I have several examples. If you provide an email address I will send you several templates

I have several examples. If you provide an email address I will send you several templates

If the above numbered options for a decision on your paper were the only thing the editor sent to you, I would contact the editor for clarification. If this is the only communication that was sent to you, I recommend that you also ensure that you are submitting to a reputable journal (but of course mistakes can happen anywhere). Usually the editor will send along the detailed comments of each reviewer and ONE of the aforementioned options, indicating that your paper is accepted (yay!), needs minor/major revisions before resubmission (which would be indicated in the detailed reviewer comments), or rejected (in which case, you can try submitting elsewhere). Most commonly authors require revisions before acceptance as long as their topic is relevant to the journal and does not require more than "major" revisions.

Regarding how you might reply to the editor's comments and reviewers' comments, be polite and respectful, indicate what suggested changes were made, and state your reasons for rejecting any of the recommendations. Always remember that you are a specialist on your topic and you may respectfully disagree with reviewers. They are not always correct. The editor will make the final decision.

I wish you the best of luck in publishing your paper!

Briefly, you have first to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments. Then it is better to reply to each in a separate files (Response to reviewers comments), (Response to editor comments).

in each you have to follow comments one by one, correct in the text and mention your correction in the reply.

the mentioned terms are the decision of the editor, (accepted) means need no modification and will be published, (minor and major revision) means need minor and major modifications according to reviewer comments and it will be re judged after you send the comments, (Rejected) means it will not be published in this journal.

Best Wishes

Amended on 16 August 2018

This is an interesting question as I have experienced repeatedly as you.

Slow and steady wins the race; i.e., truth finally wins the publication.

If rejected, the referees and/or editor are not good. Therefore, please post the honest article to another Journals. But, please incorporate the adequate comment and/or refuse the invalid comment or hypothesis in the revised manuscript (revised version is always necessary and submitted). Thus, I have finally denied the notorious Apoptosis hypothesis and MTT method as the effect of Fucoidan (sulphated poly-L-fucose), though this exciting article has not been incorporated in PubMed yet (please see file; Rat DEN Np-Fuco).

My recent work has been published at the 10th of submissions (please see file; JMBT Alopecia 1), although this important and interesting article has also not yet been embezzeled in PubMed.

If the reviewer has good judgment and has made criticism constructively, the best response is to follow the suggested recommendations. It is very common in reviews that I do, for the most part, the authors seek to "ignore or eliminate" the deeper interventions, performing only simple things. What the reviewer feels in this situation is the lack of scientific emotion of the author in the work to be published. It is worth emphasizing that I always try to help the authors adjusting their manuscript in order to improve, after all any research work always has a peculiarity and something new for science.

I think good reviewers always state the incomplete side of the article with some advice how to correct them.

The authors should not have any ego. S/he have to try to correct all the points. If some points can not be corrected, those should be stated politely.

Acceptance/ rejection of article is decided by the editorial board, not by the reviewer/s.

Thanks.

It really depends on the review. If your receive a positive feedback, then there is no need to respond. In the case of a negative response, you need to examine the merit of the criticisms and if not justified then respond forcefully and honestly as to why you disagree. Amir

Read the given comments carefully and try to reply simply what has been asked. Be specific, surely you will get the desired result.

Good luck!

Firstly, thank the reviewer for his time, then try to answer each point politely. Please take a look to the attached files, they are very helpful in this matter.

Very informative discussions, many thanks.

Provide me your email address, I'ill send you several templates.

dear, Hamid Gadouri and J. Francisco Morales ,

my email address is

[email protected]

Dear Dr. Md Bokhtiar Rahman,

Here, you find a model about how to write a good response to a reviewer for article publication? I'ill send you other templates during this month.

This model can help you for preparing the comments on the referee's suggestions.

Regards

Hello,

I would summarize the procedure like this:

-Thank the reviewer(s) for the suggestions

-Explanation of each point

When you have positive feedback just thank and go on

In case of negative feedback you make corrections reporting possibly the old and the new (amended version)

-thank them at the end for their collaboration

Kind regards

I am thankful for your experiences. There are so many useful information.

