Page 121 - How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, 8th Edition 8th Edition

Page 117
Never consider them adversaries. They are on your side. Their only goal as editors is to publish good science in
understandable language. If that is not your goal also, you will indeed be dealing with a deadly adversary; however, if
you share the same goal, you will find the editor to be a resolute ally. You are likely to receive advice and guidance
that you could not possibly buy.

The Accept Letter
Finally, you get "the word." Suppose that the editor's letter announces that your manuscript has been accepted for
publication. When you receive such a letter, you have every right to treat yourself to a glass of champagne or a hot
fudge sundae or whatever you do when you have cause both to celebrate and to admire yourself. The reason that such
a celebration is appropriate is the relative rarity of the event. In the good journals (in biology at least), only about 5%
of the manuscripts are accepted as submitted.

The Modify Letter

More likely, you will receive from the editor a bulky manila envelope containing your disks, both copies of your
manuscript, two or more lists

Page 125

labeled "reviewers' comments," and a covering letter from the editor. The letter may say something like "Your
manuscript has been reviewed, and it is being returned to you with the attached comments and suggestions. We
believe these comments will help you improve your manuscript." This is the beginning phraseology of a typical
modify letter.
By no means should you feel disconsolate when you receive such a letter. Realistically, you should not expect that
rarest of all species, the accept letter without a request for modification. The vast majority of submitting authors will
receive either a modify letter or a reject letter, so you should be pleased to receive the former rather than the latter.

When you receive a modify letter, examine it and the accompanying reviewers' comments carefully. (In all likelihood,
the modify letter is a form letter, and it is the attached comments that are significant.) The big question now is whether
you can, and are willing to, make the changes requested by the reviewers.

If both referees point to the same problem in a manuscript, almost certainly it is a problem. Occasionally, a referee
may be biased, but hardly two of them simultaneously. If referees misunderstand, readers will. Thus, my advice is: If
two referees misunderstand the manuscript, find out what is wrong and correct it before resubmitting the manuscript to
the same journal or to another journal.

If the requested changes are relatively few and slight, you should go ahead and make them. As King Arthur used to
say, "Don't get on your high horse unless you have a deep moat to cross."

If major revision is requested, however, you should step back and take a total look at your position. One of several
circumstances is likely to exist.

First, the reviewers are right, and you now see that there are fundamental flaws in your paper. In that event, you
should follow their directions and rewrite the manuscript accordingly.

Second, the reviewers have caught you off base on a point or two, but some of the criticism is invalid. In that event,
you should rewrite the manuscript with two objectives in mind: Incorporate all of the suggested changes that you can
reasonably accept, and try to beef up or clarify those points to which the reviewers (wrongly, in your opinion) took
exception. Finally, and importantly, when you resubmit the revised manuscript, provide a covering statement
indicating your point-by-point disposition of the reviewers' comments.

file:///C|/...0208%20Books%20(part%201%20of%203)/How%20to%20write%20&%20publish%20scientific%20paper/18.htm[4/27/2009 1:09:12 PM]