11 Responding to Editors and Referees.pdf

Chapter 4 RESPONDING TO EDITORS AND REFEREES You have sent a polished version of your manuscript to a journal, and after a few months, you will receive a packet with an editor’s letter and anonymous reviews by 2–4 referees. Each review will be a critique that includes an overall evaluation and a list of items that need improving. Based on the reviews, the editor’s letter will put your paper into one of three categories: • The manuscript is accepted, pending specified changes. • The manuscript requires revision and re-review. • The manuscript is rejected. You should have started the road to publication by submitting your manu- script to a demanding journal, one with a high rejection rate. If your manuscript is rejected, use the referees’ comments to make improvements, and submit the paper to another journal. 1. HOMEWORK After all your work, stay confident. You are going to publish your paper in this journal or in some other. Regardless of the editor’s letter, use this as an opportunity to make improvements. Even good papers can use more work. Therefore, before you face the details of the referees’ comments, assign your- self some homework, beginning with reading. Find a new review article on the subject of your research, a review that you have not yet studied. Read the article and jot down each point that differs from what you have written, that agrees with what you have written, that expands on what you have written, or that fills a gap in what you have written. For every one of these points, make a change in your manuscript: • Differences. If the article says something different from your manuscript, either change your manuscript or add a note such as “Smith et al. (2008) present an alternative view.” • Agreements . If the article cites a new supportive reference, consider adding it to your manuscript. • Further detail. If the article inc