
2009), so authors should do all they can to facilitate the efforts of this network of volunteers. The time a manuscript is with editors, AEs, and referees is a major temporal bottleneck in the publication process (McPeek et al. Structuring responses to make the referees’ and AE’s jobs easier Eventually, the EIC will review the recommendation by the AE and will contact the author with an official decision. The response to the referees’ comments should be concise and well-organized so the AE can make an assessment without having to solicit additional input from referees, which takes additional time and can increase the uncertainty of the manuscript’s fate. The AE will read the revised manuscript and response to reviews carefully to decide whether to recommend to the EIC that the revised manuscript should be: 1) declined, 2) sent back to the original or to new referees for further reviews, 3) accepted without further review but with major or minor revisions, or 4) accepted in its current form without soliciting additional input from referees. Therefore, the response letter should be addressed to the person who signed the decision letter. Depending on the journal, the name of the AE may or may not be known to authors.

The AE probably provided some direction regarding necessary changes. The editor-in-chief (EIC) or associate EIC who vetted the initial manuscript submission probably will send the revised manuscript to the associate editor (AE sometimes referred to as the handling or subject-matter editor depending on the journal) who made the initial recommendation to consider a revision of the manuscript based on the reviews and his/her own reading of the work. Moreover, not all authors and reviewers have the wisdom of the ages.Īuthors might wonder to whom they should address their response letter and who will read the responses. The wisdom of the golden rule of reviewing and structuring a response-“do unto others as you would have them do unto you”-has been around for ages, but people need to be reminded in the current language. My goal is to make recommendations for both authors and journals that should improve responses to referees’ comments and enhance the reviewing process for authors, referees, and editors. Others have noted problems with how authors reply to reviews (Samet 1999, Williams 2004), but more effort by authors and better guidance from journals is needed. However, I also have seen disorganized responses, weak arguments, and inexplicable stubbornness that affected the fate and quality of the manuscript, and the length of time the manuscript was in review. As an associate editor, I have read organized and well-crafted responses to manuscript reviews.

Instructions for Authors of many journals also contain surprisingly little information.
#SPELL RARIFY HOW TO#
Most science writing manuals contain little or no information about how to respond to reviews (Karban and Huntzinger 2006, McMillan 2012, Schimel 2012, but see Day 1998 and Heard 2016). Fourth, revisions based on referees’ comments improve the quality and clarity of the science for future readers-the ‘referees’ authors hope will cite their work! Third, efficient responses to reviews are needed to help journals manage the growing demands on the network of volunteers who edit and review manuscripts for publication. Second, a well-organized and concise response to reviews increases the speed at which a manuscript moves through the review process.

First, the quality of the response to reviews affects whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected. Effective revision of a manuscript in response to referees’ comments has 4 important outcomes for science publishing.
