中国医生发表SCI.pptVIP

How to Deal with “Revision” Most papers need 1-2 revisions before acceptance Recommended procedures for revision Read the editor’s letter and Reviewers’ comments carefully, perform additional experiments if “demanded” Try to draft the “point-by-point” replies to the comments first Then, revise your paper according to the drafted “point-by-point” replies Finalize your “point-by-point” replies and revisions in the paper If additional experiments or data are required, do it in a reasonable timeline- neither in days nor in months How to Deal with “Revision” Recommended attitude toward reviewers’ comments for revision Most reviewers are helping both the journal and authors Some reviewers point out how to improve the presentation of the paper, or even edit the paper Always thank the reviewer, even if he/she is wrong Never blame the reviewers for not understanding your paper, or deliberately picking up the weaknesses of your paper The preparation of (wording in) the “point-by-point” reply letter is even more important than the revision of the manuscript of the paper Wording in the “point-by-point” reply letter Before the “point-by-point” reply letter, a sentence like the following will give the reviewer(s) a good impression If the comments are really good First of all, we wish to thank the reviewer(s) for the(ir) constructive, encouraging and positive comments If the comments are mixed First of all, we wish to thank the reviewer(s) for the(ir) constructive, and useful comments If the comments are somewhat critical First of all, we wish to thank the reviewer(s) for the(ir) constructive, and pertinent comments which definitely help improve our manuscript How to Deal with “Revision” Value of Meeting presentations The best opportunity to understand the quality of your data objectively. A good opportunity to make your wish list for future presentations. Always include new data. Accept criticism, assess the response of the audience, and improve the clarity of your present