How professional and elegant reply reviewers comments?

Reply to reviewer comments are published in peer-reviewed journals need to break through the last of the storm. A successful response letter can promote rapid published articles, and opinions can reply undue delay in receiving articles, while in lead articles rejected. Therefore, this article aims to provide some written reply to the letter of strategy and skill to the reader. No. Many public tweets reply has been directed to a method of reviewers\’ comments, the author of this paper is one of the words for reference purposes only.

[Read Edit Mail]

The first step in reply to the reviewers\’ comments of reviewers and editors are clear requirements and problems. Editing will reviewer comments to the vast majority of journals Decision Letter mail informing Corresponding author. General responsible for a reply reviewer comments and reply letter to guide the drafting work. So what needs to be done after a reviewer for the receipt of comments it? 1. read the entire message. Decision Letter generally comply with the following format:

  • 1) Evaluation Results: rejections (Rejection), repair (Major Revision), minor repairs (Minor Revision) or receive (Acceptance). After receiving rejections may appeal (Appeal), but small complaints probability of success. This article deals only with the written reply to the letter, the complaint does not involve method. In addition, differences related to overhaul and minor repairs, see the Appendix. The results appear in the case of receiving more than the revised article and then vote.
  • 2) Reviewers opinion: usually 2-3 people. Reviewers may be the last arbiter (Adjudicative Reviewer), the reviewers before giving their views reviewer will review all comments.
  • 3) the editorial comments: mostly requirements for modifying aspects of the article, the photographs typographical or other available materials. Multi-language template language. Reply comments about the editorial department also needs to include into the reply letter.

2 confirm that the Decision Letter of:

  • 1) Deadline: although the general submission system will be to the author Send e-mail alert when approaching the deadline, but in advance a clear deadline in favor of arrangements progress to avoid confusion. In addition, if the demand for an extension, you need to apply before the editorial deadline.
  • 2) Evaluation Results (See above).
  • 3) reviewers and the editorial comments: You can easily create a document read e-mail for comments by each reviewer sequentially numbered for easy follow-up reply. Check for fuzzy, whether there are conflicting views between not read comments or reviewer.

This step can be done after the reviewers\’ comments will be forwarded to all authors, so that we know the current state of the articles submitted, but also easy to follow and to liaise with the authors discuss experimental or supplementary reply policy discussions.

comments [analysis]

1. If there is a negative evaluation comments, try to restrain their impulse to curse, dispassionate analysis of the comments pointed out that the problem in the end is groundless or have substance.

  • In fact, the editorial department to the opportunity to modify the article on behalf of journals publish your favorite cast article, no need to panic for the negative comments. In addition, in charge of the reviewer comments to make quality articles on a stage, the intention is good. If necessary, advice can be for one day, and so the mood to calm down and then to review.
  • If the reviewers opinion because misunderstood the article information, in addition to explain in reply to the letter, the best wording but also to reflect on whether it is unclear whether the modification of some misunderstanding, to avoid reader a similar misunderstanding. In short, sincerity should be enough.

2 by the reply comments ease Category:

  • A: quick and easy process views, comprising: adding document, number error, misspellings; added if required Document beyond the article visible refuse and state the reasons;
  • b: required processing time observations, comprising: an additional experimental data discussed, one for the experimental group replenishable experiment;
  • C: requires the views of other team involved, including: the need to add other authors team carried out experiments;
  • D: vague, conflicting advice.

for type A and B views, should take the lead in for a reply as soon as possible additional work. For Category C opinion should contact the partners to discuss the feasibility and necessity of complementary experiments. You need to ask the editorial department for Category D views. Especially in face of the case disagree, we need to understand the expectations of the editorial reply based on what point of view.

[composing a reply letter]

1. Prepare Before preparing the response letter may own for understanding and responding to the views of various strategies and corresponding author and other authors discuss, we ensure a consistent understanding of the problem, determine a reply policy or content, avoiding the follow-up due to authors from different perspectives The major changes. 2. Start composing a reply letter. Three golden rules provided here LetPub provided by the company: first, to complete the answer. All questions, suggestions, comments, who must reply. When replying to do:

  • discusses clarity. Please respect the reviewers of time and effort, avoid rambling discourse. Succinctly stated the core idea. General reply to the first sentence or the second sentence to begin to answer questions. To leave your last alert;
  • by one reply. Do interspersed among the replies. If the reply is really necessary to point to a previous replies, please clearly indicated in the reply, do not do too much expansion; inform reviewers and editors after the
  • replies to modify this provision reflected the views of where in the original text. The modified portion is preferably attached to the reply letter, to avoid back and forth reviewer read and reply to the original channel. I tend to reply directly after the original text content, saving time when reviewers. When the modified portion will worry paste becomes cumbersome such that the return channel, to modify the specified positions must be clear (page number, line number, left / right column, etc.). To facilitate the reviewers, reviewers will give you convenience;
  • for pan over amendments, such as language polish, etc., all without having to modify the annotation position;
  • General reviewers each comments in response to both the need to add more or less to modify article. If the authors believe some of the comments in the article is not suitable for adding to the need to explain why not add in a reply letter.

