2016
DOI: 10.1002/2327-6924.12399
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The four R's of revising and resubmitting a manuscript

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Try to frame your mind with positive thoughts. Remember that the editor is interested in your work otherwise they would have rejected it! 4,5 Think of your revision as an opportunity to improve your manuscript to make it even better. Be persistent; do not give up.…”
Section: Revising It Rightmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Try to frame your mind with positive thoughts. Remember that the editor is interested in your work otherwise they would have rejected it! 4,5 Think of your revision as an opportunity to improve your manuscript to make it even better. Be persistent; do not give up.…”
Section: Revising It Rightmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Once you have felt and dealt with your emotional response, it is time to revisit the reviews with a “clear and calm head.” 2 , p. 2077 Try to see your writing objectively and from the peer reviewers' perspectives. You may want to read your work out loud to hear how it sounds 4 . Try to grasp the big picture of your manuscript and then look at the specific details of the provided feedback.…”
Section: Revising It Rightmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…After carefully reading and reflecting upon the comments, the author begins revising the manuscript. Provenzale offers helpful principles and guidance for this process.…”
Section: Common Reasons Manuscripts Are Rejected and How To Prevent Themmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A search of the JAANP website using the term “peer review” brought up 208 results from our journal alone; some of these articles were “how to” guides (Christenbery, ), others were recognition statements listing the peer reviewers for the previous year, and many were substantive editorials going back as far as volume 3 (Nativio, ). My most recent editorial on peer review (Pierson, ) addressed the need to respond appropriately to peer reviewers when making revisions to a manuscript. So, we have covered the topic of peer review extensively, yet I have one more thing to add to this ongoing discussion.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%