Page 122 - How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, 8th Edition 8th Edition

Page 117

Page 126

Third, it is entirely possible that one or both reviewers and the editor seriously misread or misunderstood your
manuscript, and you believe that their criticisms are almost totally erroneous. In that event, you have two alternatives.
The first, and more feasible, is to submit the manuscript to another journal, hoping that your manuscript will be judged
more fairly. If, however, you have strong reasons for wanting to publish that particular manuscript in that particular
journal, do not back off; resubmit the manuscript. In this case, however, you should use all of the tact at your
command. Not only must you give a point-by-point rebuttal of the reviewers'comments; you must do it in a way that
is not antagonistic. Remember that the editor is trying hard, probably without pay, to reach a scientific decision. If you
start your covering letter by saying that the reviewers, whom the editor obviously has selected, are "stupid" (I have
seen such letters), I will give you 100 to 1 that your manuscript will be immediately returned without further
consideration. On the other hand, every editor knows that every reviewer can be wrong and in time (Murphy's law)
will be wrong. Therefore, if you dispassionately point out to the editor exactly why you are right and the reviewer is
wrong (never say that the editor is wrong), the editor is very likely to accept your manuscript at that point or, at least,
send it out to one or more additional reviewers for further consideration.

If you do decide to revise and resubmit the manuscript, try very hard to meet whatever deadline the editor establishes.
Most editors do set deadlines. Obviously, many manuscripts returned for revision are not resubmitted to the same
journal; hence, the journal's records can be cleared of deadwood by considering manuscripts to be withdrawn after the
deadline date passes.

If you meet the editor's deadline, he or she may accept the manuscript forthwith. Or, if the modification has been
substantial, the editor may return it to the same reviewers. If you have met, or defended your paper against, the
previous criticism, your manuscript will probably be accepted.

On the other hand, if you fail to meet the deadline, your revised manuscript may be treated as a new manuscript and
again subjected to full review, possibly by a different set of reviewers. It is wise to avoid this double jeopardy, plus
additional review time, by carefully observing the editor's deadline if it is at all possible to do so.

Page 127
The Reject Letter

Now let us suppose that you get a reject letter. (Almost all editors say "unacceptable" or "unacceptable in its present
form"; seldom is the harsh word "reject" used.) Before you begin to weep, do two things. First, remind yourself that
you have a lot of company; most of the good journals have reject rates approximating (or exceeding) 50%. Second,
read the reject letter carefully because, like modify letters, there are different types of rejection.

Many editors would class rejections in one of three ways. First, there is (rarely) the total rejection, the type of
manuscript that the editor "never wants to see again" (a phrase one forthright but not tactful editor put into a reject
letter). Second, and much more common, there is the type of

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]