Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.

Autor:	Hidouri S; Department of Pediatric surgery, Zaghouan Hospital, Research Laboratory LR12SP13, University of Monastir Faculty de Medicine of Monastir, Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia., Kamoun H; Ibn Nafiss Pneumology Department, Abderrahmene Mami Hospital, Ariana, University of Tunis El Manar Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia., Salah S; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital Monastir, University of Monastir Faculty of Dental Medicine of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia., Jellad A; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital Monastir, University of Monastir Faculty of Dental Medicine of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia., Ben Saad H; Hôpital Farhat HACHED, Laboratoire de recherche LR12SP09 «Insuffisance cardiaque», 4000 Sousse, Université de Sousse Faculté de Médecine de Sousse, Sousse, 4000, Tunisia.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	F1000Research [F1000Res] 2024 Sep 20; Vol. 13, pp. 921. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 20 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI:	10.12688/f1000research.154614.3
Abstrakt:	Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods: Opinion article. Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement. Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. (Copyright: © 2024 Hidouri S et al.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu