Read on Twitter
My RnR process might be quirky, but it more or less works for me. When I get the decision letter, I read it right away. I read the editor letter and reviewer comments for the important points. This is more an elongated skim than a careful read. I write down the big stuff...
...and maybe jot down a point or two I might want to make. Assuming I get the usual 6 months, I then put it away for awhile. Usually 3-6 weeks. I do this because I need to think. I can finish other projects and give the reviewer points the reflection they usually require...
...I have an app I use called Evernote that I have on every device I own. Each manuscript usually as a note file. I do this to make sure I write down the random jolts of thoughts or counterpoints or fixes to the paper that I have while I'm running or playing with the kids etc...
...I then open four documents: 1) A bone structure of the editor letter, 2) the most recently submitted manuscript, saved under a new name to edit, 3) All the reviewer comments copied and pasted into a word doc so I can address them all, and 4) a document of code to track...
...additional methods stuff, new graphs or equations, or robustness checks reviewers might want. Then, I start with the stuff that's the simplest to address. Warm up jumpers, gets the blood flowing. I start to fix the draft then I copy and paste those fixes into the letters...
...Its is my experience that reviews like detail and precision on how their points were addressed. It can be frustrating when reviewers are asked to find your fixes themselves. So I copy the words verbatim into the response letters and note them in the text with line notations...
...when I get stumped, I stop some more and think. Sometimes I have to do this for a couple weeks or more. This is why I don't procrastinate these things. I can't imagine feeling rushed and giving some thoughtful reviewer some bullshit because I waited till the last minute...
..when I am done, I put everything away again for a couple of days and return to it with fresh eyes. Sometimes (admittedly not as often as a I should), I'll ask an expert colleague about a point or two I made to see if i was clear/on the right track...
Side note: This is one of the biggest reasons networking is so important. Not just to kiss ass for jobs, but it is really helpful to know smart people that you can ask for technical advice. Sometimes people call me for panel methods stuff, and sometimes I call other people...
My response letters are very thorough and usually very long. I respond to EVERY point, even the very minor ones. I structure them as follow: I copy the bulleted response in bold and type by response below it. The text fixes I paste in there are in italics or highlights.
Also side note: I am hella gracious in my response to reviewers. When they are hella off-base, I am firm and try to explain myself thoroughly, but I am still hella gracious and thoughtful. Doesn't make sense to be antagonistic. Chill....
...When I am convinced I am done, I return to the editor letter. I return to the major reviewer concerns I originally wrote down, and I am specific in my letter to the editor about how I addressed those concerns. I am hella gracious here too. Being an editor is thankless and ...
usually voluntary. And them mofos are overworked. Fuck the snarky shit, especially when you are first starting out. Chill, make your point, and be grateful you got a chance to resubmit. Call your academic homies and vent over a beer...
In the submission portal, be cautious. It can take an hour or more to upload all that shit in the format they want. Give yourself time. Don't wait till the last minute.
Tips for newbies: 1) Don't wait till the last minute. Yeah, editors are usually cool about deadline extensions but I wouldn't make a habit out of the shit. Deadlines can keep you on track and you can punt them shits so long the editor changes and your shit gets rejected.
...plus in the long run we are all dead. Get your shit done...2) but give yourself plenty of time to think. If the review is worth a damn they are challenging your thinking in some critical ways. Thinking makes your scholarship better.
3) Err on the side of detail. As a frequent reviewer, it sucks when you go thru the (uncompensated) time to reflect on someones work and they just ignore your ass and you get the same paper back. and 4) Chill on the snark and sarcasm. First, when you think reviewers are wrong...
...they are often right. Second, even when they are off base, it can mean your manuscript lacks clarity. Anyway, in the words of Todd (off Devin the Dude) "I'm not recommending nobody else do that, thats just what the hell I like to do."
