Abstract
The purpose of this article is to provide some insight into the peer-review process used by many technical journals and to give a bit of advice about revision and resubmission of a paper that was not accepted after the first round of reviews. For young authors, the review process can be mysterious and frustrating. Criticisms conveyed in anonymous reviews may feel like personal attacks, while terse or vague comments may seem to provide little guidance for revision. This article provides a set of practical guidelines that can help you succeed in publishing good research. This includes a brief overview of the review process, as well as some hints about interpreting reviews, and suggestions for preparing a response to the reviews. The opinions below have evolved over several years, through numerous interactions with authors, reviewers, and members of editorial boards. They are meant only to convey practical hints for success and not as value judgments about the process. Finally, they represent only one viewpoint. Newcomers to the process would do well to solicit the advice and opinions of a variety of senior researchers.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
