For paper re-submission, what kind of peer-review comments the authors have the right not to answer?
Faysal - I don't think that it is good practice to not answer at all to recommendations made by reviewers. On the other hand, authors have every right to 'counter' reviewer comments that they do not think will enhance or improve the manuscript. In essence, reviewers should expect (and respect) balanced, measured, objective and rationalised justifications from authors not to go with their recommendations. If an author/s can prove to me that my recommendation would eventually detract from the value and quality of the final draft manuscript - then I am fine with this. On the other hand, I am an experienced reviewer - so the author/s would have to have a very good counter-argument indeed for me to retract my initial comment.
Faysal - I don't think that it is good practice to not answer at all to recommendations made by reviewers. On the other hand, authors have every right to 'counter' reviewer comments that they do not think will enhance or improve the manuscript. In essence, reviewers should expect (and respect) balanced, measured, objective and rationalised justifications from authors not to go with their recommendations. If an author/s can prove to me that my recommendation would eventually detract from the value and quality of the final draft manuscript - then I am fine with this. On the other hand, I am an experienced reviewer - so the author/s would have to have a very good counter-argument indeed for me to retract my initial comment.
Good question and great response, a lot to learn.
thanks Faysal and Dean sir.
No propblem Darasingh. Faysal - looks like someone didn't like your question and down-voted you. Can't see why though - unless it's some editor who thinks that you shouldn't question reviewers comments.
Hello to all. I have added my answer to this question before however, it seems that it is still in pipeline!
There is no base for not to answer reviewers' comment that is my guess. We must answer each and every comment made by expert. Unless and otherwise we have strong justification then only we can 'counter' the comments, as suggested by Dr. Dean.
Sometime reviewers' don't separately mention "revise manuscript as per author's guideline" as a comment or it may be from editor, included in reviewers' comment section. Then also, while preparing for answers to comment we should address this type of comments.
Your question may be a bit imprecise, so it's hard to answer.
"Resubmission" means for me that the paper is either submitted as a new submission to the same journal, or even to a different journal/conference. In either case you are likely to get a new set of reviewers, so they may not know previous comments.
I guess you mean a "paper revision," after you got one round of reviews. Since the reviewers are the ones to decide if you followed their suggestions it's quite hard to ignore them ... However, the final decision is with the journal editors/TPC chairs, so if you think a reviewer is wrong and cannot be convinced, there is still the chance that the editor calls for more reviews or decides based on the other reviews, if you make a convincing case that the reviewer is wrong.
Reviewers can also make mistakes and sometimes have their own agenda, that's why you should get at least 3 reviews to make things fair.
Tejas and Matthias - both measured responses. The final call is with the editors so, hopefully, they can separate the good from the not-so-good. However, they may be time-pressed enough to just go with the reviewers recommendations.
Yes Dr Dean, I had considered that editor's decision is final and they rely mostly on reviewer's comments.
In my opinion there are 3 types of comments the reviewers make- 1) Major 2) Minor and 3) Discretionary. To my opinion the author should reply all the comments. The purpose of reviewing is to find out the shortcomings of a manuscript, to make it more academically sound as well as to improve the quality of the submission. So, the reviewer is not acting as your enemy, rather he is a helping hand who used to give his (/her) expert opinion to make the article publishable.
In the process of responding to the reviewers comment you have the opportunity (in fact full freedom) to rebuttal the opinions as you may agree with the him or may not. It is your duty to convince the reviewer why you disagree. If you agree you will make corrections and the response is quite simple "corrected", but in case if you have a difference in opinion you must justify your opinion with proper logic backed by reference(s).
The editors largely rely on the reviewers' comment but they are also experts in the field. So, they also have their opinion which may go to your side.
Few days ago, I gave a detailed answer to your question here but it is now missing from the discussion thread. Can't understand the reason behind the same.
The point was to answer all the comments whatever may be the case. Put yourself truly before the reviewer and tell frankly what you can or cannot do to fulfill their comments with appropriate reasons.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals