Dear all
If reviewers, including supervisors, reviewers at schools, and journal reviewers deny my statement and decide that the evidence is not enough to infer the statements, should I insist on my statements and provide more evidence to persuade them or should I follow the decision of the reviewer and commit to the limitation of the research?
Thanks in advance.
Chen
If you do have solid "evidence" to support your claim that is one thing, but if instead you are just explaining on your previous argument, that is something else. In general, there is very little to be gained by arguing with reviewers, and quite a bit the could be lost. What about the option of describing this something for future research to address?
Hi Chen,
That depends. If a concerted body of different people are saying the same thing - then they are probably correct. If the 'common theme' states that your current data/findings are not compelling enough to establish wider inferential relationships (I assume that by 'infer' this is what you mean i.e. wanting to correlate findings?) then I would go with that and just report the initial descriptive data. If you disagree with all - then you always have the opportunity for 'rebuttal' through robust counter-argument, rationality and justification.
You improve the research by first, know its limitations and mention it in the paper then second try to minimize their effects them... if these steps dont help then try to publish in another journal....
In most of the cases the authors are in a position to judge whether the improvements made by the reviewers are helpful or not. If yes accept them otherwise contradict with reasons. Ultimately the editor will decide.
If you do have solid "evidence" to support your claim that is one thing, but if instead you are just explaining on your previous argument, that is something else. In general, there is very little to be gained by arguing with reviewers, and quite a bit the could be lost. What about the option of describing this something for future research to address?
Dean Whitehead
Dear Dr Dean Whitehead
Thanks for your reply and sorry to reply to you so late. So far at my stage of learning, my articles or writings are not evaluated by a group, but rather by individuals, such as internal assessors for examinations of my report or my supervisors. You are right--infer is what I want to correlate finding. Regarding common theme states which are not compelling enough to establish, I will go with your suggestion to avoid the opportunity for rebuttals.
Regards
Chen
Paula Romanos
Dear Paula Romanos
Thanks for your reply; sorry I took so long to get back to you. Your suggestion is practical and straightforward. I will follow your advice in my current writing and future publications.
Regards
Chen
Subir Bandyopadhyay
Dear Dr Bandyopadhyay
Thanks for your reply; sorry I took so long to get back to you. Although so far, l I am writing a thesis instead of journals, your suggestion can be used in my thesis. I will refer to your suggestion.
Regards
Chen
David L Morgan
Dear Professor Morgan
Thanks for your reply; sorry I took so long to get back to you. I should separate questions into different conditions. Regarding the explanation of my previous argument, I always follow suggestions of reviewers. In most cases, I meet problems in supporting my hypothesis with results, or by finding my hypothesis is not feasible to extend to the phenomenon that I found. Depending on your suggestions, I will follow the tips or comments from reviewers and address controversial issues for future research.
Regards
Chen
Abambres M.
Dear Professor Abambres
Thanks for your reply; sorry I took so long to get back to you. Your project means a great deal to me. I am following your project up.
Regard
Chen
You only choose when you are fully convinced of your position. Here it is 'them' against your statement. I suggest you get a third party to look into both statements before you make a decision. Otherwise providing more convincing evidence.
Pritam Kumar Panda
Dear Pritam Kumar Panda
Thanks for your comment. I am a novice in PhD studies. The dilemma I am facing is mainly reviewing from my internal assessor who is in charge of my annual review and deciding whether I can pass my annual review. The situation which you mention is a further severe challenge in a research career. If I face problems, I will go with your comments.
Regards,
Chen
Abambres M.
Dear Professor Abambres.
Thanks for sharing your article. I agree that the peer-review process in journals is a controversial issue, although I have little experience in paper publishing. I will read the article which you shared.
Regards,
Chen
Elizabeth Ndofirepi
Dear Dr Ndofirepi,
Thanks for your comment. Doing it your way is a good idea. I will try to provide more evidence or get a third party to investigate my statements.
Regards,
Chen
Yes, I follow David L Morgan but the outcomes should be what is right not who is right?
Anjay kumar Mishra
Dear Dr. Mishra,
Thanks for sharing it.
Regards,
Chen
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Education
- Higher Education
- Academic Writing