Reviewer comments to author example

Dear Professor Van de Werf Please consider our revised

Reviewer comments and how to respond International. Instead provide examples of previous work and compare the data. Also, the reviewer should provide specific comments on how to improve the abstract. Level of detail of the review The review is not very detailed. The critical issues in this paper were not addressed. Substantiation of comments The reviewer gave no references to support his/her comment., Reviewers for most journals are anonymous, so if anonymity is important to you, avoid comments that could make your identity obvious to the authors. If the editor sent specific instructions for the reviewer report, or a form to fill out as part of the review, you should write your report in the requested format. If you received no specific.

Information for Reviewers

Reviewers' comments ResearchGate. It is likely that you have reviewed papers from other authors (and if you haven’t yet, you will soon), so make your responses a chance to treat your reviewers the way you would like to be treated! ###Example responses. These sentences are just examples; you should form your specific comments in …, that have been mentioned in the “comments to the authors”. Overall, it is an important study, and should be Overall, it is an important study, and should be considered for publication in JGIM, once the statistical issue has been resolved..

that have been mentioned in the “comments to the authors”. Overall, it is an important study, and should be Overall, it is an important study, and should be considered for publication in JGIM, once the statistical issue has been resolved. The identity of the reviewers and the authors aren’t disclosed. Open review. Both the author and reviewer names are disclosed. Post-publication open review. Readers and reviewers can post comments, mediated by the editor, after publication. Single- and double-blind …

Instructions for reviewers Comments for the Authors: The reviewer's report (Comments for the Author) is essential to the editorial process. Your comments will have a major influence on the Editors' decision about the manuscript and the author(s) will benefit from your feedback. How to review revised manuscripts. It is uncommon for a paper to be accepted for publication without changes – most papers are revised at least once in light of comments from reviewers and editors. When a revised paper is received: Minor changes will usually be assessed directly by the editor

Answer to the comments by Reviewer #1 Comment 1: As shown in Figure 5, the authors found that the adsorption energy of FA and HD selectivity is inversely correlated. However, the adsorption energy was completely excluded when the authors explained the control of selectivity (Figure 7). Answer 1: We would like to thank his/her critical comment. Dear Professor Van de Werf: Please consider our revised manuscript, “Dyslipidemia as a predictor of hypertension in middle-aged men”, for publication in the European Heart Journal. We appreciate the interest that the editors and reviewers have taken in our

As a reviewer you will be advising the editors, who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). Reviewers will be informed of decisions by email. If we do not accept an article we will still pass on reviewer comments to the authors. Answer to the comments by Reviewer #1 Comment 1: As shown in Figure 5, the authors found that the adsorption energy of FA and HD selectivity is inversely correlated. However, the adsorption energy was completely excluded when the authors explained the control of selectivity (Figure 7). Answer 1: We would like to thank his/her critical comment.

Reviewers' Comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author) This manuscript reports experimental realization of an electromechanical system, based on the use of silicon nitride membrane. Detailed and systematic experimental studies on OMIT and back action cooling are presented, providing a thorough characterization of the new electromechanical that have been mentioned in the “comments to the authors”. Overall, it is an important study, and should be Overall, it is an important study, and should be considered for publication in JGIM, once the statistical issue has been resolved.

Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): The authors explore the effects of electrode porosity on the biophotovoltaic behavior of cyanobacteria. Non-porous, nanoporous, and Do not reveal your decision recommendation to the author, but do make your comments diplomatically congruent with those that are in the Comments to the Editor. Ethical responsibilities of a reviewer: The reviewer should provide an honest, critical assessment of the research. The reviewer’s job is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the

comments, we have had it rechecked by a native speaker of English. As a consequence, many minor grammatical and stylistic edits have been made throughout the text. We hope that this revised manuscript meets your expectations. Reviewer #2: This case report . is very interesting and suitable . … Figure 6: Reviewer Comments to Authors and Editors text boxes. If you suggest a revision, please indicate in the Comments to Editor if you would like to see the revised article. Click the “Save” button to save your comments. If you do not click “Save” your comments will NOT be saved when you submit your review. 5.

