2

How can I improve a paper which has the following comments from the reviewer:

There are missing references to recent literature, which are closely related to this submitted work. A proper comparison of results and the methodologies among these efforts, as well as clear motivation for the incremental progress is typically required.

In addition, the submitted paper has several typographical and organizational errors.

Is the reviewer asking me to cite more references?

What does it mean for a paper to have "typographical and organizational errors"?

Can someone tell me what is the reviewer asking me to improve?

The decision is "reject".

Should I resubmit to the same journal after making corrections or to a different one?

Improve this question
8
  • 5
    They are not only asking for more references. They criticize that you have not sufficiently taken into account the existing body of literature in your introduction and discussion. They also imply that your result is of low novelty and you should spent more effort on discussing importance and impact of your study and results. "[T]ypographical [...] errors" is self-explaining. "[O]rganizational errors" refers to the structure of your manuscript and in particular to whether you present a clear line of argumentation. – Roland Aug 23 '19 at 5:54
  • 1
    We can not give advice on whether you should resubmit to the same journal as this depends on individual factors, which are unknown to us. You should discuss that with your co-authors. However, I suspect the issue with the novelty might mean you should aim for a journal with lower standards in that regard. – Roland Aug 23 '19 at 5:57
  • @Roland; i have one question? suppose i sent this paper to a lower standard and the same reviewer gets hold of the paper, will his/her review change subject to the journal – Learnmore Aug 23 '19 at 6:02
  • Concerning the possibility of getting the same reviewer at a lower-ranked journal: It is entirely possible for the same reviewer to say "reject" for one journal and "accept" for another. (I've done that.) – Andreas Blass Aug 23 '19 at 13:23
  • @AndreasBlass It is possible, though I'd assert that not engaging with the existing literature, and typos and organizational errors, are not the kind of things most reviewers will be fine with in a lower-ranked journal. – Fomite Aug 23 '19 at 22:36
4

These are all fairly clear.

There are missing references to recent literature, which are closely related to this submitted work.

Exactly what it says on the tin. The reviewer believes you are missing references, and importantly, recent references in areas close to what your paper is on. You should find them, and include them. More importantly...

A proper comparison of results and the methodologies among these efforts, as well as clear motivation for the incremental progress is typically required.

Your reviewer is asking you to put your paper in research in context with those papers. What does this add? Why did it need to be done. What is the motivation of the work?

In addition, the submitted paper has several typographical and organizational errors.

This, again, means exactly what it says. The reviewer has found what they believe are typographical errors, and errors where the paper isn't well organized - for example, possibly where a section relies on something not yet introduced.

The decision is "reject".

Should I resubmit to the same journal after making corrections or to a different one?

If they wanted you to revise and resubmit, that would have been the decision. A flat "Reject" decision means you will need a new journal, though I would suggest taking the reviewer's comments to heart. It's possible they're correct, and it's possible you'll get the same reviewer again.

To expand a bit on your comments, because replies are a bad place for nuance:

I have one question? suppose i sent this paper to a lower standard journal and the same reviewer gets hold of the paper, will his/her review change subject to the journal

This is very unlikely. You might get away with it if the primary criticism was about the novelty or importance of the paper, or not fitting with the right audience. But, to be direct, the reviewer's comments are things that would be fatal flaws in most respectable journals - just going down a tier won't fix them. Instead, I'd strongly suggest you mull over the reviewers comments, go looking for the recent studies they mention, etc.

Improve this answer
8
  • I have one question? suppose i sent this paper to a lower standard journal and the same reviewer gets hold of the paper, will his/her review change subject to the journal – Learnmore Aug 23 '19 at 6:15
  • For comments like these? Unlikely – Fomite Aug 23 '19 at 6:16
  • So then what should i do ? – Learnmore Aug 23 '19 at 6:18
  • 5
    Take their comments to heart and fix the paper – Fomite Aug 23 '19 at 6:19
  • 1
    @Learnmore If you think that you did everything right, analyze your paper for possible reasons why the reviewer may have thought that you didn't do it. Finding the reason will give you the information needed to avoid making this impression in the revision of the paper. – DCTLib Aug 23 '19 at 6:34
1

The message is that the reviewer doubts the originality. In case of a resubmission you have to clearly state, what is the difference to other similar work that was recently done.

In addition, the reviewer criticises the presentation.

Improve this answer

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.