ArticleF1000Research2024
Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.
Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic outcomes of the 2023 race-neutral and 2012 race-specific global lung function initiative spirometry equations in healthy Algerian adults: a cross-sectional comparative analysis.The Libyan journal of medicine · 2026Article
- Toward Precision Cardiac Rehabilitation: Current Limitations and Future Opportunities of Omics and Artificial Intelligence.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Application of Artificial Intelligence for Predicting Sports Injuries and Customizing Personalized Prevention Strategies: A Scoping Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Toward autonomous artificial intelligence agents in sports science: a modular framework for development, validation, and implementation.Biology of sport · 2026Review
- Tips and tricks for addressing and responding to peer reviews.Conservation physiology · 2026Article
- Aging reimagined: Bridging clinical modulation and scientific breakthroughs.Biology of sport · 2026Review
- Paracetamol in pregnancy: Navigating clinical uncertainty and avoiding the communication pitfalls of the "measles, mumps, and rubella" - autism controversy: A narrative review.EXCLI journal · 2026Review
- Impact of a wellness charter on nursing practice for older adults in Tunisian healthcare centers: a cross-sectional quasi-experimental multicenter study.BMC nursing · 2025Article
- Predictors of brain death and barriers to organ donation in north African intensive care units: a multicenter prospective study on severe coma patients.The Libyan journal of medicine · 2025Observational
- Scientific parallels of sleep physiology in the Qur'anic narrative of the Companions of the Cave "the Cave Sleepers".Sleep & breathing = Schlaf & Atmung · 2025Review
- Article
- Widespread pain syndrome in long COVID-19: melatonin as an adjuvant treatment.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Writing an effective and succinct cover letter: A practical guide.La Tunisie medicale · 2024Review
- Observed events frequencies and associated factors among soccer players during the 2021 African Cup of Nations competition: A video-based exploratory analysis.F1000Research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods: Opinion article. Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.