Reviewers' Comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author) This manuscript reports experimental realization of an electromechanical system, based on the use of silicon nitride membrane. Detailed and systematic experimental studies on OMIT and back action cooling are presented, providing a thorough characterization of the new electromechanical Dear Professor Van de Werf: Please consider our revised manuscript, “Dyslipidemia as a predictor of hypertension in middle-aged men”, for publication in the European Heart Journal. We appreciate the interest that the editors and reviewers have taken in our

Reviewers should first contact Hindawi or the Academic Editor handling the manuscript and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report. Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): The authors have used ps laser to make nanoparticles on silver surface so that different visible colors can be realized due to the light absorption of nanoparticles with different sizes on the surface. First, as the authors agreed the original idea of making such color pattern on metal

All reviewers for the ESR journals should be aware of their responsibility to guide authors by providing constructive feedback. In both the ‘Feedback to Authors’ as well as ‘Confidential Comments to the Editor’, they are asked to give their opinion and criticism in a professional, neutral language. Authors’ Response to Reviewers’ Comments: Firstly, the authors express their appreciation to the two reviewers and the editor. We believe that their vital comments and suggestions have contributed substantially to improve the presentation of our study, as well as its overall quality and the manuscript.

Responding to Reviewers’ Comments 2015 7 P a g e Worst Comments If you’re feeling hurt about a comment received from a reviewer, bear in mind the following selection of the worst comments on papers received by members of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. You’ll note that, in every case, ‘Comments to the author’ box The comments box is the most important part of the reviewer’s form for the author. Each of your comments should be numbered and make a clear recommendation for improvement. An example is given below. 1. Page 8, lines 1-3: This material is repetitive of material at the top of page 4 and should be deleted. 2. It

Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): Compensatory Metabolic Networks in Pancreatic Cancers Upon Pertubation of Glutamine Metabolism In … Reviewers for most journals are anonymous, so if anonymity is important to you, avoid comments that could make your identity obvious to the authors. If the editor sent specific instructions for the reviewer report, or a form to fill out as part of the review, you should write your report in the requested format. If you received no specific

Reviewers should first contact Hindawi or the Academic Editor handling the manuscript and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report. Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report. ‘Comments to the author’ box The comments box is the most important part of the reviewer’s form for the author. Each of your comments should be numbered and make a clear recommendation for improvement. An example is given below. 1. Page 8, lines 1-3: This material is repetitive of material at the top of page 4 and should be deleted. 2. It

Reviewer Comments to Author(s): Reviewer #1 (Jillon Vander Wal, PhD): Overall, this is a clear, concise, and well-written manuscript. The introduction is relevant and theory based. Sufficient information about the previous study findings is presented for readers to follow the present study rationale and procedures. The methods are generally Instead provide examples of previous work and compare the data. Also, the reviewer should provide specific comments on how to improve the abstract. Level of detail of the review The review is not very detailed. The critical issues in this paper were not addressed. Substantiation of comments The reviewer gave no references to support his/her comment.

Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): The authors have used ps laser to make nanoparticles on silver surface so that different visible colors can be realized due to the light absorption of nanoparticles with different sizes on the surface. First, as the authors agreed the original idea of making such color pattern on metal Dear Professor Van de Werf: Please consider our revised manuscript, “Dyslipidemia as a predictor of hypertension in middle-aged men”, for publication in the European Heart Journal. We appreciate the interest that the editors and reviewers have taken in our

Reviewers should first contact Hindawi or the Academic Editor handling the manuscript and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report. Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report. Authors’ Response to Reviewers’ Comments: Firstly, the authors express their appreciation to the two reviewers and the editor. We believe that their vital comments and suggestions have contributed substantially to improve the presentation of our study, as well as its overall quality and the manuscript.

reviewers will find our responses to their comments satisfactory, and we are willing to finish the revised version of the manuscript including any further suggestion that the reviewers may have. Please, find below the referees’ comments repeated in italics and our responses inserted after each comment. To facilitate the work of the reviewers Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized. Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): Compensatory Metabolic Networks in Pancreatic Cancers Upon Pertubation of Glutamine Metabolism In … Authors’ Response to Reviewers’ Comments: Firstly, the authors express their appreciation to the two reviewers and the editor. We believe that their vital comments and suggestions have contributed substantially to improve the presentation of our study, as well as its overall quality and the manuscript.

