Professional assistance for the revision response by manuscript pairs

Use the correct resources

Experienced magazine editors advise researchers to invest time and resources and seek expert help to ensure that a presentation of high quality academic magazines, who adhere to all guidelines, prepares for publication. Expert assistance from writers and academic researchers can help the author obtain a new perspective of comments and questions, which leads to an improved answer [3].

Classify comments

The authors must classify the review process by pairs of comments received in two categories: higher or minors. Main comments may imply changes in the methodology, results or conclusions of the study. On the contrary, minor comments can reflect changes in grammar, adding or eliminating references, tables or figures, information or unclear sentences, etc. The main comments should be considered critical and given priority over minors while an answer is formed [4].

Example:

Main comments: The method section does not specify the inclusion criteria that are crucial to know how the subjects are included in the study. Include the inclusion criteria.

Minor comments: The manuscript summary is very complex and not clear. The summaries must be clear and concise.

Mape your answers

Strategically plan your responses to the reviewer’s comments will help your manuscript to stay organized throughout the process and ensure that the address of any comments is not lost. Here are some tips for writing responses efficiently in the peer review process [4], [5]:

• Mark the location of the changes required in the manuscript.
• Start with the main changes and track them.
• Number each comment and respond to them in a sequence to avoid confusion.
• Provide a detailed and accurate response or explanation for each comment. Comments can be broken down by point by point, if necessary.
• Attached additional data, files and references if requested.

Touch disagreement management

If a reviewer comment seems unreasonable or against the integrity of the investigation, the author has the right to disagree politely and explain his perspective. Although more than one refusal to changes can lead to the rejection of the manuscript, adequate recognition and justification can help express the author’s point. In addition, the author can appeal to the editor according to the guidelines of the magazine [4].

Example:
If a reviewer establishes a correction that affects the theories established in its subject, we can answer:
“We value the reviewer’s suggestion. But, based on studies [reference]Our method coincides with the procedure established in this field. Therefore, we firmly believe that maintaining this procedure is scientifically valid. ”