Porównaj metody
Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.
| Journal Submission Process× | Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments× | |
|---|---|---|
| Dziedzina | Pisarstwo akademickie | Pisarstwo akademickie |
| Rodzina | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Rok powstania≠ | 1950 | 2005 |
| Twórca≠ | Journal editors and publishing community; standards documented by ICMJE and COPE | Journal editors and publishing community; formalized by Clydesdale et al. and ICMJE |
| Typ | Guideline | Guideline |
| Źródło pierwotne≠ | International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2023). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. link ↗ | Clydesdale, G. J., Seymour, K. J., & Toy, M. S. (2013). How to write a response to reviewers. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 97(1), 1–2. link ↗ |
| Inne nazwy | manuscript submission, journal submission, peer review process | revision letter, response to reviewers, rebuttal letter |
| Pokrewne | 4 | 4 |
| Podsumowanie≠ | Submitting a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal is a multi-stage process: preparation, submission, editorial triage, peer review, revision, and publication. Understanding each stage helps authors avoid common pitfalls and set realistic expectations. Most journals use online submission systems (ScholarOne, Editorial Manager, OJS) that guide authors through the process. From submission to first editorial decision typically takes 30–90 days; acceptance to publication can take another 30–180 days depending on the journal's backlog and production timeline. Journals vary in acceptance rates (Nature ~5%, specialized journals 30–50%) and review times. Knowing the journal's policies and timelines before submitting prevents frustration. | A response to reviewers (or 'revision letter') is a formal document that authors submit alongside a revised manuscript, addressing each reviewer comment point-by-point. The response letter shows the editor and reviewers that you have carefully considered their feedback, explained changes made in light of their suggestions, and justified any points of disagreement. A thoughtful, respectful response to reviewers significantly increases the likelihood of acceptance; a dismissive or defensive response can lead to rejection despite good science. The response letter is not an argument but a demonstration of engagement, transparency, and scientific integrity. |
| ScholarGateZbiór danych ↗ |
|
|