ADDRESSING REVIEWER’S FEEDBACKS FOR PEER-REVIEW … · Elvia R. Shauki Universitas Indonesia /...
Transcript of ADDRESSING REVIEWER’S FEEDBACKS FOR PEER-REVIEW … · Elvia R. Shauki Universitas Indonesia /...
Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance
Volume 3 (1), December 2014
ADDRESSING REVIEWER’S FEEDBACKS FOR PEER-REVIEW
JOURNAL
Elvia R. Shauki
Universitas Indonesia / University of South Australia
Email: [email protected] / [email protected]
Abstract
After conducting your research project for several months (maybe years), it is the time to
submit the manuscript according to the required format. Once you submitted, the waiting
time can be a daunting time for most of us (regardless whether you are an experienced / well
established researchers or not). Submitting a paper to a top ranked peer-review journal is
always challenging not only that we have to deal with our critical writing and critical study
during the writing process, but also (if the paper is accepted) addressing reviewer‟s comments
/ feedbacks can be even more challenging. The verdicts that we will soon receive might not
be a bitter pill for you if you know how to handle it in the most pragmatically way.
According to Williams (2004) there are 5 (five) possibilities of the reviewers outcome: (1)
accept with minor revision; (2) accept with major revision); (3) a complete rewrite; (4) unsure
outcome whether as to refection or possible for a resubmission; and (5) the outright rejection.
This paper is aimed to share our experiences in how to address critical comments feedbacks
from a top journal by providing several steps and hints, such feedbacks as the following
(these comments have been re-worded by the authors) need to be addressed in a timely
manner: (1) contribution and benefit of the study; (2) that the hypotheses developed for
the study are really basic and not original; and that the paper only discusses one aspect
only (sustainability only). Though we strongly believe that the study is quite unique, we have
listed the contributions / rationales / significances of the study clearly and that we have also
indicated clearly that the study is expected to fill in the gap to what has been done in the past.
As well the study does cover significantly on two topics research area: sustainability and
accountability instead of one area only.
Looking at the example for a paper that has been submitted to an A-ranked journal, this study
addressed the importance of applying three rules in addressing reviewers‟ comments as
outlined by Williams (2004): (1) answer completely; (2) answer politely; and (3) answer with
evidence. It is not explicitly stated whether the outcome of the review is for minor or major
revision. In addressing contribution and benefit of the study and originality of the
hypotheses, there have been three major actions taken: (1) significant rewrite of this section
by addressing three clear separate contributions who will be benefiting from this study
(current debates among academic scholars, business practices, and the regulatory bodies); (2)
Shauki, Addressing Reviewer’s Feedbacks .... 89
as well adding a diagram indicating the literature gap and its contributions and benefits
towards the discussion related to the topic; and lastly (3) justifying clearly with full and
detailed evidence that the study does not cover one topic only (sustainability) but it covers
two areas of research study (sustainability and accountability).
Keywords: reviewers’ feedbacks, three rules in addressing reviewers’ feedbacks,
contributions and benefits of the study, and originality of the hypotheses.
90 Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance Vol. 3 (1), December 2014, 88-97
1. INTRODUCTION
Submitting a paper to a top ranked peer-review journal is always challenging not only
that we have to deal with our critical writing and critical study but also (if the paper is
accepted) addressing reviewer‟s comments / feedbacks can be even more challenging. After
conducting your research project for months (maybe years), we finally come to the stage of
submitting the work according to the required manuscript guidelines. Once you submitted the
waiting period can be really a daunting time even for the most experienced authors (i.e. high
calibre professors). The verdicts / outcome that you will soon receive might not be a bitter
pill that you have to swallow if you are prepared to handle it (i.e. dealing the verdicts in the
most pragmatically way). Most of the times the reviews can be quite frustrating and
confusing (i.e. long winded comments, too short / too brief, using uncommon terms, too
harsh, or it might have no comments at all) which you may be offended due to this. Due to
the above facts, it is mostly that it is not easy to address the comments as well as to address
specific comments on the reviews.
This paper is aimed to share our experiences in how to address critical comments /
feedbacks from a top journal, such feedbacks as the following (these comments have been re-
worded by the authors) which need to be addressed in a timely manner: (1) contributions /
benefits of the study; (2) the study outlined hypotheses which were not original (nothing
new); and (3) only one topic covers in the study (sustainability) where it should discuss more
than just one topic only. By looking at the real example, the audience will be guided in how
to address such comments.
Before we start with the review, there are some points that you need to consider:
What is a peer review;
Is this ranked journal or unranked journal;
Do you know the reviewer(s)? Is it a team of reviewer or is it an individual one? Do
you know the Editorial Board?
First revision, second or later revision?
The outcome from the journal editor (s);
Time frame;
Identifying the resources;
Identifying potential problems;
How to response?
