Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Jan 1;20(1):e120366.
doi: 10.5812/ijem.120366. eCollection 2022 Jan.

Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript

Zahra Bahadoran  1 , Parvin Mirmiran  2 , Khosrow Kashfi  3 , Asghar Ghasemi  4
Affiliations
Review

Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript

Zahra Bahadoran et al. Int J Endocrinol Metab. .

Abstract

Getting feedback from the journals' editorial office upon the peer-review process, revising the manuscript, and responding to reviewers' comments are the essential parts of scientific publishing. The process of revising seems cumbersome and time-consuming as authors must be engaged probably with many comments and requested changes. Authors are advised to approach the reviewer as a consultant rather than an adversary. They should carefully read and understand comments and then decide how to proceed with each requested change/suggestion. In the case of serious disagreement with reviewer comments or misunderstanding, authors can defer the issue to the editor. Preparing a scientific and well-organized "response to reviews" and the revised version of the manuscript can increase the chance of acceptance. Here, we provide a practical guide on dealing with different types of comments (i.e., minor or major revisions, conflicting comments, or those that authors disagree with or cannot adhere to) and how to craft a response to reviews. We also provide the dos and don'ts for making a successful revision.

Keywords: Response to Reviewers; Revision; Writing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Step-by-step process of revising a peer-reviewed manuscript
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. A sample of point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments
Figure 3.
Figure 3.. A sample of second cover letter
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Majumder K. Editorial decision-making: what are the possible outcomes for a manuscript? Wordvice; 2014 . [cited 11-9-2021 ]. Available from: https://www.editage.com/insights/editorial-decision-making-what-are-the-....
    1. Bhargava P, Agrawal G. From the editor's desk: A systematic guide to revising a manuscript. Radiol Case Rep. 2013;8(1):824. doi: 10.2484/rcr.v8i1.824. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Riss P. The peer review process III: when the decision is made. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(7):811–2. doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1561-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Peh WC, Ng KH. Dealing with returned manuscripts. Singapore Med J. 2009;50(11):1050–2. - PubMed
    1. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill . Revising Drafts: University of North California. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; 2021. [cited 30-9-2021 ]. Available from: https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/revising-drafts.

LinkOut - more resources