Science Editing

What to tell and never tell a reviewer: Jean Iwaz; Sci Ed. 2023;10(2):181-185. Published online April 28, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.305

3,613 View
222 Download

Abstract PDF: The specialized literature abounds in recommendations about the most desirable technical ways of answering reviewers’ comments on a submitted manuscript. However, not all publications mention authors’ and/or reviewers’ feelings or reactions about what they may read or write in their respective reports, and even fewer publications tackle openly what may or may not be said in a set of answers to a reviewer’s comments. In answering reviewers’ comments, authors are often attentive to the technical or rational aspects of the task but might forget some of its relational aspects. In their answers, authors are expected to make every effort to abide by reviewers’ suggestions, including discussing major criticisms, editing the illustrations, or implementing minor corrections; abstain from questioning a reviewer’s competence or willingness to write a good review, including full and attentive reading and drafting useful comments; clearly separate their answers to each reviewer; avoid skipping, merging, or reordering reviewers’ comments; and, finally, specify the changes made. Authors are advised to call on facts, logic, and some diplomacy, but never on artifice, concealment, or flattery. Failing to do so erodes the trust between authors and reviewers, whereas integrity is expected and highly valued. The guiding principle should always be honesty.

Before you click “submit,” be your own first reviewer: Jean Iwaz; Sci Ed. 2023;10(1):105-108. Published online November 16, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.288

3,114 View
286 Download

Abstract PDF: For various reasons, despite previous linguistic, formatting, and other checks, beginner-authored or multi-authored manuscripts may be rushed to submission while lacking consistency. This article provides a clear outline of the final round of checks for section consistency, subsection consistency, and overall coherence that a scientific manuscript should undergo before submission. Checks for consistency should target the following: consistency between full and short titles; the exact answer in conclusion to research objectives (questions) and matching between methods and results in the abstract; consistency from a comprehensive view of the research field to the announcement of a single specific objective in the introduction section; coherence between methods and results sections and between results and illustrations in the rest of the text; and, recalls of the objective, the results, and the conclusions in the discussion section. Finally, consistency should be ensured between the various sections of the abstract and those of the manuscript, with the ideal abstract being a true miniature of the manuscript. An original figure provides a handy visual checklist authors might use to implement and achieve manuscript drafting. This round of checks increases readability, comprehensibility, confidence in the results, and the credibility of the authors. Subsequently, confidence and credibility will increase the probability of publication and the visibility of a whole team’s work.

Why consistent, clear, and uniform instructions for authors are required: Jean Iwaz; Sci Ed. 2022;9(2):142-145. Published online August 19, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.279

2,018 View
227 Download

PDF

Diplomacy in six patterns of reviewers’ queries during manuscript revision in scholarly publishing: Jean Iwaz; Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):58-61. Published online February 20, 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.264

2,547 View
238 Download

PDF

Search