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized. Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom. Reviewer Comments and Responses Reviewer 1 comment: Comment: NIOSH authors respectfully disagree with the reviewer that the authors overstepped in accepting that there be no adjustment for lower volatility coals. The questions that you raised do not provide compelling technical arguments for the authors to deviate from their proposed criteria. The authors put forth technical and anecdotal

The identity of the reviewers and the authors aren’t disclosed. Open review. Both the author and reviewer names are disclosed. Post-publication open review. Readers and reviewers can post comments, mediated by the editor, after publication. Single- and double-blind … Authors’ Response to Reviewers’ Comments: Firstly, the authors express their appreciation to the two reviewers and the editor. We believe that their vital comments and suggestions have contributed substantially to improve the presentation of our study, as well as its overall quality and the manuscript.

www.meduniwien.ac.at. Answer to the comments by Reviewer #1 Comment 1: As shown in Figure 5, the authors found that the adsorption energy of FA and HD selectivity is inversely correlated. However, the adsorption energy was completely excluded when the authors explained the control of selectivity (Figure 7). Answer 1: We would like to thank his/her critical comment., Comments to the Authors. These comments are shared with the author at the discretion of the editor. While your name will be blinded as Reviewer #1, or Reviewer #2, etc., please keep in mind that anything entered in this field can be seen by the authors. This field satisfies the second aforementioned goal of ….

Reviewer comments and how to respond International

Reviewers' comments Springer. Authors’ Response to Reviewers’ Comments: Firstly, the authors express their appreciation to the two reviewers and the editor. We believe that their vital comments and suggestions have contributed substantially to improve the presentation of our study, as well as its overall quality and the manuscript., comments, we have had it rechecked by a native speaker of English. As a consequence, many minor grammatical and stylistic edits have been made throughout the text. We hope that this revised manuscript meets your expectations. Reviewer #2: This case report . is very interesting and suitable . ….

Reviewers' comments

Information for Reviewers. Reviewers should first contact Hindawi or the Academic Editor handling the manuscript and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report. Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FFU Reviewer Comments for Manuscript acp-2010-884: For example, on page 29454, there is a substantial amount of discussion about the experimental set up and procedure of the conducted experiments. That should be put under the experimental section maybe under a subsection of “experimental preparation” or something of the sort. Alternatively it could also come at the end of the introduction.

The identity of the reviewers and the authors aren’t disclosed. Open review. Both the author and reviewer names are disclosed. Post-publication open review. Readers and reviewers can post comments, mediated by the editor, after publication. Single- and double-blind … Responding to Reviewers’ Comments 2015 7 P a g e Worst Comments If you’re feeling hurt about a comment received from a reviewer, bear in mind the following selection of the worst comments on papers received by members of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. You’ll note that, in every case,

All reviewers for the ESR journals should be aware of their responsibility to guide authors by providing constructive feedback. In both the ‘Feedback to Authors’ as well as ‘Confidential Comments to the Editor’, they are asked to give their opinion and criticism in a professional, neutral language. Comments to the Authors. These comments are shared with the author at the discretion of the editor. While your name will be blinded as Reviewer #1, or Reviewer #2, etc., please keep in mind that anything entered in this field can be seen by the authors. This field satisfies the second aforementioned goal of …

Figure 6: Reviewer Comments to Authors and Editors text boxes. If you suggest a revision, please indicate in the Comments to Editor if you would like to see the revised article. Click the “Save” button to save your comments. If you do not click “Save” your comments will NOT be saved when you submit your review. 5. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): The authors have used ps laser to make nanoparticles on silver surface so that different visible colors can be realized due to the light absorption of nanoparticles with different sizes on the surface. First, as the authors agreed the original idea of making such color pattern on metal

17/10/2013 · Responding to peer reviewers’ comments becomes an overwhelming task for most authors. However, following certain guidelines will make it easy for authors to deal with reviewer comments. This post provides simple guidelines and expert tips for responding to reviewer comments. Authors’ Response to Reviewers’ Comments: Firstly, the authors express their appreciation to the two reviewers and the editor. We believe that their vital comments and suggestions have contributed substantially to improve the presentation of our study, as well as its overall quality and the manuscript.

‘Comments to the author’ box The comments box is the most important part of the reviewer’s form for the author. Each of your comments should be numbered and make a clear recommendation for improvement. An example is given below. 1. Page 8, lines 1-3: This material is repetitive of material at the top of page 4 and should be deleted. 2. It Reviewer: The English is not good enough for publication. Author: Some of the reviewer’s comments were so badly written, how can he be a good judge of English! It’s true that many reviewers do not have English as their first language. Perhaps they found your English was difficult to understand, or perhaps they were afraid that other

For example, a proposal to the Center must support the development of biotechnology and meet the guidelines of the specific funding program. The examples below are reviewer comments received when the fit is poor. Comments pertaining to a specific program have the program name(s) listed in parentheses. Sample Comments: Reviewer Comments and Responses Reviewer 1 comment: Comment: NIOSH authors respectfully disagree with the reviewer that the authors overstepped in accepting that there be no adjustment for lower volatility coals. The questions that you raised do not provide compelling technical arguments for the authors to deviate from their proposed criteria. The authors put forth technical and anecdotal

Reviewer: The English is not good enough for publication. Author: Some of the reviewer’s comments were so badly written, how can he be a good judge of English! It’s true that many reviewers do not have English as their first language. Perhaps they found your English was difficult to understand, or perhaps they were afraid that other Note that in both comments (agreeing and disagreeing) the author is polite and shows respect for the reviewer’s opinion. Also, in both circumstances the author makes a change to the manuscript that addresses the reviewer’s question. Remember, the reviewer is probably a highly knowledgeable person. If their suggestion is incorrect, it is

Reviewers should first contact Hindawi or the Academic Editor handling the manuscript and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report. Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report. reviewers will find our responses to their comments satisfactory, and we are willing to finish the revised version of the manuscript including any further suggestion that the reviewers may have. Please, find below the referees’ comments repeated in italics and our responses inserted after each comment. To facilitate the work of the reviewers

Reviewers' Comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author) This manuscript reports experimental realization of an electromechanical system, based on the use of silicon nitride membrane. Detailed and systematic experimental studies on OMIT and back action cooling are presented, providing a thorough characterization of the new electromechanical Reviewers for most journals are anonymous, so if anonymity is important to you, avoid comments that could make your identity obvious to the authors. If the editor sent specific instructions for the reviewer report, or a form to fill out as part of the review, you should write your report in the requested format. If you received no specific

Reviewer: The English is not good enough for publication. Author: Some of the reviewer’s comments were so badly written, how can he be a good judge of English! It’s true that many reviewers do not have English as their first language. Perhaps they found your English was difficult to understand, or perhaps they were afraid that other Reviewer Comments to Author(s): Reviewer #1 (Jillon Vander Wal, PhD): Overall, this is a clear, concise, and well-written manuscript. The introduction is relevant and theory based. Sufficient information about the previous study findings is presented for readers to follow the present study rationale and procedures. The methods are generally

For Reviewers European Radiology

reviewer’s advice Editage. How to review revised manuscripts. It is uncommon for a paper to be accepted for publication without changes – most papers are revised at least once in light of comments from reviewers and editors. When a revised paper is received: Minor changes will usually be assessed directly by the editor, For example, a proposal to the Center must support the development of biotechnology and meet the guidelines of the specific funding program. The examples below are reviewer comments received when the fit is poor. Comments pertaining to a specific program have the program name(s) listed in parentheses. Sample Comments:.

