Writing an Effective Response to a Manuscript Review
Abstract
An author’s response to referees’ comments is a key component of the peer review process that affects whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected, the speed at which a manuscript moves through the review process, the workload of editors and referees, and the quality and clarity of published science. However, guidance on how to write a response to manuscript reviews is lacking from the instructions for authors of most journals and from science writing manuals. I offer some recommendations for authors, referees, and journals that can be implemented easily to improve the response to reviews and, thereby, enhance the publishing and reviewing process for authors, referees, and editors.
Local Knowledge Graph (2 entities)
Related Works
Items connected by shared entities, co-authorship, citations, or semantic similarity.
Species-specific traits predict whole-assemblage detritus processing by pond invertebrates
Animal-Driven Nutrient Supply Declines Relative to Ecosystem Nutrient Demand Along a Pond Hydroperiod Gradient
High-discharge disturbance does not alter the seasonal trajectory of nutrient uptake in a montane stream
A New Hydrologic Perspective of How Beaver Ponds Function
Revising Desertification of Riparian Zones Along Cold Desert Streams
hmworsham/er-forest-structure: Abiotic influences on continuous conifer forest structure across a subalpine watershed: RSE review archive
The Role of Science in Colorado River Management
Data Citation Guidelines for Earth Science Data , Version 2
Data and scripts associated with “Riverine dissolved organic matter transformations increase with watershed area, water residence time, and Damköhler numbers in nested watersheds” (v2)
Cited 13 times
References (8)
8 references to works outside the Knowledge Hub