回应审稿人的关键准则。

Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
F1000Research Pub Date : 2024-09-20 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/f1000research.154614.1
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":null,"pages":null},"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:科学手稿的编写过程错综复杂,包含几个关键阶段,包括前期写作、研究开发、起草、同行评审、编辑、出版、传播和使用。其中,同行评审过程(PRP)是一个关键环节,需要编辑、审稿人和作者之间的无缝协作。审稿人在评估稿件质量和提供建设性反馈意见方面起着至关重要的作用,作者必须善于利用这些反馈意见来完善自己的作品并达到期刊标准。这一过程往往显得艰巨而耗时,因为作者需要处理大量的意见和修改要求。我们鼓励作者将审稿人视为顾问而不是对手,将他们的批评视为改进的机会而不是人身攻击:目的:为作者提供切实可行的策略,帮助他们有效参与PRP,提高发表论文的录用率:主要指导原则包括:透彻理解并优先处理反馈意见,保持专业精神,系统地处理每一条评论。如果存在重大分歧或误解,作者可以选择将问题提交给编辑。在修改稿件的同时,撰写一份条理清晰、科学合理的 "审稿回复",可以大大提高稿件被录用的可能性。撰写有效的审稿回复的最佳做法包括表达谢意、首先处理主要的修改、征求合作作者和同事的意见以及严格遵守期刊指南。强调计划回复的重要性,突出修订稿件中的改动,并进行终审,以确保所有改正都有适当的记录:通过遵守这些准则,作者可以提高稿件质量,与审稿人建立积极的关系,并最终为学术进步做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
F1000Research
F1000Research Pharmacology, 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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信