For Reviewers European Radiology

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS ICE Virtual Library. Answer to the comments by Reviewer #1 Comment 1: As shown in Figure 5, the authors found that the adsorption energy of FA and HD selectivity is inversely correlated. However, the adsorption energy was completely excluded when the authors explained the control of selectivity (Figure 7). Answer 1: We would like to thank his/her critical comment., Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized. Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom..

Instead provide examples of previous work and compare the data. Also, the reviewer should provide specific comments on how to improve the abstract. Level of detail of the review The review is not very detailed. The critical issues in this paper were not addressed. Substantiation of comments The reviewer gave no references to support his/her comment. Reviewer Comments to Author(s): Reviewer #1 (Jillon Vander Wal, PhD): Overall, this is a clear, concise, and well-written manuscript. The introduction is relevant and theory based. Sufficient information about the previous study findings is presented for readers to follow the present study rationale and procedures. The methods are generally

Responding to Reviewers’ Comments 2015 7 P a g e Worst Comments If you’re feeling hurt about a comment received from a reviewer, bear in mind the following selection of the worst comments on papers received by members of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. You’ll note that, in every case, As a reviewer you will be advising the editors, who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). Reviewers will be informed of decisions by email. If we do not accept an article we will still pass on reviewer comments to the authors.

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized. Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom. 01/04/2011 · There is an old adage, “less is more.” In many cases that is good advice to follow; however, when responding to reviewer and editor comments, more is definitely better. More time is better than less to gather your thoughts before you respond. More consideration of how the reviewers' and editor's suggestions might improve the paper is better

01/07/2013 · Although authors are not mind readers, vague comments from reviewers unfortunately can force them to try it. For instance, authors can get frustrated when a reviewer's comments contain broad-stroke criticisms without any recommendations for specific actions, such as the form additional experiments would take (3, 4). comments, we have had it rechecked by a native speaker of English. As a consequence, many minor grammatical and stylistic edits have been made throughout the text. We hope that this revised manuscript meets your expectations. Reviewer #2: This case report . is very interesting and suitable . …

01/07/2013В В· Although authors are not mind readers, vague comments from reviewers unfortunately can force them to try it. For instance, authors can get frustrated when a reviewer's comments contain broad-stroke criticisms without any recommendations for specific actions, such as the form additional experiments would take (3, 4). Instructions for reviewers Comments for the Authors: The reviewer's report (Comments for the Author) is essential to the editorial process. Your comments will have a major influence on the Editors' decision about the manuscript and the author(s) will benefit from your feedback.

Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized. Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom. that have been mentioned in the “comments to the authors”. Overall, it is an important study, and should be Overall, it is an important study, and should be considered for publication in JGIM, once the statistical issue has been resolved.

Responding to Reviewers’ Comments 2015 7 P a g e Worst Comments If you’re feeling hurt about a comment received from a reviewer, bear in mind the following selection of the worst comments on papers received by members of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. You’ll note that, in every case, Responding to Reviewers’ Comments 2015 7 P a g e Worst Comments If you’re feeling hurt about a comment received from a reviewer, bear in mind the following selection of the worst comments on papers received by members of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. You’ll note that, in every case,

Reviewer Comments and Responses Reviewer 1 comment: Comment: NIOSH authors respectfully disagree with the reviewer that the authors overstepped in accepting that there be no adjustment for lower volatility coals. The questions that you raised do not provide compelling technical arguments for the authors to deviate from their proposed criteria. The authors put forth technical and anecdotal Reviewer: The English is not good enough for publication. Author: Some of the reviewer’s comments were so badly written, how can he be a good judge of English! It’s true that many reviewers do not have English as their first language. Perhaps they found your English was difficult to understand, or perhaps they were afraid that other

01/07/2013 · Although authors are not mind readers, vague comments from reviewers unfortunately can force them to try it. For instance, authors can get frustrated when a reviewer's comments contain broad-stroke criticisms without any recommendations for specific actions, such as the form additional experiments would take (3, 4). Use an outline for your reviewer report so it’s easy for the editors and author to follow. This will also help you keep your comments organized. Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom.

