I had communicated some paper in reputed international journal the common thing in the reviewers recommend me that is write is more analytical way
That's a very vague recommendation. Maybe what they are getting at is having a clearer structure and an underpinning of evidence. Your plan might be
- What is commonly believed in this area based on [cite references].
- The question that arises from this – you could be critiquing anything from generalising based on insufficient or flawed evidence to the adequacy of theoretical models in the area
- Your idea to improve the situation
- the benefits of this approach, its drawbacks and
- suggestion about what we do next.
When I saw this question, I thought of an editorial that we recently published that used that approach. Interestingly, it was rubbished by the single reviewer. Normally I let things like that go, but I was so indignant that the reviewer clearly had missed the whole point of the paper that I wrote to the editor. The editor eventually got back to me to say that, yes, the reviewer had missed the point, and that it was actually a good paper and they would publish it!
The moral of the story is that a reviewer's comments are important but they may just have missed your point!
The paper is here, and illustrates the approach I outlined: Article Rethinking professional boundaries: the climate crisis and b...
- Badges
- Science method