Slides during my public lecture in UKM. Entitled: "What Doesn’t Kill You Make You Stronger-Surviving Journal Reviewer Feedback"

1. Surviving Journal Reviewer Feedback
Rosdiadee Nordin
Centre of Advanced Electronic & Communication Engineering
Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment
: adee@ukm.edu.my
: https://sites.google.com/site/rosdiadee/
: http://my.linkedin.com/pub/rosdiadee-nordin
__________________________
Pusat Kejuruteraan Elektronik &
Komunikasi Terkehadapan

2. Before Peer Review
• … editor made decisions without seeking outside input
• … until 1665, Henry Oldenburg ‘invented’ the academic peer review
for ‘Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society’
• Current peer review system has been systematically established since
WWII
• The peer review system is very old & doesn’t see much changes

3. Need for Peer Review
• The heart of scientific publication & critical phase
• Publish or perish – career, academic promoted & won a Nobel prize!
• Peer review reports serve two main functions:
• to inform editor whether work is novel, significant & suitable for publication
• to inform authors on errors, means of improving their manuscript

4. Drawbacks of Peer Review
• In 1976, editor of ‘Philosophical Transactions’ rejected manuscript
from Edward Jenner on first vaccination
• Failure to identify novel work
• Suffer from intellectual suppression:
• ‘Rich get richer’
• Strong bias against negative studies
• Bias on nationality, gender, language & specialty

5. Drawbacks of Peer Review
• Reviewer is busy & demotivated person
• Results in publication delay
• However recently emerge few incentives to boost motivation
• Free subscription, acknowledgement & discount for publication charge

6. Peer Review Process
Editor’s Decision
Accept without revision
Ask for minor revision (likely acceptance)
Request major revision (likely re-review)
Rejection

7. Reviewer is a Very Honest Person…
“Since you submitted the paper to a scientific journal: where is the
science?”
“I am not sure why there is a full section about limitations, this in itself
says a lot about the study”
"I’ve never read anything like it & I do not mean it as a compliment”
“Words are used inappropriately – I count, for example, 13 instances of
'unique', but it is used correctly only once”

8. Need for Peer Review
• Reviewers give recommendations
• Ultimately, editor makes the decision
• Respond to reviewers' comments is a tricky deal
• Get it right –published!
• Get it wrong –rejection!
• Require some ‘art’, negotiation & communication skill!

9. How to Respond to Reviewers?
Digest the
reviews
Revise the
manuscript
Communicate
revisions to editor

10. Step 1: Digesting the Reviews
• Read the reviews ONCE, and then file them in a SAFE location
• Don’t think about the reviews for few hours/days/week*
• Instead, do fun things like watch movie, sports, holiday, etc**
• Read the reviews again
• Discuss the reviews with your co-authors
• Create plan-of-ATTACK!
*No specific quantity for this…
**Practice with caution

11. Step 2: Revising your paper
• Address ALL comments
• You can’t pick which comments to address
• Even minor comments need to be addressed
• Address does not always mean change
• You and co-authors should decide what to change, and what to defend
• Often, changing is the easiest route
• Always change errors in references
• Skilled reviewers know the history better than newer authors
• You don’t want to get off on the wrong foot with experts in the field by not
citing the correct papers!

12. Step 2: Revising your paper
• Change does not always mean revamp
• Easy changes include:
• Rewording
• Adding extra references
• Adding an extra paragraph, table, figure
• Adding an appendix
• Difficult changes include:
• Modifying your central hypothesis
• Modifying your main algorithm
• Redoing an experiment
• Start with easy or difficult changes?