Reviewer Comments and Responses Reviewer 1 comment: Comment: NIOSH authors respectfully disagree with the reviewer that the authors overstepped in accepting that there be no adjustment for lower volatility coals. The questions that you raised do not provide compelling technical arguments for the authors to deviate from their proposed criteria. The authors put forth technical and anecdotal Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): Compensatory Metabolic Networks in Pancreatic Cancers Upon Pertubation of Glutamine Metabolism In …

01/04/2011 · There is an old adage, “less is more.” In many cases that is good advice to follow; however, when responding to reviewer and editor comments, more is definitely better. More time is better than less to gather your thoughts before you respond. More consideration of how the reviewers' and editor's suggestions might improve the paper is better Authors’ Response to Reviewers’ Comments: Firstly, the authors express their appreciation to the two reviewers and the editor. We believe that their vital comments and suggestions have contributed substantially to improve the presentation of our study, as well as its overall quality and the manuscript.

Reviewers should first contact Hindawi or the Academic Editor handling the manuscript and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report. Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report. comments, we have had it rechecked by a native speaker of English. As a consequence, many minor grammatical and stylistic edits have been made throughout the text. We hope that this revised manuscript meets your expectations. Reviewer #2: This case report . is very interesting and suitable . …

Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): The manuscript by Ye and co-workers describes the author’s investigations into the chemical synthesis of complex mycobacterial arabinogalactan polysaccharide using a preactivation-based one-pot glycosylation approach. The methodology was applied to the synthesis of an arabinogalactan containing 92 monsaccharide units which the authors reviewers will find our responses to their comments satisfactory, and we are willing to finish the revised version of the manuscript including any further suggestion that the reviewers may have. Please, find below the referees’ comments repeated in italics and our responses inserted after each comment. To facilitate the work of the reviewers

Responding to Reviewers’ Comments 2015 7 P a g e Worst Comments If you’re feeling hurt about a comment received from a reviewer, bear in mind the following selection of the worst comments on papers received by members of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. You’ll note that, in every case, 01/04/2011 · There is an old adage, “less is more.” In many cases that is good advice to follow; however, when responding to reviewer and editor comments, more is definitely better. More time is better than less to gather your thoughts before you respond. More consideration of how the reviewers' and editor's suggestions might improve the paper is better

01/04/2011 · There is an old adage, “less is more.” In many cases that is good advice to follow; however, when responding to reviewer and editor comments, more is definitely better. More time is better than less to gather your thoughts before you respond. More consideration of how the reviewers' and editor's suggestions might improve the paper is better Reviewers should first contact Hindawi or the Academic Editor handling the manuscript and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report. Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report.

Overall Comments about the Review. Current Oncology employs two review formats. For the majority of articles, a reviewer will be asked to complete a web-based “Review Form”. For all other articles you will be asked to enter your review in two open text boxes, the first "for author … Authors: R. Stanica, E. Chaput, and A.-L. Beylot The authors would like to thank the area editor and the reviewers for their precious time and invaluable comments. We have carefully addressed all the comments. The corresponding changes and refinements made in the revised paper are summarized in our response below.

Dear Professor Van de Werf: Please consider our revised manuscript, “Dyslipidemia as a predictor of hypertension in middle-aged men”, for publication in the European Heart Journal. We appreciate the interest that the editors and reviewers have taken in our Answer to the comments by Reviewer #1 Comment 1: As shown in Figure 5, the authors found that the adsorption energy of FA and HD selectivity is inversely correlated. However, the adsorption energy was completely excluded when the authors explained the control of selectivity (Figure 7). Answer 1: We would like to thank his/her critical comment.

For example, a proposal to the Center must support the development of biotechnology and meet the guidelines of the specific funding program. The examples below are reviewer comments received when the fit is poor. Comments pertaining to a specific program have the program name(s) listed in parentheses. Sample Comments: that have been mentioned in the “comments to the authors”. Overall, it is an important study, and should be Overall, it is an important study, and should be considered for publication in JGIM, once the statistical issue has been resolved.

