Editor's Page Cite This: Organometallics XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
pubs.acs.org/Organometallics
Dos and Dont’s: Thoughts on How To Respond to Reviewer Comments
Downloaded via 79.110.19.218 on August 15, 2018 at 12:44:44 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
T
somewhat passionately, with feelings of denial or anger, analogous to those described recently by Halasyamani and Tolman in an Inorganic Chemistry editorial dealing with manuscript rejection. These emotions may cloud the authors’ judgment and lead them to engage in a systematic rebuttal of the comments made by the reviewers. From the editor’s perspective, such an adversarial approach will inevitably raise a flag, often resulting in an additional round of peer-review. It also runs the risk of alienating the reviewers who spent time trying to help the authors correct their mistakes or improve on any shortcoming. The last situation to avoid is simply responding to reviewer comments without stating whether the manuscript has been modified. Such responses are often confusing for the editor, who is left wondering whether elements of the response are incorporated in the manuscript. Undoubtedly, such an approach will lengthen manuscript processing time and may also result in an additional round of peer-review, which, once again, does not just affect the authors but may polarize the reviewers if their comments were not taken seriously. In summary, responding to reviewer comments should be done in the spirit of a constructive dialogue rather than as a rebuttal. All actions taken in amending a submission should aim to improve it in terms of its scientific content, presentation, and clarity. Finally, any comments made by the editors as part of the decision letter should be included in the author response and addressed in a fashion analogous to that adopted when responding to a reviewer. While no particular event or series of events prompted us to reach out, we hope that the content of this editorial will be useful to all and especially to authors new to the journal.
he peer-review system is predicated on the evaluation of manuscripts by a group of fellow researchers who are selected principally because of their expertise in the subject matter. While consideration will often be given to the reviewers the authors suggest, the availability of these reviewers might be limited as a result of other commitments. Editors sometimes select reviewers to probe whether a manuscript targets a broad audience. In this case, a reviewer will be an established scientist who does not necessarily have an in-depth knowledge of the topic but who may be able to offer views that are reflective of the broad interest of the journal’s readership. In other cases, a reviewer may be selected because of his or her specific expertise regarding parts of the work described in the manuscript. In all cases, the reviewers are chosen as part of a careful vetting process, by an Associate Editor often in consultation with the Editor in Chief, with the aim of having the manuscript subjected to pertinent and fair scrutiny. The overall process is not just for the benefit of the journal but is meant to provide the authors with an opportunity to improve their work and clarify its presentation. Of course, with different reviewers mobilized for each new paper, the comments that we receive as authors will vary significantly from one submission to another, giving the impression that the review process might be somewhat random. It remains that this process is the most effective way to evaluate manuscripts before publication with the editorial team ultimately making all final decisions. The next important step is for authors to address the comments made by the reviewers. While this process may appear simple, the way we, as authors, respond to reviewer comments vary greatly. Many journals, including Organometallics, require that the authors respond to the reviewer comments by addressing each point and tracking the changes in the revised manuscript and Supporting Information. In the preferred approach, the authors will prepare a response document reproducing the comments of the reviewers and inserting their responses below each comment. Each response should explain how the issue raised by the reviewer has been addressed or clarified in the revised manuscript. This explanation typically includes a copy of the specific section that was amended in the manuscript. There are times when an author will disagree with a reviewer’s comment. In this case, the authors will respond to the comment with an explanation as to why they disagree and conclude their response by explaining that no changes have been made. While this option is indeed acceptable, the authors should not miss an opportunity to clarify the manuscript and eliminate a point of confusion that may have misled the reviewer. Authors should always remember that the reviewer is an expert in the field, and that if she or he cannot follow what is being said, chances are few other readers will be able to either. An author will, on occasion, find the comments made by a reviewer unfair or unjustified. Some authors may even react © XXXX American Chemical Society
■
François P. Gabbaï* Paul J. Chirik
AUTHOR INFORMATION
ORCID
François P. Gabbaï: 0000-0003-4788-2998 Paul J. Chirik: 0000-0001-8473-2898 Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.organomet.8b00515 Organometallics XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
