Dear Dr. Baya,

Good morning or Good evening (it depends on your local time)

Sure the final decision will be reject this paper, or It is possible to say: Any author have (must) to recheck, find an interpretation, explaining in detail, taking into his account all (all) remarks (comments) of the reviewer to get a permission of publishing his paper and vice versa.

Our holy task as a researcher is conducting trusted scientific research and papers and be away from the so called misconduct behavior in publication! In the following link you will find the world scientific leaders with the highest h-index in information technologies.

Regards, Emad

http://www.guide2research.com/journals/software-programming

Dr. Hussein is entirely correct.  If a reviewer raises a concern, and the author fails to respond or responds spuriously, the manuscript should be rejected.  Our task both as authors and reviewers -- and Dr. Hussein is correct in thinking of it as a moral as well as an epistemic concern -- is to provide our disciplines with high-quality information.  To willingly fail to do so is a matter of malfeasance.  If one is unable to do so, one's article should be pulled from consideration until a later date.

Thank you so much Dr. Mark West for your bright words, I do agree with you.

Regards, Emad

Dear Dr.Baya,

What do we mean when we say "does not respect"? Does the word "respect" imply a value system? Is the value system justified?

Best regards,

Xinyuan

There are different approaches one could take to this matter.  One might, for example, argue for 'epistemic virtues,' as do Sosa, Zagzebski, Axtell, etc.  In so doing, the domain of epistemology becomes normative, as you propose.  To do epistemology in a manner which leads to correct outcomes is a virtue, since it leads to beneficial (rather than harmful) joint outcomes.  See, for example, Knowledge, Belief, and Character:  Readings in Virtue Epistemology (ed. Guy Axtell). https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5c4zAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=virtue+epistemology+contemporary+readings&ots=_B7aUfQqfg&sig=-O_l608C5clZVuxjWBkZhUE0R0c#v=onepage&q=virtue%20epistemology%20contemporary%20readings&f=false

Dear colleagues, thank you so much for your very interesting answers.  

The question of Xinyuan concerns me. 

It is true that an author does not necessarily agree with the reviewers' point of view. And you are right to say that there are two aspects: checking the scientific content of the message and its veracity for the quality of the research on one hand. But there is also the moral aspect of communication with reviewers on the other hand. So, responding to reviewers in this way (In some cases, we, however, had to decide our own path) has shaken me somewhat. So, what is the value system?

Here, I am inclined to the virtue ethics and humility is one value. Does the reviewer not find himself faced with an interior conflict?

As editor of a professional journal, this discussion is highly relevant for me. Our practice is to have the editorial team first review potential articles, then send those approved to two qualified reviewers for a double blind peer review. Important comments are then conveyed to the authors should revisions be suggested. If both reviewers recommend rejection or there are troubling issues that cannot be resolved with the author's input, the article is rejected. We, fortunately, have never encountered an author who refused to cooperate in this process. If that should happen, I agree that the article should be rejected. We do, first and foremost have an obligation to our readers to provide the most accurate information possible.

Dear Dr. Baya,

I seriously wonder exactly what kind of response might have "shaken" you.

Questions from Chinese students/researchers like "how do I reply to the editor (of the journal)?", " how do I reply to this request from a reviewer?", "how do I reply if I do not agree with the reviewer?" literally flood a famous academic forum in China, to the extent that the forum has a board for such topics.

I actually think sample responses, somehow like those scored GRE analytical writing samples given by ETS (http://www.ets.org/gre/revised_general/prepare/analytical_writing/issue/sample_responses), would be helpful.

Best regards,

Xinyuan

Dear Xinyuan gu

Thank you so much for your valuable contribution. I think that we have a lot to learn, don't you believe?

Best

I can simulate publication process as any other profession or task, in case of knowing well the so called "know how?", then you will easy to access this amazing world and it become so easy to publish an article or paper, and do not forget my dear colleagues that "EVERY THING IN OUR LIFE STARTS WITH DIFFICULTIES"!

Hope you all full success in your publication stage of academic life.

Emad

What happens when an author does not respect all the remarks, with a phony argument?

Reviewers are quality gatekeeper appointed by the journal editor to evaluate all the qualified manuscripts.  Depending on the status of the review e.g. if the author's manuscript is required to be amended & resubmitted, the author needs to make all the changes as well as clarify / provide answers to all the questions raised by the reviewers (sometimes to the extent row by row & word by word).  

Authors need to apply objectivity even though sometimes, some questions / critiques can be very biased & negative - because editor himself / herself will be next level of filter / safety net to assess the reviewers' quality of work.  I came across some editors do intervene when some reviewers are extremely biased in their second round of their review remarks.

In my personal opinion, authors can disagree but don't disengage - apply objectivity & do your best to revise your manuscript for the resubmission.  In case at the end the manuscript is still being rejected, you have learned / improved the qualify of your writing & you can submit afresh to other journals.

Will be repeated with him, At that time he will learn from mistakes

Dear Rg community, 

The discussion was very fruitful and I would like to thank all the contributors for their invaluable collaboration.

Best regards

Not all reviewers review manuscripts to the same mark of quality.  Even the vest reviewers may have (1) biases regarding a particular view of a manuscript's hypothesis, methodology, statistical analyses, interpretations, and challenges of future research in the area, (2) difficulty freeing their time to undertake a thorough review of a manuscript, (3) less expertise than the editor thought the individual had when assigning the manuscript to the specific reviewer in question.  Young research investigators will not be able to pick out the comments that themselves may cause disagreements among experts in the field.   The best approach is to develop the best hypothesis, discuss the best methodological approaches, best data collection tools, best statistical analyses, best interpretations of the analyzed data, best conclusions that can be developed from the analyzed data that one has collected and discuss all of the above with more seasoned investigators, colleagues, and mentors and then send the final product with appropriate acknowledgements to a strong journal and begin the process of understandings how and what good reviewers focus their energy to help you develop the best article you can in the collaborative process of peer review of research for consideration of publication..

Dennis

Dennis Mazur