Do not reveal your decision recommendation to the author, but do make your comments diplomatically congruent with those that are in the Comments to the Editor. Ethical responsibilities of a reviewer: The reviewer should provide an honest, critical assessment of the research. The reviewer’s job is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): The authors explore the effects of electrode porosity on the biophotovoltaic behavior of cyanobacteria. Non-porous, nanoporous, and

Becoming a Better Reviewer (and Writer and Researcher, too) Characteristics of Excellent Reviews Excellent reviews Discloses any potential conflicts of interest. Explains the reviewer’s view of his or her intended role or expertise, e.g. topic expert, methodologist, practitioner. Is respectful. Offers specific constructive comments. Reviewer Comments and Responses Reviewer 1 comment: Comment: NIOSH authors respectfully disagree with the reviewer that the authors overstepped in accepting that there be no adjustment for lower volatility coals. The questions that you raised do not provide compelling technical arguments for the authors to deviate from their proposed criteria. The authors put forth technical and anecdotal

Reviewer Comments and Responses Reviewer 1 comment: Comment: NIOSH authors respectfully disagree with the reviewer that the authors overstepped in accepting that there be no adjustment for lower volatility coals. The questions that you raised do not provide compelling technical arguments for the authors to deviate from their proposed criteria. The authors put forth technical and anecdotal The identity of the reviewers and the authors aren’t disclosed. Open review. Both the author and reviewer names are disclosed. Post-publication open review. Readers and reviewers can post comments, mediated by the editor, after publication. Single- and double-blind …

For Reviewers European Radiology

Resources for reviewers The BMJ. specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s) and be sure to avoid adding any author identifying information. I thought each of the reviewers did a fine job of commenting on the manuscript, so I'll not repeat all those comments here. I would, however, like to identify some area of potential focus as you contemplate your revision effort:, Responding to Reviewers’ Comments 2015 7 P a g e Worst Comments If you’re feeling hurt about a comment received from a reviewer, bear in mind the following selection of the worst comments on papers received by members of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. You’ll note that, in every case,.

Resources for reviewers The BMJ. 17/10/2013 · Responding to peer reviewers’ comments becomes an overwhelming task for most authors. However, following certain guidelines will make it easy for authors to deal with reviewer comments. This post provides simple guidelines and expert tips for responding to reviewer comments., Reviewer Blind Comments to Author: Please include specific, detailed comments regarding the originality, scientific quality, relevance to the field of this journal, and presentation. Check the need for tables and figures, and the adequacy of the references. Note that the authors will receive a copy of these specific comments, and a thorough evaluation of the paper is most helpful for the.

Response to Reviewer #3 ltm 7-29-10

Reviewers' comments ResearchGate. Do not reveal your decision recommendation to the author, but do make your comments diplomatically congruent with those that are in the Comments to the Editor. Ethical responsibilities of a reviewer: The reviewer should provide an honest, critical assessment of the research. The reviewer’s job is to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FFU Becoming a Better Reviewer (and Writer and Researcher, too) Characteristics of Excellent Reviews Excellent reviews Discloses any potential conflicts of interest. Explains the reviewer’s view of his or her intended role or expertise, e.g. topic expert, methodologist, practitioner. Is respectful. Offers specific constructive comments..

17/10/2013 · Responding to peer reviewers’ comments becomes an overwhelming task for most authors. However, following certain guidelines will make it easy for authors to deal with reviewer comments. This post provides simple guidelines and expert tips for responding to reviewer comments. Dear Professor Van de Werf: Please consider our revised manuscript, “Dyslipidemia as a predictor of hypertension in middle-aged men”, for publication in the European Heart Journal. We appreciate the interest that the editors and reviewers have taken in our

Responding to Reviewers’ Comments 2015 7 P a g e Worst Comments If you’re feeling hurt about a comment received from a reviewer, bear in mind the following selection of the worst comments on papers received by members of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. You’ll note that, in every case, Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): Compensatory Metabolic Networks in Pancreatic Cancers Upon Pertubation of Glutamine Metabolism In …

Responding to Reviewers’ Comments 2015 7 P a g e Worst Comments If you’re feeling hurt about a comment received from a reviewer, bear in mind the following selection of the worst comments on papers received by members of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. You’ll note that, in every case, Authors’ Response to Reviewers’ Comments: Firstly, the authors express their appreciation to the two reviewers and the editor. We believe that their vital comments and suggestions have contributed substantially to improve the presentation of our study, as well as its overall quality and the manuscript.

