Abstract
Many inexperienced researchers get discouraged and/or lazy when their paper is sent back with a long list of criticisms and an ambiguous cover letter from the Editor. Sometimes, they give up and simply submit the same (unchanged) manuscript to another journal. That is usually a bad decision, because an opportunity to improve and publish the paper (with the previous journal) is thereby lost and the new journal is unlikely to offer a more positive assessment. A paper is not “done” until some journal actually publishes it, and part of the work for every paper is making revisions after peer review. Virtually no manuscript ever gets accepted as is on the first submission [1–8]. So no matter how good your paper is, the reviewers will find at least a few details that should be improved. More likely, they will find a long list of substantial deficiencies in your manuscript. But if you are lucky, they will be insightful, specific, and constructive about how the paper should be improved. Revision often requires a substantial amount of time and effort [3]; (especially when insufficient time and effort was invested before submission). But the process of review and revision should increase the quality.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
MacDonald NE, Ford-Jones L, Friedman JN, Hall J. Preparing a manuscript for publication: A user-friendly guide. Paediatr Child Health. 2006; 11: 339-342.
Pierson DJ. The Top 10 Reasons Why Manuscripts Are Not Accepted for Publication. Respir Care. 2004; 49: 1246-1252.
Williams HC. How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004; 51: 79-83.
Morgan PP. The joys of revising a manuscript. CMAJ. 1986; 134: 1328.
DeMaria A. Manuscript Revision. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57: 2540-2541.
Langdorf MI, Hayden SR. Turning Your Abstract into a Paper: Academic Writing Made Simpler. West J Emerg Med. 2009; 10: 120-123.
Cummings P, Rivara FP. Responding to Reviewers’ Comments on Submitted Articles. Arch Pediatr Adolec Med. 2002; 156: 105-107.
Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM. Editorial Peer Reviewers’ Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? PLoS One. 2010; 5: e10072.
Bauchner H. The Rush to Publication: An Editorial and Scientific Mistake. JAMA. 2017; 318: 1109-1110.
Lock S. How editors survive. BMJ. 1976; 2 (6044): 1118-1119.
Making the most of peer review. Nat Neurosci. 2000; 3: 629.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1978, 2017. Accessed on 12 January 2018 at: www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf
Council of Science Editors. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update, 3rd Revised Edition. Wheat Ridge, CO: Council of Scientific Editors; 2012.
ALLEA – All European Academies. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, Revised Edition. Berlin: ALLEA; 2017. Accessed on 5 November 2017 at: www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf
Graf C, Deakin L, Docking M, Jones J, Joshua S, McKerahan T, Ottmar M, Stevens A, Wates E, Wyatt D. Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics: a publisher’s perspective, 2nd edition. Int J Clin Pract. 2014; 68: 1410-1428.
Booth WC, Colomb GC, Williams JM. The Craft of Research, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1995, 2008.
Elefteriades JA. Twelve Tips on Writing a Good Scientific Paper. Inter J Angiol. 2002; 11: 53-55.
Rockman HA. Waste not, want not. J Clin Invest. 2014; 124: 463.
Ploegh H. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments. Nature. 2011; 472: 391.
Roberts WC. Revising Manuscripts After Studying Reviewers’ Comments. Am J Cardiol. 2006; 98: 989.
Berk RN. Preparation of Manuscripts for Radiology Journals: Advice to First-Time Authors. AJR. 1992; 158: 203-208.
Woolley KL, Barron JP. Handling Manuscript Rejection: Insights From Evidence and Experience. Chest. 2009; 135: 573-577.
Bourne PE. Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published. PLoS Comput Biol. 2005; 1: e57.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hanna, M. (2019). Doing the Revisions. In: How to Write Better Medical Papers. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_55
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_55
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02954-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02955-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)