Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript

Abstract

: Getting feedback from the journals’ editorial office upon the peer-review process, revising the manuscript, and responding to reviewers’ comments are the essential parts of scientific publishing. The process of revising seems cumbersome and time-consuming as authors must be engaged probably with many comments and requested changes. Authors are advised to approach the reviewer as a consultant rather than an adversary. They should carefully read and understand comments and then decide how to proceed with each requested change/suggestion. In the case of serious disagreement with reviewer comments or misunderstanding, authors can defer the issue to the editor. Preparing a scientific and well-organized "response to reviews" and the revised version of the manuscript can increase the chance of acceptance. Here, we provide a practical guide on dealing with different types of comments (ie, minor or major revisions, conflicting comments, or those that authors disagree with or cannot adhere to) and how to craft a response to reviews. We also provide the principles for making a successful revision.

The linguistic elephant in scientific publishing

“…As shown in Table 2, this normative assumption is remarkably pervasive across various formats: journal instructions for authors; reviewers' comments; and journal editorials, guidelines, and opinions. It is held by L1 and EAL researchers alike, appears in both specialized and general journals, and spans publishers ranging from lesserknown to prestigious ones (17,21,32,(46)(47)(48)(49)(50).…”