As a reviewer you will be advising the editors, who make the final decision (aided by an editorial committee for all research articles and most analysis articles). Reviewers will be informed of decisions by email. If we do not accept an article we will still pass on reviewer comments to the authors. Reviewer Comments to Author(s): Reviewer #1 (Jillon Vander Wal, PhD): Overall, this is a clear, concise, and well-written manuscript. The introduction is relevant and theory based. Sufficient information about the previous study findings is presented for readers to follow the present study rationale and procedures. The methods are generally

Dear Professor Van de Werf: Please consider our revised manuscript, “Dyslipidemia as a predictor of hypertension in middle-aged men”, for publication in the European Heart Journal. We appreciate the interest that the editors and reviewers have taken in our Overall Comments about the Review. Current Oncology employs two review formats. For the majority of articles, a reviewer will be asked to complete a web-based “Review Form”. For all other articles you will be asked to enter your review in two open text boxes, the first "for author …

Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): The authors explore the effects of electrode porosity on the biophotovoltaic behavior of cyanobacteria. Non-porous, nanoporous, and Responding to Reviewers’ Comments 2015 7 P a g e Worst Comments If you’re feeling hurt about a comment received from a reviewer, bear in mind the following selection of the worst comments on papers received by members of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. You’ll note that, in every case,

17/10/2013 · Responding to peer reviewers’ comments becomes an overwhelming task for most authors. However, following certain guidelines will make it easy for authors to deal with reviewer comments. This post provides simple guidelines and expert tips for responding to reviewer comments. Reviewer Comments to Author(s): Reviewer #1 (Jillon Vander Wal, PhD): Overall, this is a clear, concise, and well-written manuscript. The introduction is relevant and theory based. Sufficient information about the previous study findings is presented for readers to follow the present study rationale and procedures. The methods are generally

Responding to Reviewers’ Comments 2015 7 P a g e Worst Comments If you’re feeling hurt about a comment received from a reviewer, bear in mind the following selection of the worst comments on papers received by members of the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health. You’ll note that, in every case, Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): The authors have used ps laser to make nanoparticles on silver surface so that different visible colors can be realized due to the light absorption of nanoparticles with different sizes on the surface. First, as the authors agreed the original idea of making such color pattern on metal

Comments to the Authors. These comments are shared with the author at the discretion of the editor. While your name will be blinded as Reviewer #1, or Reviewer #2, etc., please keep in mind that anything entered in this field can be seen by the authors. This field satisfies the second aforementioned goal of … Answer to the comments by Reviewer #1 Comment 1: As shown in Figure 5, the authors found that the adsorption energy of FA and HD selectivity is inversely correlated. However, the adsorption energy was completely excluded when the authors explained the control of selectivity (Figure 7). Answer 1: We would like to thank his/her critical comment.

specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s) and be sure to avoid adding any author identifying information. I thought each of the reviewers did a fine job of commenting on the manuscript, so I'll not repeat all those comments here. I would, however, like to identify some area of potential focus as you contemplate your revision effort: Reviewers should first contact Hindawi or the Academic Editor handling the manuscript and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report. Reviewers will be anonymous to the authors unless they choose to disclose their identity by signing the review report.

It is likely that you have reviewed papers from other authors (and if you haven’t yet, you will soon), so make your responses a chance to treat your reviewers the way you would like to be treated! ###Example responses. These sentences are just examples; you should form your specific comments in … Reviewers' comments: Reviewer #1 (Remarks to the Author): The manuscript by Ye and co-workers describes the author’s investigations into the chemical synthesis of complex mycobacterial arabinogalactan polysaccharide using a preactivation-based one-pot glycosylation approach. The methodology was applied to the synthesis of an arabinogalactan containing 92 monsaccharide units which the authors