Search results
Oct 1, 2012 · Minor revision may undergo referee evaluation; however, in most cases, the editor accepts the paper without sending the revised manuscript to the reviewer. In fine, a careful revision, whether it's for major or minor, brings your paper accepted by the editor.
- ACCEPTING THE INVITATION
- WRITE YOUR REPORT
- EVALUATION CRITERIA
- MINOR REVISION
- MAJOR REVISION
- REJECT
- Plagiarism
- Flawed Analysis
- Results Previously Published by Others
- No New Results
- Incremental Results
- Comments to the Editor
So, you have received an invitation to review a manuscript for a scientific journal. Great! This means that the editor of this journal feels you are an appropriate and qualified reviewer for the particular paper that has been submitted. The first thing you must do is either accept or decline the invitation to review the paper. This is important ...
Some reviewers make all comments on a pdf version of the manuscript. Unfortunately, this makes it difficult for the author to separate each comment for an individual reply to the editor and should be avoided. While an annotated manuscript is extremely helpful in correcting language mistakes or minor items, the bulk of a review should be a separ...
What may be a "Major revision" recommendation to an editor for one reviewer might be a "Reject" recommendation to another reviewer. The same can be said for differences between a Major and a Minor revision recommendation.
Minor revisions are typically changes that might take the author a day or two to incorporate in the manuscript. These would include perhaps only one major suggestion in the written review and several minor suggestions. An example of a single major item that might lend itself to an overall minor revision recommendation would be formatting or additio...
A major revision is when the author will have to spend considerable time in revising the manuscript. A suggestion to repeat the process using a new or different data set or technique would warrant a Major revision decision. A request to include a section on comparing the results with the work of previous authors, thus requiring a major literature...
It is usually more difficult to suggest a manuscript be rejected than to suggest a major revision. Assuming that the paper was submitted in good faith, the reviewer must make it very clear why the manuscript must be rejected. Valid reasons for rejection are the following:
If sections of the paper have been lifted from a previous publication the paper should be rejected. If the sections are lifted from a previous paper by the same author, the reviewer should make certain that these are limited to such items as a description of an experiment, etc. Even in these cases, the wording should be changed somewhat. (It is ...
If the analysis is seriously flawed the manuscript should be rejected. This covers a large area such as incorrect mathematical analysis, methodology that does not support the conclusions, incorrect interpretation of the results of others, many mistakes within the entire manuscript making the results questionable, etc. Examples must be given.
If these results have been previously published by others (indicating that the authors did not either know of the previous publication or decided not to mention it), just say that the results have been published earlier and cite the publication.
If the manuscript is simply as re-hash of previous work by the same authors with no clear new results.
Some authors try to publish the "least publishable result" simply updating previous work with a small amount of new data typically supporting their previous published results. Unless there is a decidedly different and new result, this practice should be discouraged and the paper rejected.
Most journals have a section whereby the reviewer can give private comments to the handling Editor. These would include something about which the reviewer knows that the editor might not know and could be helpful. If the reviewer wants to see the manuscript again, this should be mentioned here.
Request a minor revision, where authors revise their manuscript to address specific concerns ... We ask that referees do not assess the importance or significance of a paper - the research ...
Jul 4, 2016 · It is less common for us to receive two different recommendations from the referees, with one suggesting minor revision or acceptance and the other suggesting rejection. When this does occur, the editorial decision at Current Sociology will always be based on whether the referee who suggested rejection will agree to read a second version. In ...
- Eloísa Martín
- 2016
Peer review process. Peer review is the process used to assess whether an academic paper is suitable for publication based on the quality, originality and importance of the work. Your paper is evaluated by expert peers in the field, known as referees, with a publication decision made by the journal editors. Upon submission, Editors will assess ...
Apr 1, 2010 · Minor revision, if the work has minor problems that once corrected should lead to acceptance for publication after satisfactory revision. 3 Major revision , if there are major concerns about ethics, study design, reporting of results, generalizability of the findings, or composition of the manuscript; a revised manuscript may result in acceptance, rejection, or a request for additional revision.
People also ask
Does a minor revision undergo a referee evaluation?
What is the difference between a major and a minor revision recommendation?
How do reviewers choose referees?
Should a paper be accepted with minor revisions?
What does minor revision mean?
How do editors select referees for my Paper?
Nov 5, 2012 · This decision means that the manuscript has substantive flaws in the content and writing that make it unacceptable for publication. It is the one that leads to the greatest amount of confusion by authors. This decision is a culmination of all the reviews done by the parties involved including reviewers, associate editor, and editor.
