Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39246824›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2024

Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers.

Saida Hidouri, Hela Kamoun, Sana Salah, Anis Jellad, Helmi Ben Saad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Widespread pain syndrome in long COVID-19: melatonin as an adjuvant treatment.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Saida HidouriDepartment of Pediatric surgery, Zaghouan Hospital, Research Laboratory LR12SP13, University of Monastir Faculty de Medicine of Monastir, Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3220-8028
Hela KamounIbn Nafiss Pneumology Department, Abderrahmene Mami Hospital, Ariana, University of Tunis El Manar Faculty of Medicine of Tunis, Tunis, Tunis, Tunisia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4431-846X
Sana SalahDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital Monastir, University of Monastir Faculty of Dental Medicine of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2858-8796
Anis JelladDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Fattouma Bourguiba University Hospital Monastir, University of Monastir Faculty of Dental Medicine of Monastir, Monastir, Tunisia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1848-2103
Helmi Ben SaadHôpital Farhat HACHED, Laboratoire de recherche LR12SP09 «Insuffisance cardiaque», 4000 Sousse, Université de Sousse Faculté de Médecine de Sousse, Sousse, 4000, Tunisia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7477-2965

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Guidelines as TopicPeer Review, ResearchEditorial PoliciesHumansPublishingAcademic publishingmanuscript assessmentManuscript evaluationManuscript review processPeer assessmentPeer reviewResearch qualityReviewReviewer commentsRevision guidelines

Identifiers

PMID39246824
PMCPMC11377928

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.