Suppr超能文献

回复审稿人的关键指南。

Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.

机构信息

Department of Pediatric surgery, Zaghouan Hospital, Research Laboratory LR12SP13, University of Monastir Faculty de Medicine of Monastir, Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia.

Ibn Nafiss Pneumology Department, Abderrahmene Mami Hospital, Ariana, University of Tunis El Manar Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia.

出版信息

F1000Res. 2024 Sep 20;13:921. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.154614.1. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks.

METHODS

Opinion article.

AIM

To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates.

RESULTS

Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented.

CONCLUSION

By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

摘要

背景

准备科学手稿的过程错综复杂,涵盖了几个关键阶段,包括写作前、研究发展、起草、同行评审、编辑、出版、传播和获取。在这些阶段中,同行评审过程(PRP)是一个关键组成部分,需要编辑、评审员和作者之间无缝协作。评审员在评估手稿质量和提供建设性反馈方面发挥着至关重要的作用,作者必须巧妙地应对这些反馈,以提高工作质量并符合期刊标准。这个过程往往令人生畏且耗时,因为作者需要处理大量的评论和要求的更改。鼓励作者将评审员视为顾问,而不是对手,将他们的批评视为改进的机会,而不是人身攻击。

方法

意见文章。

目的

为作者提供在 PRP 中进行有效沟通的实用策略,并提高他们的出版接受率。

结果

关键准则包括彻底理解和优先考虑反馈、保持专业精神以及系统地处理每个评论。在存在重大分歧或误解的情况下,作者可以选择将问题提交给编辑。撰写组织良好且科学的“对评审的回复”以及修订后的手稿可以大大增加接受的可能性。撰写有效回复评审的最佳实践包括表达感谢、首先处理主要修订、征求合著者和同事的意见以及严格遵守期刊指南。强调规划回复的重要性、突出修订后的手稿中的更改,并进行最终审查,以确保所有更正都有正确的记录。

结论

通过遵循这些准则,作者可以提高手稿质量,与评审员建立积极的关系,并最终为学术进步做出贡献。

相似文献

1
Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.回复审稿人的关键指南。
F1000Res. 2024 Sep 20;13:921. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.154614.1. eCollection 2024.
8
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice.审核与反馈:对专业实践的影响
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Mar 25;3(3):CD000259. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub4.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验