So sánh phương pháp
Xem các phương pháp đã chọn cạnh nhau; những hàng khác biệt được làm nổi bật.
| Phản hồi các nhận xét của người phản biện: Thư sửa đổi và Bản thảo sửa đổi× | Cấu trúc IMRaD: Giới thiệu, Phương pháp, Kết quả và Thảo luận× | |
|---|---|---|
| Lĩnh vực | Viết học thuật | Viết học thuật |
| Họ | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Năm ra đời≠ | 2005 | 1970 |
| Người khởi xướng≠ | Journal editors and publishing community; formalized by Clydesdale et al. and ICMJE | International scientific publishing community (adopted widely by 1970s) |
| Loại | Guideline | Guideline |
| Công trình gốc≠ | 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 ↗ | International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2023). Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. link ↗ |
| Tên gọi khác | revision letter, response to reviewers, rebuttal letter | IMRaD, IMRAD, scientific manuscript structure |
| Liên quan≠ | 4 | 5 |
| Tóm tắt≠ | 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. | IMRaD is the standard organizational framework for scientific manuscripts in biomedical and natural sciences research. It separates reporting into four sequential sections—Introduction (why the research was conducted), Methods (how it was done), Results (what was found), and Discussion (what the findings mean)—enabling readers to understand, evaluate, and reproduce the work. Adopted as best practice by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since the 1970s, IMRaD structure is now mandated or strongly recommended by most peer-reviewed journals. |
| ScholarGateBộ dữ liệu ↗ |
|
|