Md. Bokhtiar

A few main things that could  make the work of editors and reviewers as effective as possible would be:

1- Do not disagree with reviewer comment, but you can disagree, as long as you explain with providing factual response.

2- Describe all the changes you have done to the editors and reviewers. Because, the editors and reviewers don't have extra time to check out the new draft line by line and find changes.Thus, the simplest way to ensure your responses aer easy underestanding and informative is to copy paste each comment, and type your satisfactory response below it. Also try to be very specific. So if the reviewer saying "the introduction section is not clear", it's not enough to just say "we changed  the introduction section". What you should say is "we changed the introduction section on page..., lines ..-.." and explain all changes. That makes it more clear to the editor what you have changed, and the reviewer is able to find and see it.

3- Don't forget to make the changes and update the manuscript.You can include line numbers in your changes. So in that way, you actually have to make the change first before including the line numbers in your response.

The best response to a reviewer would be to the point, respectful, and concise.

At first try to understand each comment perfectly and give positive answer for each question by the reviewer regarding your publication and if you are facing any problem then take suggestion from expertise in your field....

Thanks a lot for this nice discussions and very informative for young scientists and researchers.

Dear J. Francisco Morales and Hamid Gadouri

May you share some templates to my E-mail id- [email protected]

Regards,

Manish Kumar

Already a lot of good tips are provided above.

Usually, respectful reviewers are specific about the points they are making. The best way is to answer specifically by following their recommendations. But, sometimes it requires new experiments which may take months. Or, you strongly disagree with the reviewers' points. You should explain clearly and specifically why you disagree on points. Usually, disagreements fall on editors discretion. Editor(s) read both arguments and they can make a decision.

Regardless, revising a paper for re-submission is a tantalizing effort. However, I learned so much from the process. Think positively because you will learn many things during the process even if a paper is not accepted. Good luck with your revision!

First you read carefully about the referee's and editor comments. If it has major revision or rejection and you disagree with this modify your manuscript and send it to another Journal. If there is minor correction then you follow the suggestions of referee or editor point by point. You revise your manuscript accordingly and then send a reply against the referee's comments point by point. You must write the changes you have made in the original manuscript. You can write the points clearly with explanation where you disagree with the referee's point of view. Every time you get comments from reviewer you learn some thin. Finally the comments and revisions are made for improving the quality of manuscript.

Agree with the Excellent comments of Francisco Sávio Gomes Pereira "If the reviewer has good judgment and has made criticism constructively, the best response is to follow the suggested recommendations. It is very common in reviews that I do, for the most part, the authors seek to "ignore or eliminate" the deeper interventions, performing only simple things. What the reviewer feels in this situation is the lack of scientific emotion of the author in the work to be published. It is worth emphasizing that I always try to help the authors adjusting their manuscript in order to improve, after all any research work always has a peculiarity and something new for science".

Agree with Wajid Zaman

I always itemize every comment from the editor or reviewer the i go onto each and respond politely to address the comment. If I do not agree with the comment, I say so politely and explain as much as possible my disagreement

Dear Bokhtiar,

some journals publish review files with the finally accepted manuscripts. I found such real examples very helpfull to get a feeling about how to respond to the comments from the reviewers.

You can check for example articles from "The EMBO Journal" or "EMBO reports" at "Transparent Process -> Review Process File" or articles from "eLIFE" -> "Decision letter/ Author response".

Good luck!

Review very well the policies of the magazine to which you sent your article, since some annoy more than others, some require a specific organization, another a number limit of words, etc. Search for virtual magazines in The first instance, PubMed, NCBI, The New England Journal of Medicine.

Dear Md Bokhtiar Rahman,

Below I give free, free resources and magazines.

In these magazines, you can publish for free.

Articles published in these journals are entered into many databases of scientific journals indexation, therefore they are characterized by high citation.

