Read on Twitter
OK, after a summer of reviewing and editing, I& #39;m going to list Rebekah& #39;s tips for manuscript revisions. Not formally endorsed by any specific journal. Use at your own risk.
1. When you list opposed reviewers give some kind of politely worded rationale. "This lab also works on sea spiders" is not inherently a COI. Listing people known to be critical is ok. Listing every lab that works on similar topics looks fishy or disingenuous.
2. Cite the other people working in your field. We all miss papers sometimes. But if you work on sea spiders and refuse to cite any other group working on sea spiders that& #39;s not great.
It makes it harder for you to advocate for how your work moves the field forward.
It makes it harder for you to advocate for how your work moves the field forward.
3. When you are asked to make revisions to text, generally you want to make those revisions unless you fundamentally disagree with the statement. If you disagree, add explanation to the text. This goes a long way to establishing good faith that you considered comments seriously.
4. If reviewers question analyses or ask you to validate work, you need to make at least some attempt to check your own results. Even if you think it doesn& #39;t matter. If they suggest something fundamentally wrong, be prepared to say why and back it up with citations.
5. Recent work in your field on a similar topic got published around the same time? In most cases there will be unique results in your paper that editors can support. Cite that recent work and explain its relationship to yours. Especially if results are similar.
6. Redoing past work on sea spiders with long read sequencing is not high impact in and of itself. Advocate for the open questions that could not be answered before. Show how the new technology can address those questions. How does it help you tell a new story?
7. Part of editors& #39; jobs are to mitigate some perils of peer review. They are supposed to prevent nit picky reviewers or political competitors from messing with sound scientific results. Try to work with your editor and reviewers, and trust (hope) they will find fair outcomes.
8. If you do appeal a decision to advocate for resubmission, try to focus on the big issues, not the nit-picky stuff. I don& #39;t think any paper gets rejected because axis labels were garbled. If that really got in the way of review, the editors should have asked for a new version.
9. Refusing to add any new analysis will get you a reject. Ignoring the editors& #39; comments will also likely earn you a rejection.
Adding a sentence suggesting you& #39;re willing to try to address a comment if you misunderstood may help you earn the right to resubmit.
Adding a sentence suggesting you& #39;re willing to try to address a comment if you misunderstood may help you earn the right to resubmit.
10. If you are a reviewer, messing with a competitor& #39;s work looks really really bad. You can disagree with their work without dragging out a review to stifle competition and without listing snide remarks.
Good editors should find a new reviewer if someone obstructs.
Good editors should find a new reviewer if someone obstructs.
