Skip to content

Ethic actions of the author (-ors) at the repeated consideration of the article and answers on the remarks of a reviewer

After the scientific retest of your article when preparing the answer on reviewers’ remarks, please:

  • pay attention to all the remarks, given by the reviewer (-ers);
  • describe all changes which took place in maintenance of your article in a reverse letter;
  • If you are sure that the offered measures will not perfect your article then thoroughly and reasonably motivate, why you consider so;
  • in a reverse letter describe all points of remarks you agree to or disagree with;
  • provide the tolerant scientific ground of all debatable questions;
  • mark clearly all the changes introduced into your article, which took place in the process of the article revision (highlight them in color);
  • give back the revised manuscript and reverse letter in terms, set by editors;
  • be polite and show respect to the reviewers when you agree or disagree with their remarks. In addition, you are to introduce the required changes which are offered by a reviewer into the article;
  • remember that a reviewer is an expert in the area under discussion. If the suggestions offered by an expert do not reflect your vision, then it can be, probably, because he did not understand some aspect of your manuscript. It means that your article was written in a vague style and therefore is complicated for understanding your research. Hence, you must improve the text of your article, attain its communicative expediency and readability.