Do you or don‟t you agree with the feedbacks?
Have you addressed them well?
A peer-review article is a type of article that has been evaluated and recommended
for publication by one or more experts in the field. These reviewers consider factors such as:
(1) the author‟s familiarity with current research and commentary; (2) soundness of argument
and methodology; (3) whether the article makes a contribution to the field. As a scholar, we
are expected to submit our reputable sources to a peer review journal. Peer review is an
accepted measure of quality and this will depend on our discipline which one is classified as
peer reviewed article or not. A high-ranked journal is widely used by the academic scholars
in evaluating an academic journal's impact and quality as well as for the purpose of scholar‟s
Shauki, Addressing Reviewer’s Feedbacks .... 91
promotion. Journal rankings are intended to reflect the place of a journal within its research
are / research discipline, the relative difficulty of being published in that journal, and the
prestige associated with it. Knowing and having the contact with the reviewer (s) will be
helpful should we have difficulties understanding the comments / feedbacks and should we
need to discuss further regarding the comments / feedbacks. If this is not the case, contacting
the reviewer (s) via the Editor (Editor in Chief) will also be helpful as sometimes there are
some implicit / unclear statements in the comments / feedbacks.
Is this the first/second/third revision? Addressing first revision normally takes
longer times and bears some risks too, as if the reviewer (s) believes that we are not
addressing the comments / feedbacks according to the required formats/structures/contents,
the paper might be rejected. Addressing second / third revision normally takes shorter period
as it is normally polishing the ideas / understandings. Addressing major / minor revisions will
be a great different.
Williams (2004) has mentioned several different scenarios regarding the outcome
from the journal editor (s):
1. Accept with Minor Revision, it is best to simply get on without involving too many
arguments. Addressing minor revision is relatively easier than addressing major revision
and it has lower risk being rejected by the reviewers. It (normally) involves: (1) typos; (2)
grammatical errors; (3) suggestion for better title or suggestion to shorten the title; (4)
number of words reduction in Abstract; (5) reorganizing the material; (6) stating the
resources (or references); and maybe (7) changing the layout.
2. Major Revision Needed, work harder and three golden rules applies. Major revision
means that the paper will have to undergo further review after revision (usually by
the same referees), while minor revision means that while changes should be made, no
further reviewing is needed. Authors need to know well what major revisions are required
for the paper: (1) do we need to re-run the data; (2) is the data incomplete; (3) is it
something to do with the research model; (4) do we need to change / to add the unit
analysis; (5) is it about the research instruments; and other major revisions that we might
have.
3. Journal requests A Complete Rewrite (need to think is it worth it to do it?);
4. Unsure as to rejection or possible resubmission, the wording of some journal response
letters can be difficult to interpret. Phrases such as „„we cannot accept your manuscript in
its current form, but if you do decide to resubmit, then we would only consider a
substantial revision,‟‟ may sound like a rejection, yet in reality, it may indicate an
opportunity to resubmit; and
5. The outright rejection, it is normally quite short with very little chance to resubmit it.
How about the time frame and the resources? Do we have sufficient times to
address all of the feedbacks / comments? As we are all busy and have many other jobs to be
done, organizing and making a good plan regarding the resubmission is quite necessary. If the
due date falls in our most hectic time (marking time), some other arrangements are needed,
maybe by authorizing other staffs to take care of your other jobs, also it will be a good idea if
you could share the load with the co-author(s) or assign research assistant should there be any
involvement needed for data arrangement. Another resources that we need to pay attention is
the availability of the data (should there be any major revision related with the data) whether
92 Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance Vol. 3 (1), December 2014, 88-97
the access is still valid (whether our institutions still subscribe the data base), whether the
software that we use to run the data is still valid, etc. etc.
Identify potential problems: Once you received the feedbacks, read the comments
carefully (you may read more than once) and try to digest and understand the comments /
feedbacks well. Go through the comments / feedbacks carefully. Read them more often, you
might get frustrated and get offended for the first time reading the review. If this is the case,
you might pause and wait until you could digest them well. Re–read and re-read the
comments, after several re-read you will have a good overlook regarding the comments and
will have a clear picture on what you need to do (Khanam 2013).
2. HOW TO RESPONSE AND ADDRESS THEM WELL?
How you respond to the reviewers‟ comments / feedbacks may be critical to whether
the journal will publish your paper or not, or whether you will have to start the submission
process elsewhere (in another journals) from scratch (Guyatt and Haynes 2006). If you don’t
agree with the reviewers‟ comments, Williams (2004) has outlined 3 (three) golden rules that
can be applied: (1) answer completely; (2) answer politely; and (3) answer with evidence. It
is quite all right if you disagree with the reviewers‟ comments, but you need to do it in the
most sensible manner. Remember reviewer (s) have at least spent their most valuable times
reading your paper without pay. Besides, the following tips might be useful: (1) In case some
points mentioned in the comments have already been addressed in the original manuscript;
(2) be polite in addressing your disagreement; (3), or if you feel a particular suggestion is out
of the scope of the current study, mention this too.
