Search results
Feb 4, 2024 · In addressing the feedback, authors should: Make sure to address every piece of feedback provided by the reviewers (and editors, if any). Even if certain suggestions are not incorporated, it is important to acknowledge them and provide a reasoned explanation for their exclusion. Develop a revision strategy.
You can help your peer review partner by summing up your comments with a paragraph or two of holistic feedback. This is feedback that comes at the end of the paper and describes your general impressions of the paper as well as the major items your partner can focus on in revision; it usually focuses on big ideas rather than smaller concerns. It ...
Jul 17, 2018 · Don’t be a bully. Try to frame your feedback and criticism positively. What you want is to empower and enthuse the authors to develop their ideas, and not intimidate them by beating them over the head with their mistakes. “Don't tell the authors what paper they should have written; tell them how to improve the paper they have written ...
If you’ve submitted to a journal with an open peer review process, your readers could see your comments as well. Keep your responses clear, unemotional, and easy to follow. Respond in-line to every comment, indicating line numbers where a change can be found. Reviewer Comment 1: Suggestion for additional charts.
- Specificity
- Problem Identification and Localization
- Solutions and Explanations
- Scope
- Effective Language
- Understanding and Implementing Feedback
- “Accept For Publication”
- Examples of Feedback and Response
- “Revise and Resubmit For Possible Publication”
- Example of Feedback and Response
For feedback to be specific, it must be tell contributors how to proceed (or not) with the manuscript. Specific feedback can be about the manuscript as a whole or it may point to a tangible problem in one section of the text. A reviewer may write that “the manuscript advances current discussions and is recommended to be accepted for publication;” “...
Identifying a problem means explicitly stating a concern. A concern can cover things like insufficient coverage of the existing literature, unclear methods, or overly broad or narrow claims. If there is a structural flaw that creates confusion for the reader, the reviewer may note, for example, that the thesis goes off topic within the third and fo...
Once a problem is identified, reviewers often propose a solution, a statement that offers a way to correct a higher- or lower-order concern. It is also common for a reviewer to pair the solution with an explanation that overviews why the solution must be implemented or how it will improve the submission. For example, an author might be instructed t...
The scope of feedback content is the range of how many or how few comments are provided in the feedback. In constructive feedback, you often will see a few common themes that affect whether the reviewer believes the manuscript is fit for publication. Too many comments can be less helpful than a few that concisely identify patterns that stress the c...
Effective language is praise that stands on its own and mitigating language that comes with solutions. For example, positive language can appear as, “Your argument excels at facilitating discussion on the topic on multilingualism in writing center studies.” Mitigating language might take the form of, “Your argument is very strong, but you should in...
While these seven feedback characteristics are effective, they are not absolute. Feedback depends on the journal’s goals, the reviewer’s style, and the timeliness of the turnaround. For example, not all reviewers offer a solution when identifying a problem; sometimes, they simply may ask questions to further inquire about the topic. Once constructi...
A status of “Accept for Publication” is given if the submission is free of large errors and can be coherently understood by the audience (i.e., the reviewer). This status is rarely given to the first submission; rather, it is usually given after one or more rounds of revision and reevaluation. Even if a manuscript is accepted for publication, addit...
1a.Thank you for submitting “Title” to The Peer Review, which we are pleased to “Accept for Publication.” According to the reviewers, your manuscript makes an important contribution to ______. To continue with the publication process, please review the enclosed comments and reply with your decision to proceed with the publication process. 1b. Thank...
If a contributor receives a “Revise and Resubmit” recommendation from a journal, it means that the manuscript needs revision. Issues may pertain to organization, structure, or idea development. The reviewer most likely will comment on specific areas within the manuscript that an audience member would not understand. This status is given to most con...
1a. Thank you for submitting “Title” to The Peer Review. We write to tell you that your submission has received a recommendation of “Revise and Resubmit for Possible Publication.” Our reviewers have given feedback on the manuscript and are requesting that it be revised before resubmitting for publication. Although the manuscript grounds itself in e...
Whether you are recommending acceptance or rejection, the author could benefit from your feedback and advice. One particular caution is when you want to suggest the authors cite your own papers—do this sparingly. The review should be intended to help the author, not the reviewer. Finally, reviews should be respectful in tone.
People also ask
When should you give feedback on a research paper?
How do you address feedback in a research paper?
How do authors respond to feedback?
How do you give feedback in peer review?
Why is feedback important in research?
Why is peer review feedback important?
Oct 26, 2022 · Do Be Kind. The basic premise of peer review is to encourage further writing. The manuscript is a draft that the author seeks helpful feedback on, thus requiring a fair appraisal. Frame your criticism positively, empower the author to improve their writing and develop ideas. Give the good news along with the bad news.
