The review (Review) opinion of the paper submitted two months ago is about to come down. During this period, I also completed the review of 4 works as a reviewer (Reviewer). Recalling that I have reviewed about 10 manuscripts since I entered school, and I have also participated in the Rebuttal link after the Review. Next, I will summarize the key focus angles during the review and the attention process of the Rebuttal link. In addition, on December 10, 2022, in a doctoral student workshop organized by the college, I was honored to listen to the academic experience sharing of the senior student Zhu Liwang of the college. During this period, he mentioned some operations related to the submission of papers. Everyone share.
Table of contents
PS: For experience summarization such as guidelines for writing academic papers , please move to the column: Closed-loop Guide for Scientific Research
About Review
Most of the reviewers are fellow scientific researchers, and the review is generally voluntary. In addition, reviewers have complicated affairs. In most cases, reviewers take time to complete the review work.
Review general process
The figure below shows the review process of most reviewers. The key elements to focus on are: whether the relevant work is comprehensive, whether the method is rigorous, whether the experimental demonstration is sufficient, whether the result analysis is reasonable, and whether the article is clear and so on.
Review result reference
Personally, I have given comments such as Weak Reject (WR), Borderline Accept (BA), Weak Accept (WA), and Strong Accept (SA) on the reviewed manuscripts. Let me briefly talk about the correspondence of different review comments Some questions for reference:
Weak Reject (WR) : The cross-entropy function formula is wrongly written, or the experimental demonstration is insufficient
Borderline Accept (BA) : The references are not comprehensive enough, the article is not clear enough, but the idea is innovative
Weak Accept (WA) : The experiment is sufficient, but the increase Incremental work (incremental work)
Strong Accept (SA) : Innovative ideas, sufficient experiments, clear expressions, and complete references
About Rebuttal
Rebuttal reacts to Review
First of all, let's take a look at the role of Rebuttal, which is an indispensable part of Peer Review. It aims to prove the value of the work done by answering the questions raised by the Reviewer during the Review session. The figure below reflects the different influences and proportions of Rebuttal on Review results.
How to Rebuttal ?
It can be seen that the impact of Rebuttal on the review results is still decisive. If Rebuttal is good, it can "turn the crisis into safety"; if Rebuttal is not well written, the situation will "turn sharply". So it is necessary for us to learn how to write Rebuttal. The figure below lists the work we need to do during Rebuttal.
- Itemize each Reviewer's comments. For each Reviewer's opinion, we have to analyze and reply separately.
- Read between the lines of the Reviewer's words and his attitude toward the work he's doing. We can feel the Reviewer's doubts or appreciation for a certain aspect of the work from the lines, and reply separately in the follow-up.
- Brainstorm possible responses. There is no need to consider questions and length, but be persuasive, sincere, and thank the Reviewer for his valuable suggestions.
- Draft Rebuttal draft. Regardless of length, be concise, cover key points, and prioritize.
- Rebuttal review and revision. In this link, you can invite more experienced tutors or colleagues in the laboratory to help revise.
For point 2, there are the following situations regarding Reviewer's attitudes towards work, and the corresponding reply references are also given.
Of course, we may also encounter some irresponsible reviewers, who are perfunctory, extremely careless, and maliciously graded during the review, which affects the acceptance of the paper. At this time, we can choose to send an email to AC to explain this situation. Report the behavior of this reviewer.
According to this blogger , if we are not satisfied with the Reviewer's review results, when filling in the Author Response in the Rebuttal stage, there is usually a column for Meta Reviewer / SPC, and this message will be responsible for your submission The mid-level staff (your Reviewer's direct superior) to see.
Postscript: At this point, the process and precautions related to paper submission are introduced! I hope that everyone, whether as a Reviewer or in the Rebuttal process, can participate in the review of papers fairly, seriously and responsibly!
PS: The source of the charts in the article is unknown, so there is no reference. If there is any infringement, please contact me to delete it!
References