特別寄稿
Some Points to Remember When Replying to Reviewers’ Comments
2015 年 48 巻 3 号 p. 280-281
詳細
2015 年 48 巻 3 号 p. 280-281
After the manuscript has been successfully submitted, i.e. submitted with all requirements satisfied, the author will receive a decision from the journal. For a manuscript to be accepted for publication, it must be accepted at both the editorial level and the reviewer level following submission1). The editor-in-chief can reject a manuscript even if it is acceptable to the assistant (associate) editor or reviewer. If the editor-in-chief feels that it is inappropriate for their audience, other experts might be asked to review the manuscript. The rejection rate for medical journals is usually high, and often, although not necessarily, varies depending on the rank and impact factor of the journal. For example, the British Medical Journal has an impact factor of 16.3 (ISI Web of Science, 2014) and only publishes 7% of articles submitted each year2). Gastroenterology has an impact factor of 13. 926 (Journal Citation Reports, 2013) and the overall acceptance rate is 16%3), while Clinical Gastrointestinal and Hepatology has an impact factor of 6.5 (Journal Citation Reports, 2012) and the acceptance rate is 14%4). Furthermore, some other medical journals with an impact factor of less than 5 may have an acceptance rate of less than 20%. Publishing today is extremely competitive.
It can be understood from the above data that medical journals reject a large majority of manuscripts. In the submission process, it is quite rare to have a manuscript accepted without any necessary revisions: in our experience, less than 1 in 100. Therefore, if the journal decision is something other than complete rejection, and there is even a glimmer of hope, it is highly recommended that the author respond to the comments from the reviewers and resubmit the manuscript as soon as possible to enhance the chance of being accepted, although there is no such guarantee. Receiving comments from reviewers actually could imply that they have reviewed the manuscript favorably, although they might be only helping the reviewer with subsequent submissions.
As mentioned in our previous article, the majority of reviewers are voluntarily reviewing submitted articles in their individual time outside of work without remuneration5). It may be somewhat difficult for the author to accept any criticisms or suggestions from a review, but it is important to keep in mind that reviewers are giving objective comments and suggestions, and therefore there is no need to become hostile when responding.
Before replying directly to the comments, it is important to first express your gratitude and thank the reviewer for the comments. This could be done by adding phrases such as, “Thank you for your comment” “Thank you for pointing out our mistakes”, or “Thank you for your valuable suggestions” etc., at the beginning of the response to each comment.
| [Example] Dear Dr. Stewart, Thank you very much for your kind consideration of our manuscript entitled, “ABC”. We performed several additional experiments to address the concerns raised by the reviewers, and did our best to revise the manuscript. Our point-by-point responses to the comments from the reviewers are as follows: Comment #1 from Reviewer 1 Would re-word the terms “long” and “short” position as this could be confused with the use of this terminology for ERCP. Consider “straight” and “angulated”. Response to Comment #1 Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with you and we changed “long” and “short” positions to “straight” and “angulated”. |
| ©2012 J.P. Barron |
Although there is no standard format for replying to reviewers’ comments, the following steps are recommended, for each reviewer’s comments: (1) copy and paste all the comments you receive from the reviewers and number them. If there are 2 questions in the same sentence, it is best to give a separate number for each question, (2) reply to every point in every comment raised by the reviewer, (3) make the necessary changes in the manuscript, (4) make sure the revised changes can be recognized easily, (for example, using the track changes mode, but the instructions will vary depending on the target journal), and (5) repeat the steps for other reviewers if applicable.
It is absolutely essential that the author responds to every item, and not ignore any questions by selecting only the ones you wish to answer. The rule of thumb is that if you can accept the reviewers’ changes without affecting your manuscript, then it is advisable to accept it. However, another point to consider is that the author does not need to agree with all of the comments made by the reviewer. In such cases, it would be necessary to give clear and valid reasons why the authors do not agree with a specific comment.
After the author responds to each of the comments, it would be a nice gesture to thank the reviewer again for the entire comments, for example by saying, “In closing, we would like to thank you once again for your review and suggestions which have helped us improve the quality of our paper. We would greatly appreciate your kind consideration for our revised manuscript.”
Reviewers’ comments are valuable in the sense that they will improve the overall quality of the manuscript. Previous studies conducted on the influence of peer review on manuscript quality in manuscripts submitted to the Annals of Internal Medicine, indicate that peer review increases the quality of articles and that specific comments from reviewers are useful for considerable improvement of the manuscript6). Therefore the author should make full use of the peer review process in order to maximize its benefits in the publication of manuscripts.
