Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript

4Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

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.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bahadoran, Z., Mirmiran, P., Kashfi, K., & Ghasemi, A. (2022). Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.120366

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free