Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Basic rules of writing
- 2 Comments on scientific language
- 3 Drafting the manuscript
- 4 Choosing a journal
- 5 Preparing a graph
- 6 How to design tables
- 7 Title
- 8 Authors
- 9 Abstract
- 10 Introduction
- 11 Methods
- 12 Results
- 13 Discussion
- 14 Acknowledgments
- 15 References
- 16 Numbers
- 17 Abbreviations
- 18 Common statistical errors
- 19 Typing
- 20 The covering letter
- 21 Dealing with editors and referees
- 22 Correcting proofs
- 23 Authors' responsibilities
- Literature needed on your desk
- Further reading
- Literature cited
- Index
21 - Dealing with editors and referees
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Basic rules of writing
- 2 Comments on scientific language
- 3 Drafting the manuscript
- 4 Choosing a journal
- 5 Preparing a graph
- 6 How to design tables
- 7 Title
- 8 Authors
- 9 Abstract
- 10 Introduction
- 11 Methods
- 12 Results
- 13 Discussion
- 14 Acknowledgments
- 15 References
- 16 Numbers
- 17 Abbreviations
- 18 Common statistical errors
- 19 Typing
- 20 The covering letter
- 21 Dealing with editors and referees
- 22 Correcting proofs
- 23 Authors' responsibilities
- Literature needed on your desk
- Further reading
- Literature cited
- Index
Summary
Here is a question from a course participant:
Am I entirely left to the tender mercies of the editors and the referees? Or do I dare to argue for my own view when I feel that the referee might have misunderstood a certain point? Am I impolite if I do so?
No, you aren't – if you do it politely. Thus not exactly in the way quoted below from a covering letter to the editor of Cardiovascular Research (Hearse and the Editorial Team 1992):
Many of the “problems” the referee had with our manuscript appear to stem from his limited understanding of electrophysiology or from our failure to explain observations at a more basic level.
In this case the referee happened to be a most eminent researcher in electrophysiology. Try instead to write as though the referee were God the Father Himself. But don't hesitate to make your point:
Thank you for the constructive criticism of my paper. Here are my comments on the referee's suggestions.
Page 3, lines 2–5. What I wanted to say here was …
I have rewritten this passage to make my point of view more clear.
Page 4, lines 3–5. …
Don't forget that the referee might have sacrificed hours of unpaid effort on your manuscript.
Do referees delay?
Here is another question from a course participant:
How big is the risk that the paper goes to a competitor who delays the whole thing?
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- How to Write and Illustrate a Scientific Paper , pp. 112 - 115Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2003