Respond to peer review in the spirit of helpfulness
Abstract
Pre-publication peer review aims at improving the overall quality of scientific articles. All publishing scientists serve as reviewers and many as journal editors. Peer review works best when each partaker is able to view each article (they write, review or handle) through all of these roles. For an author revising a manuscript, this means responding to editors and reviewers’ comments respectfully, thoroughly and with evidence.References
Awati M. (2013). How to respond to comments by peer reviewers. http://www.editage.com/insights/.[Cited 9 September 2015]
Jinha A.E. (2010). Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing 23: 258–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20100308.
Halmes I. (2013). COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. http://publicationethics.org/[Cited 15 September 2015]
Hochberg M.E. (2000). Youth and the tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ideas in ecology and
evolution 3: 8–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.4033/iee.2010.3.2.c.
Kangas A., Hujala T. (2015). Challenges in publishing: producing, assuring and communicating quality. Silva Fennica 49, article id 1304. http://dx.doi.org/10.14214/sf.1304
Smit C. (2006). Peer Review: Time for a Change? BioScience 56: 712-713. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[712:PRTFAC]2.0.CO;2
van Harten J. (2013). How reviewers look at your paper. https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com. [Cited 9 September 2015]
van Hilten L. (2015). 3 top tips for responding to reviewer comments on your manuscript. http://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/publishing-tips/. [Cited 10 September 2015]
Williams H.C. (2004). How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 51: 79–83. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2004.01.049
Jinha A.E. (2010). Article 50 million: an estimate of the number of scholarly articles in existence. Learned Publishing 23: 258–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1087/20100308.
Halmes I. (2013). COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. http://publicationethics.org/[Cited 15 September 2015]
Hochberg M.E. (2000). Youth and the tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ideas in ecology and
evolution 3: 8–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.4033/iee.2010.3.2.c.
Kangas A., Hujala T. (2015). Challenges in publishing: producing, assuring and communicating quality. Silva Fennica 49, article id 1304. http://dx.doi.org/10.14214/sf.1304
Smit C. (2006). Peer Review: Time for a Change? BioScience 56: 712-713. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[712:PRTFAC]2.0.CO;2
van Harten J. (2013). How reviewers look at your paper. https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com. [Cited 9 September 2015]
van Hilten L. (2015). 3 top tips for responding to reviewer comments on your manuscript. http://www.elsevier.com/authors-update/story/publishing-tips/. [Cited 10 September 2015]
Williams H.C. (2004). How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 51: 79–83. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2004.01.049
Published
2015-10-14
Issue
Section
Open lecture
Copyright (c) 2015 Sari Palmroth, Danielle Way
Authors who publish with this proceedings volume agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the Conference organisers right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0 that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this proceedings volume.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the proceeding's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this proceedings volume.
