Saida Hidouri, Hela Kamoun, Sana Salah, Anis Jellad, Helmi Ben Saad
{"title":"回应审稿人的关键准则。","authors":"Saida Hidouri, Hela Kamoun, Sana Salah, Anis Jellad, Helmi Ben Saad","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.154614.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Opinion article.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific \"response to reviews\" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.</p>","PeriodicalId":12260,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":"13 ","pages":"921"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11377928/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.\",\"authors\":\"Saida Hidouri, Hela Kamoun, Sana Salah, Anis Jellad, Helmi Ben Saad\",\"doi\":\"10.12688/f1000research.154614.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Opinion article.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific \\\"response to reviews\\\" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12260,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"F1000Research\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"921\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11377928/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"F1000Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154614.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.154614.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks.
Methods: Opinion article.
Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates.
Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented.
Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.
F1000ResearchPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (all)
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1646
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊介绍:
F1000Research publishes articles and other research outputs reporting basic scientific, scholarly, translational and clinical research across the physical and life sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences and humanities. F1000Research is a scholarly publication platform set up for the scientific, scholarly and medical research community; each article has at least one author who is a qualified researcher, scholar or clinician actively working in their speciality and who has made a key contribution to the article. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research is suitable irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; we welcome confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies. F1000Research publishes different type of research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others. Reviews and Opinion articles providing a balanced and comprehensive overview of the latest discoveries in a particular field, or presenting a personal perspective on recent developments, are also welcome. See the full list of article types we accept for more information.