3/29/2023 0 Comments ManuscriptThe characteristics that allow an author to successfully revise a manuscript, i.e., acceptance of criticism, willingness to revise one's position, perseverance, and good organizational skills, are many of the same qualities that allow one to succeed in other aspects of life. Sometimes the way in which an author responds to reviewers' comments reflects the author's responses to other stressors in life. Nonetheless, as in any such situation, the process can be approached as a self-learning opportunity. The manuscript revision process is one in which the author's emotions (and, in some cases, sense of professional self-worth) may be tested. A short delay will often allow the response to the editor and reviewers to be written in a more dispassionate manner than a response generated very soon after receipt of the reviews. On receiving a request for substantial revisions or a rejection notice, it may be helpful to put aside the reviewer's comments for a few days, which allows time to judiciously weigh your response and overcome any emotional response that might interfere with successful resubmission. ![]() ![]() Furthermore, in some instances, the author may be under the impression that the manuscript has not been given a fair chance at publication for various reasons. It is natural for some authors to believe that their manuscript has been misunderstood. After all, authors have put much painstaking effort into writing their manuscript it may seem that many months of hard work will now fail to be rewarded. On receiving a judgment of Reconsider with Major Revisions (or worse, a rejection notice), authors often feel a variety of emotions, including disappointment and, on occasion, resentment. The Initial Response to the Reviewer's Comments Furthermore, the principles outlined in this article should prove helpful not only to authors at the start of their writing career but also to more senior investigators who seek to provide guidance to more junior colleagues. The discussion that follows relates to both manuscripts that are allowed to be resubmitted to the original journal and those that were rejected outright. The intent of this article is to provide all authors of scientific manuscripts (not solely AJR authors) with practical suggestions for revising a manuscript in a manner that will increase the likelihood that the revised manuscript will be accepted for publication. However, relatively little has been published addressing the issue of how authors can most effectively revise a manuscript after receipt of reviewer recommendations. ![]() In addition, guidelines to allow reviewers to better understand the features that journal editors seek in a manuscript have recently been published. However, for many authors, the process of revising a manuscript is an unnecessarily slow and arduous one.Ī number of articles have been published that outline the principles of composing a manuscript. These facts should be encouraging to AJR authors and an impetus to quickly revise a manuscript after responding to reviewers' comments. Furthermore, most manuscripts rejected by the AJR are ultimately published, after revision, in another journal. However, most manuscripts receiving a recommendation of Reconsider with Major Revisions from the AJR editorial staff are subsequently published in the AJR (Haines GR, personal communication). It is a rare author who has not, at some point, received a notice from a journal that a manuscript must be substantially revised before it can be published or one that states that the manuscript is rejected.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |