YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → 13_Responding to Peer-Review

13_Responding to Peer-Review — Transcript

by NPTEL-NOC IITM · 2,507 words · 517 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00hello everyone
0:02my name is dr manikam i work as a
0:04scientist at the icmr national institute
0:06of epidemiology in this session we are
0:09going to see how to respond
0:11professionally to a peer review of a
0:14manuscript the objective of this session
0:16is to make sure
0:18you can handle
0:20comments suggestions
0:22and peer reviewer comments to obtain
0:24acceptance in a peer-reviewed journal
0:28when are you ready to share your first
0:31draft the decision is made when you have
0:33a completed draft
0:35the format is ready for publication
0:38and the contents of the manuscript are
0:40submitted
0:41to a self evaluation checklist to make
0:43sure the principles are practiced
0:46in terms of scientific writing
0:49this is an example of a self evaluation
0:51checklist
0:52used at the national staff epidemiology
0:54if you look at the items it broadly
0:56covers the basic principles
0:59and
1:00practice of scientific writing and
1:02therefore the first draft if it is
1:05subjected to a self violation checklist
1:06like this it greatly helps in reducing
1:09the number of errors that may appear
1:12later on
1:14once the first draft is ready
1:16what you do
1:17is to make sure
1:19you obtain comments from your
1:22mentors
1:23or co-authors give them a timeline
1:25generous timeline
1:27generally
1:28and make sure you send them reminders
1:31and extend the timeline
1:33if required
1:34include or incorporate the comments as
1:37much as possible
1:39and make sure
1:41you
1:42have an opportunity to refine and
1:45address all the issues that are either
1:47missed or misplaced or not articulated
1:50very well
1:51then you obtain
1:53institutional clearance including
1:56the journals
1:57that you are planning to
1:59submit and then you are ready to submit
2:04once the manuscript is submitted it goes
2:06through a peer review process
2:08what is peer review
2:11peer review
2:12is an assessment
2:13of the scientific research
2:16by others
2:17usually
2:19these are researchers fellow peers who
2:22are qualified
2:24suitably
2:25and are in a position to judge
2:28the work under review in terms of its
2:30novelty
2:31soundness and its significance
2:34the peer review process is meant to
2:36assist
2:37editors in deciding whether the research
2:39is suitable for publication in the
2:41journal or not there are several models
2:43of peer review available
2:45we have listed some of them
2:48single binded peer review means
2:50the identity of the others are masked to
2:53the reviewers
2:55double blinded peer review means
2:58we mask the identity of both authors and
3:01reviewers
3:03open peer review
3:05is the one where the identity of both
3:08reviewers and authors are known
3:11to each other at all the stages of the
3:13process
3:15transparent peer review is a process by
3:17which
3:18the peer review reports are posted along
3:21with the published manuscript the
3:23reviewers
3:24choose to
3:25reveal their identity
3:27another model called collaborative peer
3:29review process in which more than two
3:30reviewers collaborate talk to each other
3:33and then review the manuscript
3:36and authors
3:38could
3:39revise the manuscript under the
3:40supervision of reviewers
3:43there could be a peer review that can
3:45happen post publication
3:46the review is either solicited or
3:48unsolicited
3:50of a published manuscript
3:52it does not exclude other forms of peer
3:54review which we elaborated earlier what
3:57is a peer review process peer review is
3:59a cyclical process
4:02once authors submit the mankind to the
4:03journal at the journal office
4:06there is a desk review or there is an
4:08editorial review
4:09desk review is usually done
4:12from the point of view of whether the
4:14manuscript conforms to
4:16the submission requirements of that
4:18particular journal the editorial review
4:20usually looks at
4:22in terms of the policy of the journal
4:24scope of the journal whether
4:26the manuscript can be subjected to a
4:29peer review or not
4:31at this stage
4:33the manuscript could be rejected
4:35immediately by the disc review or
4:38by the review
4:40of the editors
4:41suppose
4:42the desk review and editorial review
4:45okays
4:47the manuscript to go through a peer
4:50review process it is then sent to the
4:52peer reviewers usually one or three
4:55and if it is required further reviews
4:57are also sought
4:59that is at a later stage
5:02once the peer review comments are
5:04available with the editors the editors
5:07look at the
5:08comments and suggestions given by the
5:11reviewers peer reviewers
5:13and based on their assessment
5:16they may
5:19either reject the manuscript or
5:22accept the manuscript
5:25they may decide that
5:28the manuscript has to go through some
