How authors revise articles based on reviewer comments

Revision Standards for Authors

To All Esteemed Authors,

In an effort to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of the article revision process, we are implementing the following new standards:

  • Change Indication:
    • All sentences modified or added during the revision process must be highlighted in red.
    • This is to facilitate the editorial team's review and verification of the changes made.
  • Objectives:
    • This standardization will expedite the revision checking process.
    • It will improve accuracy in the revision process.
    • It will streamline collaboration between authors and editors.

We expect these standards to be adhered to by all authors to ensure the smooth progress of the publication process.

Thank you for your cooperation and attention.

Sincerely,

Editorial Team

 

Example For Author To Respond Reviewer

A template and example of how an author might respond to reviewer comments, focusing on clarity, professionalism, and addressing each point:

General Structure:

  • Thank you: Begin by thanking the reviewer for their time and thoughtful comments.
  • Address each point: Respond to each comment individually, using the reviewer's numbering or a clear system.
  • Be specific: Don't just say "I agree." Explain how you've addressed the concern.
  • Provide evidence: If you're disagreeing or clarifying, back up your claims with data, citations, or logical arguments.
  • Be polite and professional: Even if you disagree, maintain a respectful tone.
  • Indicate changes: Clearly state what changes you've made to the manuscript.
  • Point to line numbers: When referring to specific sections, provide line numbers for easy reference.

Example Response:

Reviewer 1 Comments:

  1. "The introduction lacks sufficient context on the current state of research in this area."
  2. "The methodology section needs more detail regarding the data collection process."
  3. "The discussion does not adequately address the limitations of the study."
  4. "Figure 2 is difficult to interpret. Please consider revising it."

 

Author's Response:

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you for your insightful comments and for taking the time to review our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your points and have made the following revisions:

  1. Introduction: We have expanded the introduction (lines 15-32) to provide a more comprehensive overview of the current state of research. We have added citations to recent key studies in the field and clarified the gaps our research addresses.
  2. Methodology: We have added a more detailed description of the data collection process (lines 55-70). Specifically, we have included information on the sampling method, the criteria for participant selection, and the steps taken to ensure data reliability. We have also added a table describing the demographic information of the participants.
  3. Discussion: We have added a section in the discussion (lines 180-195) that explicitly addresses the limitations of our study. We acknowledge the potential impact of the sample size and the specific context of the study on the generalizability of our findings. We have also offered suggestions for future research that could address these limitations.
  4. Figure 2: We have revised Figure 2 to improve its clarity. We have added labels to the axes, increased the font size, and simplified the presentation of the data. We believe the revised figure is now easier to interpret and better supports the findings presented in the text.

 

We believe that these revisions have significantly improved the manuscript and addressed your concerns. We appreciate your feedback and believe that it has helped us produce a stronger and more rigorous piece of work.

Sincerely,

[Your Name/Authors' Names]

 

Additional Tips:

  • If you disagree with a reviewer's comment, explain your reasoning respectfully and provide evidence to support your position.
  • If you need to conduct additional experiments or analyses to address a reviewer's concern, state that you will do so and provide a timeline.
  • If a reviewer asks for a clarification about a specific point, and the clarification does not require a manuscript revision, then clearly explain the concept in your response.
  • If there are multiple reviewers, create a separate response to each reviewer.
  • If the journal provides a specific template for responses, use it.
  • If you are unsure how to respond to a particular comment, consult with a co-author or mentor.

Revision guidelines for authors are:

  1. The revision format can be accessed at the URL: Download (File 1: Author Response, the author fills in the table in the document according to the reviewer's suggestions or comments)
  2. The revised manuscript is colored red for revised words or sentences or paragraphs (File 2: Revised manuscript)
  3. There are 2 uploaded documents in the UPLOAD REVISION section