In order to address the reviewers‟ comments well, the steps are proposed herewith
with some tips related to the do and don‟t list. Later in Section 3 by looking at one example
suggested structure and its format are proposed.
2.1. The Steps
Once you received the feedbacks, read the comments carefully (you may read more
than once) and try to digest and understand the comments / feedbacks well. Go through the
comments / feedbacks carefully. Read them more often, you might get frustrated and get
offended for the first time reading the review. Khanam (2013) and Samet (2009) state that if
this is the case, you might pause and wait until you could digest them well. Re–read and re-
read the comments, after several re-read you will have a good overlook regarding the
comments and will have a clear picture on what you need to do.
Prepare a table in addressing the feedbacks / comments. Have a look at the general
comments / overall remarks first. If this paragraph is too long try to separate them in points.
Address each comment (normally by section) by referring to the general comments. Explain
well whether you accept/agree/reject and whether revision (s) has (have) been done to
address the comments by providing a reference.
Awati (2013) suggested the following steps in writing the responses made by reviewer
(s):
Shauki, Addressing Reviewer’s Feedbacks .... 93
1. Take a break, as has been discussed earlier regarding the time frame. If the dead line is
so close and that you need to have a slab of time, then have a break. Take off and read
the comments carefully and objectively to assure that you do understand fully on the
reviewers comments.
2. Give point by point responses, after making a good introduction about what you are
going to do with the responses, next step will be addressing each reviewer‟s response by
giving a sequential number for each of the comment of each reviewer (reviewer #1,
comment # 1).
3. Provide reasoned arguments, watching your tone and applying the three golden rule is so
important here. Should there be any disagreement, please state so with sufficient
justifications by providing many details as possible.
4. Pay attention to details, following the above points, your disagreement will only be
understood well by the reviewers if you provide details of the arguments explaining how
you have addressed each concern.
5. Watch your tone, this point is important. No need to be offended as the critique is not
targeting you as an individual but it is aimed at your work. Put your emotions away when
reading the feedbacks and when writing the responses (Samet 2009).
2.2. The Do and the Do Not Lists
These are the list of tips / hints what you should and you should not do (some of the
lists were adapted from Khanam 2013). If a particular comment you received from the
reviewers could have multiple interpretations, it is suggested that you begin your response by
explaining what you have understood from the comment first and then proceed with your
argument.
The Do List:
1. The three golden rules introduced earlier are suggested to be applied here.
2. If you know the reviewer (s), it is advisable that you consult with the reviewer (s) or
contact them via the Editorial Board for clarity purposes.
3. Consult with your co-author or a colleague/mentor who is familiar and might help with
your work in order to find the best way to work around complex reviewer comments.
4. Share the load with the co-author (s).
5. Make sure that you address each of the comments in entirely.
6. If you have addressed the comments earlier but was (were) raised again please state that
this has been addressed earlier (with references).
7. Be polite and be accountable in your response when you disagree with any
comment/suggestion.
8. Wherever required, cite references, or include supplementary/unpublished data in
support of your argument.
9. Resubmit promptly and ensure that changes made to the manuscript based on the
reviewers‟ suggestions are clearly indicated.
The Don’t List:
1. The three golden rules introduced earlier are suggested to be applied here.
94 Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance Vol. 3 (1), December 2014, 88-97
2. In any chance, please don‟t argue with the reviewer and refer to three above rules as
proposed by Williams (2004).
3. If the reviewer has suggested a minor revision that you might not entirely agree with, but
is easy to comply with and does not take away any value from your study, it might be
easier to incorporate it that to argue your case.
4. Do not take a negative comment from the reviewer as a personal attack. Try to look at it
with a neutral perspective and address it to the best of your ability.
5. Avoid using phrases like “we completely disagree” in your rebuttal letter. You can find a
list of useful phrases to answer critical comments in Appendix of this article.
6. Do not deny the request of the reviewers for original/raw data (hint: be careful with the
copy right).
3. LOOKING AT THE EXAMPLES
Our study investigates the relationship between environmental strategy and corporate
environmental performance through the application of environmental management
accounting and environmental innovations. Empirical evidence suggests that there is a
positive and significant association between: (1) environmental strategy and the use of
environmental management accounting; (2) the use of environmental management
accounting to environmental innovations of the company (product, processes and programs
innovations); and (3) environmental strategy towards company‟s environmental performance.
Though (4) the use of environmental management accounting towards corporate
environmental performance; and (5) the use the environmental innovations (product and
process innovation) on company‟s environmental performance have less significant
association but they do have positive relationships as expected. The results of this study
suggest a solid foundation that intangible assets such as corporate environmental strategy (by
using accounting practices particularly on environmental management accounting) in
improving corporate‟s environmental performance with the involvement of innovation
variables.
