Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript
| Author | Zahra Bahadoran | en |
| Author | Parvin Mirmiran | en |
| Author | Khosrow Kashfi | en |
| Author | Asghar Ghasemi | en |
| Orcid | Zahra Bahadoran [0000-0003-4636-3977] | en |
| Orcid | Parvin Mirmiran [0000-0003-2391-4924] | en |
| Orcid | Khosrow Kashfi [0000-0002-4060-7283] | en |
| Orcid | Asghar Ghasemi [0000-0001-6867-2151] | en |
| Issued Date | 2022-01-31 | en |
| 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 (i.e., 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 dos and don'ts for making a successful revision. | en |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.120366 | en |
| Keyword | Writing | en |
| Keyword | Revision | en |
| Keyword | Response to Reviewers | en |
| Publisher | Brieflands | en |
| Title | Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript | en |
| Type | Review Article | en |