Editorial Board Member Suggestions for Addressing Reviewer Comments

To complement the tips for addressing reviewer comments from longtime Academic Medicine authors that we shared yesterday, today we’re sharing suggestions from Academic Medicine editorial board members. This post is part of a series on tips for addressing reviewer comments during the revisions part of the publication process. You can read the other posts in the series here. Arno K. Kumagai, MD, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, and Wilson Centre, and Women’s College Hospital and University of Toronto 1.  Acknowledge the work and attention that the reviewers have paid to the manuscript and thank them for their efforts. (This sounds corny but no one gets paid, and it usually takes 2-3 hours away from one’s family, oneself, and other work to do a thoughtful job.) 2. Avoid being defensive or arrogant in the response. The editors felt it was worth peer review, so be persuasive about points rather than defensive about the whole. Also, even if you think that the reviewer’s an ignorant clod, it’s best to keep such comments to yourself… 3.  The reviewer isn’t always right. Sometimes the manuscript may provoke a new direction of thought by the reviewers (which is a good sign of the ability of the work to be thought-provoking and generative), and they may suggest new approaches, directions, and references. If you feel strongly that the suggestions go far beyond your intent in the paper, respectfully say so...
Source: Academic Medicine Blog - Category: Universities & Medical Training Authors: Tags: Addressing Reviewer Comments Series Featured author resources peer review scholarship writing series Source Type: blogs