13. Step 2: Revising your paper
• Change parts which yielded “I didn’t understand”
• If the reviewer didn’t understand it, the readers might not either
• “I didn’t understand” is a polite way of saying “you didn’t explain clearly
enough”
• Even if:
• Requested change unnecessary
• Text is clear (the reviewer simply missed it)
• It is better to revise
• Goal is to tell the reviewer that they were listened to and understood

14. Step 2: Revising your paper
• Do not pit one reviewer against another!
• Reviewer from different background
• Different view, opinion and expertise – helpful to the editor
• If there’s a conflict, choose one that will improve the paper

15. Step 2: Revising your paper
• Always change parts which have been mentioned by many reviewers
• If two or more reviewers make similar comments, the readers will likely have
the same comments
• Repeated comments stand out to the editor
• It’s OK if you don’t agree with your reviewer

16. Step 3: Communicate with Editor/Reviewers
• Letter to the editor & reviewers
• Provide overview & detail of amendment
• Summary of changes/defences
• Write this first/last
• Short & sweet

17. Step 3: Communicate with Editor/Reviewers
• To help the reviewer navigate your response
• Use changes of font, color, or indenting to discriminate between 3
different elements:
• The review itself
• Your responses to the review
• Changes made to the manuscript
• Make use of track changes & comment box

18. Step 3: Communicate with Editor/Reviewers
• Make a dialogue-type list of comments and responses
• For changes: Indicate location (page, paragraph & line numbers)

19. Polite & Respectful
• Even if the reviewer lacks intellectual capacity, please refrain from
conveying this impression to them
• Imagine if you see him in person
• If the reviewer not the expert, but this level of expertise (or lack
thereof) may be representative of journal readers
• Make the work clear and accessible to all readers, not just experts
• Thank the reviewer abundantly
• but don’t overdo

20. Polite & Respectful
• Do not use AGGRESSIVE or defensive tone
• Example 1:
• What you want to say: That experiment would take forever!
• What you should say: The suggested experiment is interesting and would
provide additional information about..., but we feel that it falls outside the
scope of this study
• Example 2:
• What you want to say: You just didn’t understand what we wrote!
• What you should say: Several statements that we made were more
ambiguous than intended, and we have adjusted the text to be clearer

21. Make the Response Self-Explanatory
• Quote changes directly in the response letter
• Refer to specific line number where changes applied
• A self-explanatory response letter makes it easier for the
editor/reviewer to understand changes
• No need to go back & forth between manuscript & letter
• Reduce chances editor/reviewer to read full manuscript (or find new
things to complain)
• Editor can make quick decision!
• Only exception is when the modification is large (addition of new
paragraphs, graphs, methodology)

22. Respond to Every Point
• Often, reviews will be organized into bullet points
• But reviewer may raise two (or more) separate issues within 1 bullet
• Be sure to respond explicitly to all critiques

23. Begin Response with Direct Answer
• Begin your response to each comment with a direct answer to the
point being raised
• Provide a “yes” or “no” answer
• When the reviewer is correct, state so in your response

24. Write the Response Twice (At Least!)
• Initial document can be incomplete/inaccurate to address concern
• It can also be a place to vent your frustration!
• Once the initial draft finish, or after several days/weeks later...
• You become rational!
• Eventually, you will write what the reviewers want to see
• You can also write a separate letter to the editor
• Address issues such as potential conflicts of interest, reviewers' requests
conflict with one another or with journal policies

25. Top 10 Rules
• Rule 1: Provide an overview, then quote the full set of reviews
• Rule 2: Be polite and respectful of all reviewers
• Rule 3: Accept the blame
• Rule 4: Make the response self-explanatory
• Rule 5: Respond to every point raised by the reviewer
• Rule 6: Use typography to help the reviewer navigate your response
• Rule 7: Begin response to each comment with direct answer
• Rule 8: When possible, do what the reviewer asks
• Rule 9: Be clear about what changed relative to the previous version
• Rule 10: Write the response twice

26. Recap
• When digesting reviews:
• Try not to take things personally
• Expect at least one harsh reviewer
• When revise the paper:
• Divide and conquer (do difficult changes first)
• When addressing the editor/reviewers
• Communicate your changes, making an extra effort to be professional and
thankful
• You can disagree, as long as you explain

27. Key Takeaway
• Process of responding to reviewer is the stressful part of publication
• But, reviewers volunteering their time to ensure validity of results and
quality in our research area
• Manuscript after review process is an improvement from the original

28. Thank You!
Q&A