Below are some important feedbacks which come from two different reviewers:
What are really the contributions of your study, where you have listed contributions of the
study well;
The authors developed a series of hypotheses that are really basic (not original at all)
where the study has clearly indicated list of its rationales, significances and contributions;
It focuses on certain aspect only where the fact you have addressed more than just one
aspect (i.e. environmental dimension of sustainability only);
The section is too long and too confusing (in which you believe that you have followed the
guideline / within the allowable number of words, structure and format for the
manuscript); and
I cannot see the benefit reading the paper (in fact you have listed clearly that there are
three parties who will benefiting reading the study: academician, business practices, and
regulatory bodies).
Shauki, Addressing Reviewer’s Feedbacks .... 95
Looking at the example for a paper that has been submitted to an A-ranked journal,
this study addressed the importance of applying three rules in addressing reviewers‟
comments as outlined by Williams (2004): (1) answer completely; (2) answer politely; and
(3) answer with evidence. It is not explicitly stated whether the outcome of the review is for
minor or major revision. In addressing contributions and benefits of the study and
originality of the hypotheses, there have been three major actions taken:
1. Significant and a revamped rewrite of this section by addressing three clear separate
contributions who will be benefiting from this study: (1) current debates among academic
scholars; (2) business practices and (3) the regulatory bodies).
2. And by adding a dedicated diagram indicating the literature gap and its contributions and
benefits towards the discussion related to the topic.
3. Try to justifying clearly with full evidence (i.e. full references) that the study does not
cover one topic only (sustainability) but it covers two area of research study (sustainability
and accountability).
4. A major rewrite and restructure of the literature reviews has been taken in addressing
reviewer‟s comments that the paper is too long and too confusing (especially related to
literature reviews section). With the help of NVivo 10 software, this section has been
restructured tremendously by linking to each of the previous study references to each of
the hypothesis and the conceptual framework.
4. CONCLUSION
Comments from peer reviewers, more often than not, offer an excellent and a
challenging opportunity to improve the quality of your manuscript. Addressing them
adequately and professionally may increase the chances of acceptance, if not with this
journal, it could be sent out to other journals at least (not necessarily with the lower ranking).
This paper has equipped with the detailed tips for responding to reviewer comments, it is
hoping that you will now surely be able to handle the peer review process with more
confidence.
With minor outcome, it is best to simply get on without involving too many
arguments. With major revision and rewrite completely, the three golden rules need to be
applied here (1) answer completely; (2) answer politely; and (3) answer with evidence.
Addressing point by point of the reviewers‟ feedbacks in a well-structured table starting with
a good introduction regarding the review is strongly suggested here. Should there be
comments related to contributions / benefits of the study, clarifications related to this issues
need to be strengthened, using a diagram / figure might help and by linking them with the
research objectives, and its research questions.
96 Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance Vol. 3 (1), December 2014, 88-97
REFERENCES
Awati, M. “How to respond to comments by peer reviewers.” Editage Insights (2013),
http://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-respond-to-comments-by-peer-reviewers
(April 2, 2015).
Guyatt, G.H., and R.B. Haynes. “Preparing Reports for Publication and Responding to
Reviewers‟ Comments.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59 (2006): 900-906.
Khanam, S. “Do's and don'ts for responding to peer reviewers' comments.” Editage Insights
(2013), http://www.editage.com/insights/dos-and-donts-for-responding-to-peer-
reviewers-comments, (April 2, 2015).
Samet J.M. “Dear Author - Advice from a Retiring Editor.” American Journal of
Epidemiology 150 (1999): 433-436.
Williams H.C. “How to reply to peer review comments when submitting papers for
publication.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 51 (2004): 79-83.
Shauki, Addressing Reviewer’s Feedbacks .... 97
APPENDIX
Table 1: List of Useful Phrases to Answer Critical Comments
We agree with the referee that ___, but. . .
The referee is right to point out ___, yet. . .
In accordance with the referees‟ wishes, we have now changed this sentence to___.
Although we agree with the referee that. . .
It is true that___, but. . .
We acknowledge that our manuscript might have been ___, but. . .
We, too, were disappointed by the low response rate.
We agree that this is an important area that requires further research.
We support the referee‟s assertion that ___, although. . .
With all due respect to the reviewer, we believe that this point is not correct.
Source: Williams (2004 p. 81)
ASIAPACIFICJOURNAL OFACCOUNTINGAND FINANCE
ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OFASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OFACCOUNTING AND FINANCEACCOUNTING AND FINANCEASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OFACCOUNTING AND FINANCEDepartment of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business,Universitas Indonesia Depok, IndonesiaPhone : +62-21-7272425, Fax: +62-21-7863558Email : [email protected]