I’ve a template doc for representing revise and resubmit responses.
See my templates web page on
github and particularly see
the file “response-to-reviewers.dotx”.
Organising the Response Doc
The doc has the next core types:
- Heading 1: Divides up main sections of the evaluation (e.g., Editor, Reviewer 1,
Reviewer 2 - Heading 2: Abstract assertion for every reviewer actions
- Reviewer Remark: Precise quote of a selected reviewer remark
- Physique textual content: For recording my response
- Quote: For formatting quotes of particularly modified sections of the textual content
Step 1 is to stick the complete textual content of the editor and reviewers into a brand new Phrase
response doc. Apply reviewer remark fashion
Step 2 is to arrange the response doc. Stage 1 headings are added that
divide up the the reviewer sections.
Reviewer feedback are divided into discrete factors.
The division of revision factors might or will not be clear.
Some reviewers present numbered factors. Others present a extra narrative evaluation
the place every paragraph consists of a number of factors. Some factors are interconnected
however contain distinct actions.
For every level that’s recognized, I add a stage 2 heading. The extent 2 heading
consists of an identifier and a quick abstract assertion of the requirement.
Identifiers are for instance, “R1.2”, which might check with reviewer 1’s second
level. In some circumstances, the place there are related factors, you get “R1.2.1”,
“R1.2.2” and so forth.
There are a number of advantages to utilizing identifiers. In some circumstances, a number of
reviewers make the identical level. Thus, you’ll be able to rapidly refer the reviewer to
one other evaluation level. E.g., “This level was addressed in reviewer level R1.2”.
It will also be an environment friendly manner of protecting observe of reviewer factors if you end up
working by a lot of them.
The abstract statements are vital. I goal to maintain them brief. Ideally they will
match on one line in order that they’re simple to rapidly perceive (i.e., round 50
characters). I attempt to make them instructions. For instance:
- Make clear distinctive contribution
- Enhance research motivation in introduction
- Describe x extra clearly
- Add references to …
- Justify statistical methodology
- Think about using … methodology
- Embody … Desk 1
In some circumstances, the required motion shouldn’t be explicitly acknowledged by the reviewer. For
instance, if a reviewer critiques a methodological choice, there are numerous
doable actions together with, justifying your alternative, including a limitation, and so
on.
Advantages of the above strategy
- Utilizing formal Headings in MS Phrase lets you view a doc
map on the aspect that may rapidly will let you navigate between reviewer factors. - One other good thing about the above course of is that reviewer feedback begin to seem
extra manageable. Once you first obtain a number of pages of reviewer feedback, it may well
really feel overwhelming. The above course of begins to divide up every level right into a extra
manageable activity. The act of offering a abstract assertion additionally forces you to
learn and perceive what motion is required to answer the reviewer remark.
Report preliminary reflections
Above, I present how the primary studying is used to parse reviewer feedback into discrete factors and provides descriptive titles. Within the second studying, I add feedback to every reviewer level utilizing the remark function within the Phrase Processor. This is a chance to have some preliminary reflections on (a) how simple will probably be to fulfill the revision, (b) whether or not a change to the manuscript is required, and (c) what needs to be completed. After I’ve added these, I typically flow into the response doc to collaborators, to permit them so as to add feedback.
Sequencing the Revisions
The following activity is to find out a sequence for working by the revisions.
This includes protecting observe of which factors nonetheless should be addressed and
deciding on an order to work by the factors.
At a primary stage, I place an asterisk initially of every heading that has not
but been addressed. That is eliminated as soon as the purpose has been adequately
addressed.
A more difficult challenge is deciding on the way to work by the
modifications. Some modifications are interdependent. Nonetheless, main revisions typically
should be labored by first as they will have broader structural implications
for the manuscript.
A couple of helpful steps for desirous about sequencing embrace:
- Organise the factors into classes
- Learn by every level, and make some tentative notes about what to do (e.g., utilizing feedback in Phrase).
- Resolve on an specific sequence to work on the factors. This typically requires you
to brainstorm the professionals and cons of engaged on one level versus one other first.
In some circumstances, sequencing will elevate some extra meta-issues concerning the paper that
transcend any given evaluation level. I principally discover it best to work by factors within the following order: analyses, outcomes, methodology, introduction, dialogue. The rationale is that any new analyses that you simply run and incorporate into your paper will change your outcomes. And these might additional require modifications to the tactic, which in flip affect the framing and dialogue. Likewise, if the introduction is modified, this will have implications for a way the dialogue integrates subjects raised within the introduction.
Logistically, I generate a desk of contents in MS Phrase. This lists all of the reviewer level titles (i.e., the IDs and the titles similar to “R1.1 Replace methodology to incorporate …”). This works as a result of all of the reviewer factors are formatted utilizing heading types. I then copy and paste this as plain textual content into a piece doc. These factors are then organised thematically below headings and into an acceptable sequential order.
Addressing Revision Factors
If sequencing points have been resolved, it’s a matter of working by every
revision level. I’ve a number of guiding rules:
- Write in a way which focuses on the scientific challenge.
- Deal with the reviewer with respect.
- If a reviewer has misunderstood one thing within the manuscript, take duty
for making the manuscript clearer.
One other level is that the response doc needs to be self-contained. Ideally,
the reviewer shouldn’t want to take a look at the precise manuscript to guage whether or not
you’ve got successfully responded to their requested modifications. This makes the expertise of the
reviewer rather more nice. From a strategic perspective, they could even be much less
inclined to learn by the whole manuscript once more and give you all new
considerations.
- If a desk or determine is up to date, then paste a screenshot of the up to date desk
or determine. - If a brand new paragraph has been added, embrace a replica of that paragraph.
- If a sentence or two has been added to a paragraph, embrace a replica of the
complete paragraph and daring the part that has been added. - Provided that the purpose could be very primary is it ample to say, “this variation was
made”. Examples of this is perhaps including a reference, fixing up typos, and so
on.
One other helpful technique is to point new textual content within the manuscript with a unique color font (e.g., purple).
Collaborations and Revisions
It’s typically best if one individual leads revisions.
The lead individual can even allocate particular revision duties to co-authors. There may be the problem of the way to synchronise the revisions within the manuscript with the response doc. If the modifications are significantly complicated or the collaborators are more likely to make substantial extra modifications to the manuscript, then it could be value ready a bit of bit earlier than finishing the response doc. Or alternatively simply see the response doc as an preliminary draft to be returned as soon as the manuscript has been finalised.
Monitor Modifications
Some journals require that you simply embrace a model of the manuscript with observe modifications. In different circumstances, it may well simply be a helpful addition to the submission. In case you are utilizing MS Phrase, then the evaluate paperwork function is good for producing this doc. This function lets you anonymise the change as a result of you’ll be able to label the change with “creator” quite than your precise title.
