尊敬的编辑:
您好!
我有幸参加了第二届国际神经再生高峰论坛(2012-9-21),其中现场倾听了Raye博士的讲座,感觉受益匪浅,想将讲座的内容进一步消化理解,但是理文编辑官方网站上(http://www.liwenbianji.cn/INRS_2012)确无法下载2“How to write and get your science published”这个演讲ppt,只能下载另外一个,希望能够解决此问题,让更多没有到现场的朋友们获得更多的知识。
十分感谢理文编辑给我们论文发表带来的帮助!
I have read the article "Responding to peer reviewers: dealing with rejection"
it is very helpful, I wish I could read this even earlier. : )
here I have some questions about the rebuttal process.
1. if I think the reviewer has indeed rightful negative criticism about my paper, how should I response my "rebuttal" ?
Can I simply say "I accept your Judgment, and sincerely thank your for your precious criticism and suggestion bla... bla..."
Or how should I reply ?
2. In a double blind review. If the reviewer' opinion is very helpful and insightful, and I would like to know this reviewer for discussion in the future. Is it possible ? or I should never think about it because of double blind review.
Thanks for your comment and questions… I am glad you found the article helpful. In answer to your questions:
1. It is always best to be brief when replying; editors and reviewers are very busy people. It is good to thank the reviewer for their input (although I generally recommend doing this once at the beginning of the responses rather than in every response), but don’t go ‘over the top’. Something simple like “We would like to thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions, which helped us improve the quality of our paper” is usually best. The most important thing in your response is to show how you addressed this criticism in the revised manuscript. That is what the majority of your response should describe; it is not enough to simply say that you agree.
I also recommend referring to the reviewer in the third person (as I have done in the example above), and not directly as you did, because it is entirely possible the reviewer will never see your responses… they should be addressed to the Editor (who may choose to send them to the reviewer for an opinion on whether you have done enough to address them). The Editor will then decide if you have done enough to address the problem.
2. In any blind review process (double blind or single blind), the reviewers must remain anonymous. Therefore, it isn’t really possible to find out who they were for further discussions. If discussions with colleagues and peers are not enough, you may need to establish international collaborations. The best way to do this is to attend international meetings and meet others working in the same field. If this is not possible and you need help identifying experts in your field, either to recommend as potential reviewers when submitting papers or to discuss your findings (be careful here if the results are not published!), then Liwen Bianji’s Reviewer Recommendations service(http://www.liwenbianji.cn/types_of_services) may be of some help.