These magazines are published electronically in PDF and also in printed version.

Below are the websites of three scientific journals that meet these criteria:

Social sciences, various humanities and also exact sciences, including social, sociological, economic and other aspects:

https://ijoness.com

https://instytutinnowacji.edu.pl/o-ijoness/

Legal sciences, normative aspects of various issues, various issues described in normative terms:

https://ijols.com

https://instytutinnowacji.edu.pl/ijols-prawo-2/

Humanities and science, various fields of science, various issues including new technologies, various types of innovations,

various exact sciences and also humanities taking into account technical and technological aspects, technical progress, etc .:

https://instytutinnowacji.edu.pl/ijisse-innowacje/

Best wishes

Following...

I agree with the explanation of Dr. Virendra Nath Rai

You need to be polite thankfull for the comments and reply to each one by explaining what you did to improve the oaper according to the comments.

I believe that reviewing process is a good opportunity to learn more about the research methodology and keep abreast of the updates. So, the reviewer should be well knowledgable about the critical evaluations, research methods cons and pros, as well as stat analysis.. In the same time, he should be familiar with the rules of the journals he reviews..

I believe that reviewing process is a good opportunity to learn more about the research methodology and keep abreast of the updates. So, the reviewer should be well knowledgable about the critical evaluations, research methods cons and pros, as well as stat analysis.. In the same time, he should be familiar with the rules of the journals he reviews..

Thank the editor and answer to each of the reviewers comments. Hope this help. Simon

The revise and resubmit notice comes as a complete shock! How could the reviewers not love your brilliant data commentary? Maybe they just didn’t understand it…after all, it was a totally ingenious interpretation.

This is a normal reaction for a fledgling researcher. Supervisors are often so busy that the process of submission and revision is something of a mystery when starting out. Receiving criticism and defending your research takes practice. It also requires a “CALM” approach...

Here are four simple tips to help you respond to reviewers’ comments and fast track your paper for a positive decision!

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/authors-update/how-to-respond-to-reviewer-comments-the-calm-way

After getting the reply from reviewer you can decide! If the minor revision if they send just you can answer all the questions carefully or provide suitable supplementary documents. If the revision is major you have to provide with suitable experimental data with supporting documents. If they reject the submitted manuscript you have to look other journal where your research is suitable for publication.

As a young researcher I face the same problem. It's really hard to publish your first paper.

If remarks do not mention the concept of article, it is expedient to accept them and to present the corrected version of the text to edition.

Be polite.

Comments of the reviewers are spot light what is not clear for others. they are trying to guide you to show your work in a more understandable clear way. So, try to use their comments as much as you can. Do not ignore any. If you don't agree with any of them, just try to explain why or rephrase the paragraph in concern.

The reviewer is trying to help you. so try to take advantage of this help. answer all his inquiries and reply to all his comments. don't ignore any even if you don t agree with it. explain your point of view. you know all your paper because you are the one who carried it out but the reviewer may not see it clear enough and this is the main point.

Try to be as polite as possible, and do your best to address all issues raised about your article to the fullest.

I am sure you will be a great researcher is you do these.

Please try to address all issues raised by the reviewers. Modify the manuscript according to the reviewers comments. And also need to prepare a rebuttal letter. If you need any template of the rebuttal letter feel free to contact with this mail: [email protected]. Thank you.

First of all, the researcher should be well qualified in Microsoft office and internet.

It is not easy to explain in few words about e-publications.

The reviewer's comments often relate to the topic of research which you should correct or leave an answer if do not agree with but politely. while the editor's comments relate to the guidelines of the journal which you should read it and follow them before sending the manuscript for publication.

Regarding the decisions of the reviewers, I advice you to follow all the comments no matter how small (accept or answer as I mentioned before) even if the MS (manuscript) is approved for publication or minor revisions.

But you should work harder on the comments if the decision was major revision, because you convince the reviewer that you MS is worth to be publish.

Wish you all the best