1 / 5

Mastering the Review Process: Effective Paper Revision Strategies

In this comprehensive guide, David Smallbone, Professor of Entrepreneurship at Kingston University, outlines the essential steps authors should take to effectively revise their papers post-review. Understanding the review process includes recognizing the roles of Associate Editors and reviewers, and adhering to criteria that determine a manuscript's publication potential. Authors are encouraged to respond thoroughly to reviewer comments, ensuring that their revisions enhance the quality of their work. Key advice includes the importance of proper referencing and seeking guidance from experienced colleagues in the field.

daisy
Télécharger la présentation

Mastering the Review Process: Effective Paper Revision Strategies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE REVIEW PROCESS –HOW TO EFFECTIVELY REVISE A PAPER David Smallbone Professor of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, SBRC, Kingston University Associate Editor, Journal of Small Business Management

  2. The Review process • Submitted papers are assigned by Editor-in Chief to an Associate Editor (AE), who reads paper to decide between desk rejection and assignment to a reviewer • A minimum of 2 reviewers are selected on the basis of their experience & specialist expertise • Reviewers recommend accept/minor revision/major revision/rejection & provide comments for the author and for the editor • Associate Editor makes decision which is communicated to author(s) with copies of reviewers reports

  3. JSBM Review criteria • Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication? • Does the Abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article? • Is the problem under investigation significant and concisely stated? • Are the theoretical underpinnings satisfactorily explained? • Is the methodology adequately explained and sound? • Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results? • Is adequate reference made to other work in the field? • Is the language acceptable? • Please rate the priority for publishing this article (1 is the highest priority, 10 is the lowest priority) • Length of paper, no. of figures and tables (if appropriate)

  4. YOUR RESPONSE • Recognise that very few papers are accepted without amendment • If minor or major revision, check to see if there is a deadline • Respond to each the specific points raised by reviewers/AE • When paper is resubmitted include a list of your responses to each point raised by reviewers or an explanation as to why you have not accepted the comment • Recognise that even if ultimately rejected, your paper is likely to have been improved as a result of the review process • Do not submit a rejected manuscript to another journal without modification

  5. YOUR RESPONSE • Take care to check references – for accuracy, detail and inclusion in end list • Seek guidance from others in your field who are more experienced in publishing journal articles.

More Related