0

After I received referee's comments, I revised my manuscript a lot. The referee actually made one major comment, and I addressed that in one paragraph. But I also changed other parts of the paper in several places. Now, I am going to reply to the editor, and shall I list all the changes I made for the editor and the referee?

Thank you!

Drakemarqius

  • 3
    List all the major changes. Minor changes like corrected typos are not necessary to list, but anything which isn't superficial should be listed. – Allure Jan 15 '18 at 4:32
  • 2
    Copy the reviewer comments and answer each and every of them while also helpfully pointing out related changes to the manuscript. You want to make the referee's and editor's job as easy as possible. I'd even address referee comments that point out typos (e.g., by answering them with "corrected"). – Roland Jan 15 '18 at 8:57
  • 2
    In addition to @Allure 's comment, you can mention in the beginning of the letter that you have made other changes by explaining the reasons (e.g. We have made changes in paragraph 2 in 3th section and paragraph 1 in 4th section to improve the presentation quality of the paper). You should also mention that these changes does are not related to the method its self. – Younes Jan 15 '18 at 10:15
  • @Roland Can you please convert your comment into an answer? – jakebeal Jan 15 '18 at 10:56
2

Generally, you want to make the editor's and reviewers' job as easy as possible. As a reviewer I appreciate if the authors simply copy the reviewer comments and answer each and every of them while also helpfully pointing out related changes to the manuscript. Personally, I'd even address referee comments that point out typos (e.g., by answering them with "corrected"). At least, that demonstrates due diligence. It also doesn't require defining a threshold for a comment requiring an answer.

Of course, you should also write a short introduction and summary to that list of answers and changes.

So, yes, list all changes, but integrate that list into your answers to reviewer comments.

0

Usually, the journal's guidelines should state what has to be done for the major revision and how to report on it. In the absense of such information, in my reply I would address the referee's comments only.

  • In my first communication with an editor, at some point he asked to be notified of all changes that were made to ease the reviewing process. It seems best to me to not wait for the editor to tell you this but provide this information by yourself from the start. (1) If the editor/reviewer is not interested, they can skip over it, no harm done; (2) it actually helps you to think about the structure of your paper. – user25112 Jan 16 '18 at 9:41
  • @Keelan Sure. But you risk overloading the reader. – Hexal Jan 16 '18 at 10:22
  • That's why you put that list in a separate section of your email. I write a short email with a brief description of what has happened. Under my signature, I add a list of changes that were requested and not/partially incorporated. Further down, I add a list of other changes. I number the changes for easy reference, e.g. in the short summary at the top if needed. That way, the reader can stop reading whenever they wish. – user25112 Jan 16 '18 at 10:24
  • @Keelan I thought about it, too. But your way, the reader might feel he/she has not read everything he/she should have read and postpone the decision. – Hexal Jan 16 '18 at 10:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.