Second, there must be answered etiquette. Reply letter not quarrel platform, arguing the need well-founded.

  • reply letter will be sent back to the original reviewers often read, do not get in trouble for no reason, lead to rejections;
  • The editors and reviewers deemed collaborators. Professional and responsible reviewers and editors of the opinion, after all, or to improve the quality of the article;
  • thank the editors and reviewers to pay. Words of thanks highlighted enough in the beginning and the end of the reply letter, no need to reply to every comment before all thanks to one, seem excessively bureaucratic. Even to thank one by one, please change thanks sentence,Do not stereotyped;
  • not only expressed opposition when opposition reviewer comments. Reviewers are not God, and their views do not accept it, but can not arbitrarily negative, personal attacks. Please come up with conclusive evidence and compelling case of a negative. The following sentence expressing opposing views are desirable:

We respectfully disagree with … because … You have raised an important point However, we believe that … more appropriate, because … Third, the answer must be based. . Based include:

  • New experimental results;
  • published articles, books conclusions (to be quoted article, which may include the author\’s own work), but its persuasive than their own to make strong results;
  • Add discussed.

[should] experiment new strategies at

Although the outbreak reasons, many journals began to call for reviewers in the request for additional experiments to think twice, but if the reviewer does encounter how to deal with it is to be able to add the experiment? We can be determined based on the value of complementary experiments of the article: 1 if complementary experiments can produce a qualitative improvement to the quality of the article:

  • can be done experiments before the deadline if it is complete and discuss the corresponding results; [123. ]
  • can not be completed before the deadline experiments may be considered: a positive impact on the article

    told the reasons for reviewers and editors can not complete the experiment and confirmed the proposed experiments;

  1. literature cited experiment may supplementary alternative conclusions obtained;

  2. can be substituted experiment? The BET specific surface area required to test, whether the dye by adsorption and desorption test alternate? Clarify the feasibility of alternative experiments. If the experiment is better than the proposed alternative test better.

  3. on the content of the article can be modified to ensure consistency with existing experimental conclusion?

    If you can not add a new experiment, mayThe reviewers\’ opinions related to the limitations set forth as a future work or research articles. When replying reason must be clearly in place;

  • If you really can not complete the new test also worried that doing so would lead to rejections, please contact the editor to explain the situation. .

  • 2 If the supplementary test for the quality of the article no core upgrade, just some interesting ideas:

    thank proposal and explain why the recommendations experiment is beyond the scope of the study;

  • will these experiments and conclusions as set out in future research directions.

[reply letter of recommendation]

    If the modification involves editors and reviewers comments outside, you need to reply to the last letter stated. Generally not recommended to modify, after all, Loose lips sink ships;

  • fully show the reviewers\’ comments. Some reviewers reply to the letter omitted from the beginning of the observations in the comments section. This part may be reserved for other reviewers to edit its basis of assessment results. An article receives two positive comments, a negative comment, is given negative reviews may see the reviewer to change their opinions after the first two positive comments and edit conclusions. In addition, sometimes reviewers will also propose amendments in the comments section, blind omitting might leak back to the reviewers \’comments;

  • different reviewers\’ comments please list the numbers alone, should not hybridity, but avoid merging with numbers ;

  • reply after writing the letter, please review all of proofreading. Avoid obvious grammatical errors. Reply strategies to ensure the beginning of the discussion has been executed correctly; when

  • modification is best not repeated changes in one day. Put one night, the next morning again modified, you will find a lot of the day before could not see how the error. But make sure the deadline to upload response letter and related documents.

[edit posts cover letter]

when the paper revised again the best contribution also attach a cover letter. It is noted that points include:

    Note that the editing information. If a vote editors and reviewers\’ comments sent to the editor of the non-same person, the second submission needs to write the latter;

  1. specify the article title and article number (Manuscript ID);

  2. involved is of increasing or decreasing, the need to statements related reasons. Part of the journals require all chapters the author to sign an agreement increase or decrease;

  3. (optional) summarizes the overall content. For more information, see indicated reply-by-letter;


general overhaul will be sent back to the original reviewers retrial, only minor repairs are generally reviewed by the editors.

overhaul reason

    missing important discussion, information;

  • Articles loose structure, chaos, seriously affect the reading;

  • chart and table of contents improper error, use ;

  • drafting pins; edit needs to be rewritten or depth

  • experimental need to supplement the discussion and analysis;

  • conflicting information;

  • conclusion, the data discussed wrong;

  • lack of novelty (for this high-impact journals are generally the main reason for the rejections).

minor repairs reasons

    reads a small amount of grammatical errors; language needs refining;

  • figure caption supplemented, modified;

  • format problem ;

  • cumbersome need to remove the contents;

  • add small amounts discussed.

  • Large, small repair based on the type of problem involved, irrespective of the desired amount of modified items.