Scientific Writing - How to Answer to the Reviewers of Your Scientific Research Paper

In the event that you need to distribute a scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal, you should first present your article for production. The editorial manager of the distribution then sends your article through a thorough procedure of assessment by a board of outer reviewers, chose by the proofreader. These reviewers will then assess your article and send their remarks to the editorial manager, together with their suggestions for or against the article's production in the journal. The supervisor settles on an official choice in regards to whether your paper will be distributed. Numerous scientific journals initiate educators and others in the scholarly world who are specialists in their field to tackle this part, and to review, assess, and focus the legitimacy of your paper's information and references.

Here and there, the reviewers will choose that your article is suitable for production "as seems to be," which implies this will oblige no adjustments on your part. In any case, much of the time, they will recommend enhancements, or amendments, of the original copy. These amendments may be minor or substantive, yet in any case, you must be arranged to react to them effectively when they will give back your scientific article maybe a couple months after accommodation.

Be that as it may, how, precisely, do you handle the update process? What certain guidelines would it be a good idea for you to remember when reacting to remarks or inquiries?

Here is a rundown of the most vital things you must finish:

·         You must be exhaustive and answer every remark one by one. I prescribe that you do as such specifically under the reviewer's remark, breaking your answer into a few focuses, if vital.

·         Your answer must be clear and particular, tending to all the reviewer's worries.

·         Give due admiration to the upgrades your peers recommend, and incorporate every one of them in your paper.

·         Highlight your answers in yellow so your reviewers can without much of a stretch recognize them, and if conceivable, give both a clean and highlighted adaptation for their comfort.

·         Duplicate and glue the starting sentence or expression just beneath the reviewer's remark and your updated sentence or expression, making a straightforward "prior and then afterward" arrangement to guarantee your message is clear.

·         Utilization cites, striking face, and italics to unmistakably isolate the reviewer's remark, your answer, and your progressions to the original copy.

Regardless of the fact that you accept the reviewers' remarks are not simply, react to them with deference.

On the off chance that you give back the article without making certain upgrades, safeguard this decision in an individual remark to the reviewer. Clarify why a change is unrealistic and offer persuading contentions in these cases.

On the off chance that you don't concur with academic journals on a certain point, you ought to still regard the reviewer's viewpoint and respectability. Yet at the end of the day, it’s your decision whether to incorporate the adjustment or not. Your paper will be distributed under your name, and the reviewer's name won't be said.