Writing for Publication: Navigating Peer Review

Peer Review

C2

🚦

The Verdict

Understanding the editor's decision is the first step. Don't panic.

✅ 1. Accept The Holy Grail. Only minor typos need fixing. Do it immediately.

⚠️ 2. Revise & Resubmit Not a rejection! It means "Do the work, and we will likely publish it."

⛔ 3. Reject Move on. Submit to a different journal. Do not argue with the editor.

🧠

Diplomacy Engine

Reviewer 2 is harsh. Your response must be polite. Translate your anger.

What you WANT to say (Rage):

"The reviewer clearly didn't read page 5 where I explained this!"

Strategy: Take the blame ("We were unclear") rather than blaming the reader ("You missed it").

📝

Response Architect

Build the "Response to Reviewers" document.

SUBMITTED

1. The Opening (Gratitude) ...Choose... Thanks for checking my paper. We wish to thank the reviewers for their insightful comments.

2. Agreeing with a Change ...Choose... We concur with the reviewer and have amended the text. We changed it like you said.

3. Disagreeing (Politely) ...Choose... We can't do that because it's too hard. While valid, technical constraints preclude this addition.

🚀

The Rebuttal

Apply what you've learned.

Context:
A reviewer says your sample size is too small. You cannot add more people now.

Task:
Write a 1-sentence refusal in your notebook using this formula:

• Concede: "It is true that..."
• Defend: "However, current data is sufficient because..."
• Act: "We have added a section on 'Limitations' to address this."