If you wish to publish a scientific paper inside a peer-reviewed scientific journal, you have to first submit your post for publication. The editor from the publication then sends your article via a rigorous process of evaluation with a panel of external reviewers, selected through the editor. These reviewers will evaluate your article as well as send their comments towards the editor, together with their strategies for or against the article’s publication within the journal. The editor makes the ultimate decision regarding whether your paper is going to be published. Many scientific journals recruit professors yet others in academia who tends to be experts in their field to defend myself against this role, and to examine, evaluate, and determine the validity of the paper’s data and thomson reuters journals.
Sometimes, the reviewers will decide that the article is suitable with regard to publication “as is, ” and this will require no modifications in your part. But in the majority of cases, they will recommend improvements, or revisions, from the manuscript. These revisions might be minor or substantive, but in either case, you must be ready to respond to them correctly once they will return your scientific european journal at http://ojs.journals.cz/
However how, exactly, do a person handle the revision procedure? What certain standards should you bear in mind when responding to remarks or questions?
Here is a summary of the most important things you have to accomplish:
You must be comprehensive and answer each comment 1 by 1. I recommend that you need to do so directly under the actual reviewer’s comment, breaking your own answer into several factors, if necessary.
Your answer should be clear and specific, addressing all of the reviewer’s concerns.
Give due respect towards the improvements your peers recommend, and include all of these in your paper.
Highlight your answers in yellow so that your reviewers can easily determine them, and if feasible, provide both a thoroughly clean and highlighted version for his or her convenience.
Clearly indicate exactly where you made the asked for improvements, noting the web page number, and explaining the way you modified it.
Copy and paste the first sentence or phrase just beneath the reviewer’s comment as well as your revised sentence or expression, creating an easy-to-understand “before and after” sequence to make sure your message is obvious.
Use quotes, bold encounter, and italics to obviously separate the reviewer’s remark, your answer, and your changes towards the manuscript.
Be polite as well as respectful. Show consideration and thank the reviewers for his or her comments.
Do not consider the reviews or inquiries personally, or as evaluations; in fact, requests for revisions mean the reviewers want to publish your paper and therefore are giving you the opportunity to modify your article for their journal’s standards. Take it like a compliment!
Even if you think the reviewers’ comments aren’t just, respond to all of them with respect.
If you return the content without making certain enhancements, defend this choice inside a respective comment to the actual reviewer. Explain why a change isn’t possible and offer convincing arguments in these instances.
If you do not trust a reviewer on a particular point, you should nevertheless respect the reviewer’s viewpoint and integrity. But eventually, it’s your choice whether to incorporate the alteration or not really. Your paper will end up being published under your title, and the reviewer’s name won’t be mentioned.
Finally, when sending your reaction to the reviewers, remember to incorporate a cover letter towards the editor, explaining that you modified the manuscript based on the reviewers’ concerns and you want to submit it again for any new evaluation.
For more information about thomson reuters journals visit the website http://cbuic.cz/?lang=en