How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication

Background: The publication of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals is a fairly complex and stepwise process that involves responding to referees’ comments. Little guidance is available in the biomedical literature on how to deal with such comments. Objective: The objective of this article is to provide guidance to novice writers on dealing with peer review comments in a way that maximizes the chance of subsequent acceptance. Methods: This will be a literature review and review of the author’s experience as a writer and referee. Results: Where possible, the author should consider revising and resubmitting rather than sending an article elsewhere. A structured layout for responding to referees’ comments is suggested that includes the 3 golden rules: (1) respond completely; (2) respond politely; and (3) respond with evidence. Conclusion: Responding to referees’ comments requires the writer to overcome any feelings of personal attack, and to instead concentrate on addressing referees’ concerns in a courteous, objective, and evidencebased way. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;51:79-83.)

`Electronic Publishing' -- Practice and Experience

Electronic Publishing -- Origination, Dissemination and Design (EP-odd) is an academic journal which publishes refereed papers in the subject area of electronic publishing. The authors of the present paper are, respectively, editor-in-chief, system software consultant and senior production manager for the journal. EP-odd's policy is that editors, authors, referees and production staff will work closely together using electronic mail. Authors are also encouraged to originate their papers using one of the approved text-processing packages together with the appropriate set of macros which enforce the layout style for the journal. This same software will then be used by the publisher in the production phase. Our experiences with these strategies are presented, and two recently developed suites of software are described: one of these makes the macro sets available over electronic mail and the other automates the flow of papers through the refereeing process. The decision to produce EP-odd in this way means that the publisher has to adopt production procedures which differ markedly from those employed for a conventional journal.