因此匆忙且不恰当地做出回应，进一步危及稿件被接受的机会。本文告知新作者稿件在期刊编辑部是如何处理的，并就如何回应审稿人和编辑的意见提供建议。更重要的是，它旨在提供线索，说明如何尽量减少收到严厉批评的可能性。
