KCSE
Search
- Page Path
- HOME > Search
Training Material
- A practical guide for responding to peer review: strategies for authors navigating the editorial process
- Sameh Hany Emile
- Sci Ed. 2026;13(1):55-57. Published online January 14, 2026
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.387
- 1,164 View
- 47 Download
-
Abstract
PDF - Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, with its main objective being to enhance the quality and reliability of manuscripts. After an initial editorial review, meritorious manuscripts typically undergo external peer review, which assists editors in deciding whether to accept, reject, or request revisions. Authors must accurately interpret the type and extent of revisions requested—whether minor or major—and tailor their responses accordingly. A systematic approach is recommended, classifying comments as favorable, minor, or major, and addressing each with clarity, diligence, and appreciation. All responses should comply with the journal’s instructions and formatting guidelines. They should be concise, clear, and gender-neutral. When major revisions are requested, authors should balance the feasibility of completing the revisions against the likelihood of acceptance. If specific comments cannot be implemented or addressed, authors must provide well-reasoned explanations for refuting the reviewer’s requests. Special circumstances, such as unclear, rude, or ethically concerning comments, should be handled carefully, ideally with editorial guidance. Questions concerning data accuracy or study novelty must be addressed meticulously. A respectful, transparent, and well-organized response to reviewers ultimately increases the likelihood of manuscript acceptance.
Review
- Types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review based on the literature and surgeons’ opinions via Twitter: a narrative review
- Sameh Hany Emile, Hytham K. S. Hamid, Semra Demirli Atici, Doga Nur Kosker, Mario Virgilio Papa, Hossam Elfeki, Chee Yang Tan, Alaa El-Hussuna, Steven D. Wexner
- Sci Ed. 2022;9(1):3-14. Published online February 20, 2022
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.6087/kcse.257
- 65,535 View
- 343 Download
- 2 Web of Science
- 3 Crossref
-
Abstract
PDF
- This review aimed to illustrate the types, limitations, and possible alternatives of peer review (PR) based on a literature review together with the opinions of a social media audience via Twitter. This study was conducted via the #OpenSourceResearch collaborative platform and combined a comprehensive literature search on the current PR system with the opinions of a social media audience of surgeons who are actively engaged in the current PR system. Six independent researchers conducted a literature search of electronic databases in addition to Google Scholar. Electronic polls were organized via Twitter to assess surgeons’ opinions on the current PR system and potential alternative approaches. PR can be classified into single-blind, double-blind, triple-blind, and open PR. Newer PR systems include interactive platforms, prepublication and postpublication commenting or review, transparent review, and collaborative review. The main limitations of the current PR system are its allegedly time-consuming nature and inconsistent, biased, and non-transparent results. Suggestions to improve the PR process include employing an interactive, double-blind PR system, using artificial intelligence to recruit reviewers, providing incentives for reviewers, and using PR templates. The above results offer several concepts for possible alternative approaches and modifications to this critically important process.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
- Agentic publications: redesigning scientific publishing in the age of thinking large language models
Roberto Pugliese, George Kourousias, Francesco Venier, Grazia Garlatti Costa
Journal of Documentation.2026; 82(7): 125. CrossRef - A practical guide for responding to peer review: strategies for authors navigating the editorial process
Sameh Hany Emile
Science Editing.2026; 13(1): 55. CrossRef - Conflict of Interest: Author, Reviewer, Editor
Elena V. Tikhonova, Nataliia M. Mekeko
Journal of Employment and Career.2024; 2(3): 4. CrossRef
- Agentic publications: redesigning scientific publishing in the age of thinking large language models
First
Prev
