Evolution and Validation of Practice Standards, Training, and Professional Development
| (b) | Major revisions usually require a second review – The journal may ask whether you will |
|---|
serve as a continuing reviewer, or it may be assumed.
| (c) | Minor revisions may not require rereview; depends on reasons for revision |
|---|---|
| (d) | Most journals will share the recommendation to the authors, together with the other |
reviewers’ comments to author – Can be very instructive for future reviews
iii.
Accept (without revision)
| (a) | Unusual with first submission and review |
|---|---|
| (b) | Is a truly exceptional manuscript |
| d. | Submission of the review |
Electronic submission according to the journal
ii.
Format is often dictated by the journal.
iii.
Meet the deadline – Delayed reviews prolong the timeline and create workflow challenges for
the journal.
iv.
Comments to the authors
| (a) | Should be clear, concise, and factual. Should not be abrasive or a personal attack. |
|---|---|
| (b) | Comments should be clearly referenced to the location in the manuscript (e.g., line number, |
page/paragraph/sentence).
| (c) | Are usually anonymous, but some journals provide option to be identified |
|---|---|
| (d) | For manuscripts with a fatal flaw, comments can be limited to that flaw. |
Comments to the editor
| (a) | Should not require extensive comments beyond those to the authors |
|---|---|
| (b) | Is an opportunity to further explain the rationale for the recommendation or ethical concerns |
| (c) | Are attributed to the reviewer, but not shared with the authors |
vi.
Miscellaneous
| (a) | Journal may ask whether you believe an editorial is needed, and a proposed author |
|---|---|
| (b) | There may be a question about concerns with ethics, animal treatment, or human subjects’ |
protection.
Re-review process
Response content
Cover letter detailing response to comments/requests of editor and reviewers
ii.
Revised manuscript (with or without “track changes”)
Review process
Should restrict comments to responses in first review. Finding an entirely new set of criticisms
to original content is considered “not playing fair.”
ii.
Confirm that the revisions have not materially altered the meaning of other parts of the
manuscript.
iii.
If the authors have argued not to make a recommended revision, evaluate the validity of the
response.
iv.
Recommendations are the same options as for the primary review.
If major revisions are still needed, the editor may decide to reject, or it may undergo another
round of reply and review.
vi.
Deadline for the review is often shorter than for the primary review.