How should one reponse to the Reviewer's comment in second revision when he or she says that he/she is not convienced by earlier answers and you know that you have already written what you wanted to convey. (Polite answer to say NO, nothing to show now)
There are some cases:
1) the reviewer was wrong and your answer was correct: then the explaination is not well written (or the model is not well designed), you should take into account that the average reader will also not convinced as well.
2) the reviewer was correct and your answer was wrong: you should spend some time to understand what the reviewer actually meant. It could be the case that your revision was too hasty.
3) the reviewer was correct and what he wants is borderline impossible: some issues that were recognised as "impossible" or "very difficult to solve", were eventually solved. Try to use more assumptions to attempt to solve it. There are of course some problems, which are genuinely difficult to solve.
3a) your paper nonetheless has important results: then highlight that further research is necessary and your result is a move in the right direction.
3b) you cannot see a significant result: then the reaction of the reviewer is normal.
4) your reviewer is those rare type, who rejects everything: ask for other reviewers or move on to other journals.
In some cases, the reviewers may have bias to your title or to the country which you conducted the study, so that, they can simply reject the second version
Kindly someone share questionnaires on individual investor's behavioural biase.
Thank you for your response. It is originally collected the data from currently working college teachers. In this study conducted from Coimbatore city in Tamilnadu, India.
you can take what he / she is saying and study why the disagreement . Then see how that can be incorporated in your continuation or next writing
Thank your observation mam.In this study only exclusive on women working self financing college Teachers financial decision making , savings and investment of our family. In this conclude only on their study area.
Maybe your explenation is not well written or you need to find out another journal
It is a good idea to prepare a tracking sheet detailing reviewer comments and how you addressed each of them. Then may be you can ask someone you know to go over and get a feedback. I have seen more than 6 iterations of a paper before the reviewers were completely satisfied. Usually, the paper becomes really worth the hardwork. But after three or four revisions, you could contact the editor for feedback on specific comments you have sufficiently handled. Taking to another journal and restarting the process sometimes kills the intiative as you have to declare that you submitted to another outlet.
If you believe that you have consider most of the reviewer comments and left the rest, you have to show on a seperate table your justifications. I have revised one of my papers 4 revisions and finally one of the reviewer commnents that not considered in the revised version as it needs collecting data over another 3 years, I have referret to as suggetions for further research. Good work deserve fitting.
Nitin, although saying 'no' to editors and reviewers' comments/feedback on a revised and resubmitted ( R & R) manuscript is a tempting option especially once the second round of revisions has been attempted, there may be another option worth considering. This is to identify, section by section, all the revisions that were asked for in both the first and second round and highlighting where in the text you might have addressed each of the specific requirements. Hope this helps.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing