Is the comments from reviewer rating of the methodology, discussion and conclusion in proper way?
Yes, reviewers are specilist in their respective fields, so it believed that they have the experience to impact and improve a papers quality. Thank you.
The reviewers'comments do not improve the paper, it is the author that uses the comments in a constructive way!
If an editor is interested in a paper but has not as yet accepted the paper, the author must respond to each reviewers’ review comment.
All advice is helpful. The final paper always benefits from proper engagement with reviewer feedback.
Comments from peer reviewers, more often than not, offer an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of your manuscript. Addressing them adequately may increase the chances of acceptance, if not in that journal, elsewhere at least.
A major challenge resulting from the massification of Higher Education and scholarly research is that it is often difficult to find able and willing reviewers and there is an increasing tendency to invite reviews from less qualified individuals. I have experience as author, reviewer and editor and it is very frustrating for authors when editors show little interest in even reading manuscripts assigned to them (this is often clearly the case when editors ignore some of the more highly dubious and often contradictory reviewer reports) before making their decision. In my editorial roles I recognise the need to give plenty of attention to manuscripts during the review process, screen out poor reviewer comments and provide my own guidance for authors based on reasonable and relevant reviewer comments. When dealing with revised and resubmitted work editors also need to evaluate author responses to questionable reviewer comments and requirements, not simply leave this task to the original reviewers (who are unlikely to like being shown the weaknesses of their original reviews by the author). Good journals do require their editorial staff to scrutinise and evaluate (not simply accept) reviewer comments before making a decision; the best journals require editors to prioritise these and offer guidance to authors (not simply instruct authors to 'satisfy all the reviewer comments') - note my 'good' and 'best' categorisation of journals has very little in common with other journal rating schemes, as some very highly rated journals display some very poor editorial practices. So, as a somewhat longer answer than most of the previous ones, I'd suggest the quality of an article depends most on the author evaluating reviews, addressing useful comments and advice from reviewers AND editors, while being confident enough to refute problematic ones - and don't be afraid to withdraw your work if you believe required revisions would damage your work; remember once published your work will be subject to the most important type of review - post publication, NON-blind review by ALL your peers. After all, the purpose of peer review is to provide some quality control (that journals publish work that has no obvious scholarly flaws) and to provide authors with some advice (not instruction) on how to improve their work. The reviewer's job is not to dictate what is right and wrong (after all, scholarly research is never going to satisfy every reader - thank goodness!) and a good reviewer or editor should not expect to agree with everything that they publish.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology