Speaker 1: In this session, we are going to look into how to respond to reviewer comments. The process of responding to reviewer critiques can be one of the most stressful parts of the publication process. Throughout the process, it is helpful to keep in mind that in most cases, the reviewers are well-meaning colleagues who are volunteering their time to help ensure the validity of the results that are reported in the scientific literature. In nearly every case, the manuscript that comes out of the review process is obviously very improved relative to the original version. Now, what approach can one use while responding to the reviewer comments? Here are a few points that one should consider. Provide a short intro, provide the paper details and thank the reviewers, then quote the full set of reviews. It's always a good idea to start by providing the title of the paper, any manuscript ID, thank the editor, thank the reviewers for taking their time out and helping you further improve the paper. Assure them that you have taken into consideration all their input and now you are trying to make sure that all the responses are met. Be polite and respectful to all the reviewers. It's very important that you do not be disrespectful to the reviewers. You might not like their response or their review but this does not mean that you do not have to be respectful to them. Even if you are convinced that the reviewer lacks intellectual capacity, it is certainly not in your interest to convey the impression to the reviewer. Keep in mind that if the reviewer fail to understand something, the fault likely lies at least in part with you for not making the point clear enough. So, if the reviewer does not seem to be an expert in the area, remember that this is level of expertise or lack thereof may be representative of many readers of the journal. Your goal is to make clear and accessible to all readers, not just the experts. So, whenever you are writing your response, be polite, be respectful, thank them for their time. Assure them that yes, you have understood their point and have incorporated all their details. Accept the blame and appreciate the mistakes if any. Now, it's very important that if you finally realize through the review that yes, you have made a mistake. Yes, there was a problem in your paper, maybe in the literature, maybe in the introduction, maybe in the methodology and the reviewer has mentioned that particular detail. Accept your mistakes and say yes, we acknowledge the input by the reviewer and we appreciate that the mistake was highlighted and we thank the reviewer for highlighting this and this is now has been changed. Make the response self-contained. This is very important. Now, why is this important? Make sure that the reviewer does not need to go back to the manuscript. Make your review or make your response to the reviewer comment so detailed, so comprehensive, so complete that he or she does not feel the need to go back to the manuscript. In order to understand how to do that, what we'll do is we are going to look at a few examples of a good response to reviewer and a pretty bad one. Now, this is again very important. Sometimes when we get, as I am a reviewer for a few journals, sometimes this happens that when we get the response to the reviewer, a few points are missing. Now, this carries a very bad impression. This means that you are trying to cut corners and you are not pulling your weight. So, respond to each and every point highlighted by the reviewer. This is very important. This shows your commitment to making the changes. This shows your commitment to your work. Make your changes stand out to help the reviewer navigate your response. Use the changes or you can, what you can do is you can change the typeface color and intending to discriminate between three different elements, the review, your responses and the changes that you have made. How to do it? We will look into the example. Whenever possible, begin your response to each comment with the direct answer to the point being raised. Now, do not wander around here and there. Be very direct in your response. It's a straight question. They would have asked you to change something or explain about something. So, try to focus on the point they have raised. When possible, do what the reviewer asks. Now, this is another point. You might not agree with the reviewer at times, but this does not mean that you should not incorporate what they have suggested. Try to make sure that whatever they have asked you to do, do it. But if you do not agree with a certain point, please do not be disrespectful. Be polite. Try to make them understand your point of view. And you can obviously write to the editor as well in a separate letter, explaining your point of view if you do not want to write directly to the reviewer. Be clear about what changed relative to the previous version. Explain what changes were made. It's not that the changes were made here and in this section or the changes were made in this page or on this page. You have to explain what changes were made. How is this new manuscript different from the previous one? Make sure you check it again and again for any mistakes because this is your last chance or could be your last chance. So, make sure that all changes are duly incorporated without any changes left. Now, let's look at a few examples. Let's say a good response one. Now, here is one of the responses that I wrote for one of my papers, starting with the title, then the manuscript reference number, then thanking the editor and the reviewers for their response and how you plan to justify their response. Now, there could be more than one reviewer to your paper. So, mention reviewer one, reviewer two, reviewer three. I once had five reviewers. So, there you go. So, this is the reviewer comments highlighted in bold. So, this is separated from our response and how the changes were incorporated. Now, if you look at it, all these three are in different text format. So, the reviewer would understand what were the comments made, how do they plan to incorporate and how have they incorporated those changes. Now, it's not enough just to write what changes were incorporated. You have to highlight how do you plan to incorporate those changes and what changes were incorporated. Moving on, this is same as the previous. This was the comment made and then a certain explanation and how these changes were incorporated in the text. Now, since the text is in there, it obviously itself contained. So, we are trying or we were trying to make sure that the reviewer does not need to go back to the manuscript. You should also highlight the page number or line number where the changes were made. So, this is one example, a good example of how to write a response to the reviewer comments. And finally, our paper was accepted as well. So, good news. You can obviously change the colors as well. Now, here is another example. This is a slightly different format than the previous one. In this case, what we did was we created a table. So, one column had reviewer comments while the other had author's response. So, if no changes were asked to be made, we responded by saying our thanks to the reviewer comments. And once the changes were asked to be made, we identified how the changes were made, where the changes were made. So, this is another way through which you can respond to reviewer comments by making a table. Now, it has to include all those things that we have mentioned earlier. Now, here is a wrong response. Something that you should not do. For example, this is the query by evaluator. Now, the action taken briefly rewrite the vital. First of all, the grammar is not right. Second, I as a reviewer do not know where the changes were made, how the changes were made. So, these few things are in particular very important. Gaps are highlighted in the light of references in green color text. What gaps were highlighted? Again, there is a lack of support for your response. Those 10 rules. Okay, what does this do? What does this mean? What does this mean? This shows lack of seriousness. Your response to reviewer is your depiction of seriousness, your commitment to your research work. So, make sure you are highly committed and make sure you do not respond like this because this obviously carries a bad impression. And even if the reviewer wasn't going to reject your paper by seeing this kind of review, well, a response to review, there is a very high chance that your paper will be rejected. I hope this session would have helped you understand how to write or how to respond to reviewer comments. Thank you.