Speaker 1: Recently, a commenter asked about how to deal with reviews of scientific papers, especially overly negative ones. This topic is important to the scientific writer because how you respond to reviewer comments will influence not only the publication of your paper, but your emotional well-being as an author. Peer-review is a necessary step in the process of getting your work published in a journal. But many scientists dread this aspect of publishing because it can be stressful or even downright humiliating to be told by an anonymous reviewer that your paper is not good enough. A much better way to view reviews is to see them as helpful, because in most cases, they are. In fact, mature authors relish critical comments because they know it will improve their manuscripts in the long run. How you respond to reviews is what is really important. Early in my career, I took reviewer criticisms personally, and this emotional reaction hampered me in effectively addressing critical comments. It also made the experience a lot more stressful. Over time, though, I began to see how reviewer comments, even the most negative ones, helped me see and correct weaknesses in my papers. I eventually learned how to take criticism in stride and respond in a professional manner, no matter how critical a reviewer might be. A key part of a professional response involves preparation of a reconciliation document to accompany the revised manuscript. This document will provide an overview of changes that you've made, plus a point-by-point response to each and every comment by all reviewers. Such a document tells the editor that you carefully considered and addressed each criticism, and this aids the editor in making a final decision to accept your paper for publication. By maintaining an unemotional tone, you also send the message that you're a professional who is not flustered by criticism. Here are five suggestions to guide you in preparing your response. 1. A general rule of thumb is, do not attack the reviewer or question their motives, expertise, or an intellectual aptitude to assess your paper. Now, I know that some reviewers can really try your patience, and it's difficult to hold your tongue. But you must grit your teeth and be absolutely courteous in your response, and be humble enough to realize that they may be right and you may be wrong, particularly if two or more reviewers point out the same problems. And realize that if the reviewer failed to understand something, it is most likely because you failed to explain it clearly. And if the reviewer had a problem, so will readers. Apologize and say that you've rewritten the section in question to make your point crystal clear. Now, if a reviewer makes a rude or sarcastic comment, don't respond in kind. That just shows you're as unprofessional as the reviewer. Instead, either ignore the comment or say that you are not going to respond to personal attacks or unfounded statements. If the reviewer says something really inappropriate, you can point it out to the editor in a separate message. You may also get a reviewer who clearly is not an expert in your field of study. Resist the temptation to point this out in your response. In fact, comments from such reviewers are especially useful because they tell you how to make your paper more accessible to a broader scientific audience, something that journals want. 2. Respond to every point raised by reviewers. Failing to respond to a reviewer's question sends the message that you are trying to avoid addressing a particular point that the reviewer felt was important. Instead, list each reviewer comment or question in your reconciliation document and provide a clear description of how you responded. Start off by indicating whether you agree with the reviewer about the point or not. Then go into any necessary detail. For example, I agree that this sentence is too long and confusing. I've broken it into two sentences that convey the information more clearly. If you disagree with what the reviewer suggests, provide a reasonable explanation as to why you did not make the suggested change. Sometimes this explanation requires additional citations or data to back up your viewpoint. But don't stubbornly refuse to make any changes at all. Instead, agree to as many as possible, especially minor points, so that you don't look obstinate when you disagree with the reviewer on more important issues. 3. Show exactly how you revised the manuscript. Don't just say, this point was addressed by rewriting the opening paragraph. Instead, show both the original and revised versions of the paragraph in question to make it easy for the editor to see how you dealt with the criticism. 4. If you are really stressed out by a review, put it away for a while. Give yourself time to digest the review before attempting to respond. If it makes you feel better, vent your anger by first writing a scathing response. After you get it off your chest, then write a more professional version without the hysterics. 5. Thank the reviewers and show that you appreciate their efforts. It doesn't hurt to be courteous to reviewers who are, after all, volunteering their time. The last thing you want to do is give the impression that you don't appreciate their efforts. You can make an overall statement of thanks at the beginning of your reconciliation document, or add a few expressions of gratitude for individual suggestions. You might say something along the lines of, thanks for bringing this recent citation to my attention. I've added a brief summary about the findings as suggested. Or we did not explain this point very well in the original manuscript and like the reviewer's suggestion for improvement. In summary, part of becoming a successful and happy scientific author is learning to effectively navigate the peer review process. By following these few suggestions, you'll find that your revised manuscript is more likely to be accepted by the journal, and you'll find the whole process less stressful. Thanks for watching and let me know if you have another writing topic you'd like me to address.