7 replies to this topic

[jasmina]

Hi ,
I have a difficulty to publish one article on which I believe alot for my PhD thesis.
the paper was refuted 3 to 4 times from different journals. By the end, one journal accept that we resubmit by replying to reviewers critics.
So, we send again and 1 reviewer was asking to do other experiments to replicate the data ... and ..
But, Im not convinced about the comment and I think that the data I show are convincing.
I need to publish this work, in the same time I dont want to do more experiments because it was used work with participation of many people and it costs time and money if we repeat...
So, i mthinking to write again to the journal ..
what do you suggest to me?? may be its risky but I feel I can do it.
thanks for your interaction

[Inmost sun]

you should present some more data in your ms for second round of reviewing; if you cannot launch new experiments (f.i. run out of funding) you may write a letter of rebuttal; decision of accepting for publication is in the hand of the editor....

[Astilius]

Absolutely present more data. Stating that you think your data and analysis are convincing won't win over anyone - they've already read the presented work and want more. You may not have to conduct (much) more work - do you have unpresented data, data that is ancillary to the main body but left out for whatever reason?

Also, be very careful about considering a letter of rebuttal. It's is far more likely to result in a rejection and you losing standing than in changing anyone's mind. You have a chance here, don't blow it by losing your cool.

This makes some decent points in a simple format:
http://www.roie.org/howj.htm

[jasmina]

in fact, one reviewer appreciates the work and added its interesting. second reviewer asks to do one more experiment. and the last reviewer comments abit and asks either to do selective experiment to confirm the selective data or more moderate discussion.

[newborn]

My experience is never ignore their comments even they ask to shorten the manuscript.

You may thank him for his points, and say that it would be great to perform that experiment but you have a limited resource. Then revise your paper and show him that you8 change.

You can add:
-"The papaer has several limitations such as...": not confirmation by another method, but we believe the results according to .. (previous work, etc)
-add more discussion about that problem, combined with previous papers to support your hypothesis.

Please feedback us when you get the decision.

[jasmina]

In fact, Im trying to improve a bit the discussion and add more proof. My boss will write a cover later too.
I will definitely let you know once I submit and got a news.
Thanks alot

[jasmina]

So, we send the revised form, without performing the experiment requested. and the reply was from only one reviewer, the same one that criticizes before, he added that he appreciated the revised form but he still insist on performing the experiments that will not require a lot of time.
So, we decided to perform anyway and hope final acceptance.

[pito]

So, we send the revised form, without performing the experiment requested. and the reply was from only one reviewer, the same one that criticizes before, he added that he appreciated the revised form but he still insist on performing the experiments that will not require a lot of time.
So, we decided to perform anyway and hope final acceptance.

You should be very happy that the reviewer is still very nice.
Since he asked extra data (and it seems it doesnt take long to get this extra data) and you didnt supply him this data.. he could easly have said: no!

In the end they decide whether they publish you or not.. so if they dont ask idiotic things or massive experiments that take ages.. its best to do what they want...

I hope you get a nice publication, in the end this is what you want.