Parte 4

Peer Review

Section 6

Download at: http://www.edanzediting.com/sa2015

Peer review

Accepted—publication!

EditorManuscript

Peer review

Revision

Reject

Results novel?Topic relevant?Journal requirements met?

New experimentsImprove readabilityAdd information

Submission process framesEl proceso de presentación de manuscritos

Peer review Peer review improves your manuscript

• Few papers are accepted without revision• Rejection and revision are integral• Peer review should be a positive process

Ac-cep-

tance Minor revision

Major revision

Rejec-tion

La revisión por pares mejora su manuscrito

Peer review What reviewers are looking for

The science

The manuscript

Relevant hypothesis Good experimental design Appropriate methodology Good data analysis Valid conclusions

Logical flow of information Manuscript structure and formatting Appropriate references High readability

Abstract and IntroductionMethodsResults and FiguresDiscussion

Un manuscrito puede ser rechazado si la investigación científica no es de buena calidad

Peer review

Response letter

Respond to every reviewer comment

Easy to see changes

Refer to line and page numbers

Use a different color font

Highlight the text

Revision

No ignore los comentarios con los que no esté de acuerdo

Peer review Writing a response letter

Marc Lippman, MDEditor-in-ChiefBreast Cancer Research and Treatment

3 September 2013

Dear Dr Lippman,

Re: Resubmission of manuscript reference No. WJS-07-5739

Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript originally entitled “Evaluation of the Glasgow prognostic score in patients undergoing curative resection for breast cancer liver metastases,” which we would like to resubmit for consideration for publication in the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

The reviewer’s comments were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point responses to each of the comments.

Revisions in the manuscript are shown as underlined text. In accordance with the first comment, the title has been revised and the entire manuscript has undergone substantial English editing. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in the Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

Address editor personally

Manuscript ID number

Thank reviewers

Highlight major changes

Al escribir la carta de respuesta a los revisores, diríjase al editor directamente, agradezca a los

revisores, enfatice cambios mayores

Peer review Agreeing with reviewers

Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).

Peer review

Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).

Agreeing with reviewers

Agreement

Peer review

Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).

Agreeing with reviewers

Agreement

Revisions

Peer review

Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function, in its current form, makes it difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We describe our new analysis using a Gaussian fitting function in our revised Results section (Page 6, Lines 12–18).

Agreeing with reviewers

Agreement

RevisionsLocation

Peer review Disagreeing with reviewers

Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6).

Peer review

Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6).

Evidence

Disagreeing with reviewers

Peer review

Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6).

Revisions

Evidence

Disagreeing with reviewers

Peer review

Reviewer Comment: In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response: Although a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al., 1998]. We have now explained the use of this function and the Smith model in our revised Discussion section (Page 12, Lines 2–6).

Revisions

Location

Evidence

Disagreeing with reviewers

Peer review “Unfair” reviewer comments

Reviewer comment: Currently, the authors’ conclusion that this gene is involved in heart development is not completely validated by their in vitro analyses. They should do additional in vivo experiments using a genetic mouse model to show that heart development is regulated by this gene.

Reasons why reviewers might make these comments Current results are not appropriate for the impact factor of

the journal

Reviewer is being “unfair”Resultados no son apropiados para el factor de

impacto de la revista o el revisor fue injusto

Peer review If rejected, what should you do?

Option 1: New submission to the same journal Fully revise manuscript Prepare point-by-point responses Include the original manuscript ID number

Option 2: New submission to a different journal Revise manuscript Reformat according to the author guidelinesSi el manuscrito fue rechazado, se puede

presentar nuevamente a la misma revista o presentarse a una nueva revista

If accepted, what’s next?

Promote your work on social networks • Twitter, LinkedIn, Research Gate

Respond to post-publication comments

Present your work at conferences• Promote your publication• Allows you to discuss your work personally with your peers• Get feedback about your work and future directions

Si el manuscrito fue aceptado, promueva su trabajo en redes sociales, responda a comentarios sobre su publicación, presente sus hallazgos en conferencias

Be an effective communicator

S

Your goal is not only to be published, but also to be widely read/cited

Write effectively

Choose the best journal to reach your target audience

Logically present your research in your manuscript

Convey the significance of your work to journal editors

Properly revise your manuscript after peer review

S

What we do

Language editing for the academic publishing industry

Support individual authors

Work with authors, universities and institutes

Collaborate with publishers

We prepare manuscripts to pass through submission and peer review

S

How are we different? Native English speakers Research experience Publishing experience In-depth knowledge of the

manuscript’s content High language and editorial skills

Our experts

S

Our experts

Daniel wheeler2009 - DM Critical Care and Anaesthesiology, University of Oxford2006 - PhD Neurobiology, University of Cambridge1994 - BM BCh Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford• Lecturer and honorary consultant anaesthetist at the University of Cambridge• Member of the Royal College of Physicians since 1997• Published over 40 scientific papers

Ludovic Croxford2000 - PhD Medical Immunology, University College London1994 - BSc Biochemistry and Toxicology, University of Surrey• Multi-disciplinary immunologist with research experience in a wide

range of fields, especially neuroimmunology, autoimmunity and oncology

• Published over 40 peer-reviewed papers, reviews and book chapters in journals including Nature, Nature Immunology and Nature Medicine

S

Our publisher partnerships

S

1. Assess which services you need

2. Use our order webformwww.edanzediting.com/order

3. Send us all the appropriate files

Using our services

S

Our services

1. Language editing• Language edit• Second edit• Review edit• Point by point edit

2. Content services• Journal selection• Expert scientific review• Cover letter development• Reviewer recommendation• Abstract development• Custom services (e.g., rewriting, reformatting)

S

Which service, when?M

anus

cript

prep

arati

onFin

al pr

e-su

bmiss

ion ch

ecks

Subm

ission

to jo

urna

l

Revis

e after

peer

revie

wRe

subm

it to j

ourn

al

Lang

uage

editing

Expe

rt Sc

ientific

Revie

w

Jour

nal S

electi

on

Revie

wer Re

com

men

dation

Cover

letter

Dev

elopm

ent

Point

by Po

int re

view

Thank you!

Any questions?

Follow us on Twitter@EdanzEditing

Like us on Facebookfacebook.com/EdanzEditing

Download and further readinghttp://www.edanzediting.com/sa2015

global@edanzediting.com