Responding to Reviewers

1. Responding to Reviewers

2. Rare to get an acceptance with no changes So two paths, rejection or revise and resubmit • Rejection • Revise and Resubmit

3. Rejection • Put it into perspective. Very good papers are often rejected, and often for frivolous reasons. Read Gans and Sheperd to gain perspective. • Two types of rejection – desk reject and after refereeing • Desk reject means it didn’t get past the editor • Indicates a poor fit in topic or quality • Usually the editor will give a short statement why the paper was rejected. Use whatever information she/he provides to improve the paper • Rejection after refereeing usually provides more information. • Use what you can learn from the rejection to improve the paper . Take the comments seriously. Do a response to comments to help you understand and improve the paper.

4. Revise and Resubmit • Provides you the opportunity to improve the paper, and maybe get it published. Rates of acceptance after a revise and resubmit vary greatly, but remember, it is better than a rejection. • Take all comments seriously. Your first reaction will often be that the comment is wrong. In reality, often your first reaction will be wrong, and the comment is valid. • Separate the comments into categories • Minor comments (wording, typos) that are easily accepted and disposed of. • Bigger comments that are correct and to which you need a substantive change and response. • Bigger comments that are wrong, and to which you need a substantive explanation of why it is wrong.

5. The Response • Begin every response with a thank you, no matter how scathing or wrong the referee or editor might be. • Praise the comments, and indicate that they improve the work. If you think they did, briefly explain how. • Provide a detailed explanation of how every comment was handled. • Provide comment by comment how you changed the paper. • Repeat or summarize each comment, and clearly indicate where the changes were made. • If you are not making a change, repeat or summarize the comment and explain why no change is being made. Never just ignore a substantive comment.

6. Hints • Referee reports can be discouraging. Be ready for intense criticism. Think of anything positive or an invitation to resubmit as a good sign. • Think of each objection to what you did as an opportunity to improve your work. • Referees will often see things you didn’t – use these ideas to improve your paper. • Respond to every point. It is best to do this in a detailed list. • If the editor tells you what to pay attention to in the report, put most of your efforts there. • Even with a revise and resubmit, the editor will likely be discouraging. This is to give room for future rejection.

7. Hints (continued) • If the referee criticizes something because he or she misunderstood, take that as your failure to clearly communicate, and fix it. • If the editor leaves no room for a revision, move on. • Choose another journal. • But, revise the paper nonetheless. • Never just ignore what a referee has suggested. It is your paper, but there will (almost always) be something useful from the referee. • If the editor or referee suggest another journal, take the suggestion seriously. • Revise, rewrite and reformat the paper for the new journal. • Repeat as necessary. • If a paper is repeatedly rejected (4 or 5 times, at declining journal quality) rethink the work.

8. Hints (contnued) • Understand that referees are often unduly harsh. Don’t take it personally. Have a thick hide. • If you are new to research have a senior colleague review the referee report, and make suggestions about what is important, and what is not. • Take a little break after receiving the report before getting to the revision to let your emotions calm. But don’t delay too long, even after a full rejection. • Be open to all changes; don’t be vested in your style, writing or results. • Focus on each criticism separately, to make the job seem manageable.

9. Hints (continued) • Don’t be lazy – if to adequately address a problem with your paper you need to redo estimations or analysis, do it. • If you don’t understand a referee’s comment, and it seems important, ask the editor for clarification. But do this only rarely – the comment really must be obscure. Try to address it without going to the editor. You might instead give your interpretation of the comment, and then respond to it that way.