5:30modifications some updation some editing
5:34some fine tuning
5:36based on the comments of the reviewers
5:37therefore they may send it back to the
5:39authors
5:41seeking revisions
5:42based on these comments of the reviewers
5:45authors
5:47submit a revised manuscript addressing
5:50the comments and suggestions of the
5:52reviewers
5:53which is then
5:54looked at by
5:56the editorial office
5:58and if they are satisfied they may then
6:00declare the journal accepts the
6:02manuscript if they are not still
6:04satisfied even after the peer review
6:07they may reject it so this is a cyclical
6:09process once acceptance happens the
6:12journal puts your manuscript
6:14on the production mode and then it gets
6:16published let us now look at
6:19the common reasons why on the basis of
6:22an editorial review a manuscript is
6:24rejected because the
6:26the article or the manuscript is out of
6:28scope for the journal
6:30and the article
6:32does not advance an impact for the
6:35journal
6:36or the article the manuscript
6:38ignores research ethics
6:41the manuscript does not follow proper
6:44structure or does not follow the
6:46formatting requirements the manuscript
6:48may lack the details that are necessary
6:50for the reader to understand
6:52what is being communicated up to date
6:54references or
6:56higher proportion of self citations
6:58the language is of poor quality or it is
7:02difficult to follow the logic or
7:04the data that is presented very poorly
7:07it could be also due to violation of
7:09publication ethics these are the common
7:11editorial reasons why your manuscript
7:14could be rejected we will now look at
7:17common reasons why your manuscript could
7:19be rejected based on an evidence from a
7:21published article
7:24if you look at on the left hand side
7:26the
7:27the three columns give us proportion
7:31of reasons why the manuscript was
7:33rejected at the desk level post
7:36peer review or post editorial
7:39review
7:40you can see that
7:43lack of novelty or originality or out of
7:45scope is a major reason why desk review
7:50rejects your manuscript
7:52post
7:53peer review rejection happens
7:56in almost 50 percentage of the times
7:58and post editorial review also rejects
8:01you around 50 of the times therefore it
8:04is very critical that you pass through
8:06you need to pass through
8:08the
8:09initial
8:10stages the other reasons are listed
8:13there and if you look at for example the
8:16third fourth fifth sixth the seventh and
8:20a
8:21set of reasons
8:23most of them are related to
8:26the scientific
8:28contact and the scientific content as
8:30they are presented there is an issue
8:33as pointed out
8:35or as
8:36picked up by reviewers either at the
8:39desk review or
8:40during the time of peer review
8:43you can also see that
8:45a delay in responding back to the
8:48journal
8:49after you have received the comments
8:51also could be one of the reasons why
8:53your manuscript could be rejected so
8:54there can be number of reasons why your
8:56manuscript can be rejected but then the
9:00lesson is we need to avoid all of these
9:03reasons to make sure
9:05that our manuscript
9:06gets published and stands
9:08through the scrutiny of peer review
9:11one of the important points to remember
9:13is
9:14that
9:15rejected manuscripts do have a life
9:18for example data shows
9:20that
9:22the success rate
9:23after rejection for getting your paper
9:25published
9:26ranges anywhere between one third to
9:28three fourth of the times therefore
9:31never give up it requires
9:33a persistence
9:35and perseverance and professional
9:37approach to getting the manuscript
9:39published
9:40what you need to do
9:42is to make sure you follow an iterative
9:44submission strategy that strategy is
9:48part of the plan for example you try
9:52journal that is published more
9:54frequently
9:55and it has a very quick
9:58response time for your submission
10:00therefore
10:02you can decide
10:03if it is rejected for going to another
10:05journal
10:07try an international
10:09journal
10:10try
10:11try again
10:13and again and make sure
10:15it works at the end
10:16we have few considerations
10:18for handling peer review comments
10:22remember
10:23peer review is a process meant to give
10:26you
10:28constructive and useful comments because
10:30the objective of peer review is to make
10:32sure
10:33the science stands out
10:35so
10:36we need to make sure
10:38we are not emotional about
10:41addressing them but professional about
10:42it
10:44it may be possible that sometimes
10:47you may get comments
10:49that are less relevant
10:51some are conflicted
10:53sometimes
10:54there is a load of comments from the
10:56editor's desk also
10:58as authors
10:59our
11:01objective should be to make sure that
11:05we get the paper published
11:08we need to make sure we follow some
11:10basic rules of handling the peer review
11:12process
11:13we need to be polite
11:16we need to be
11:17confident but on a sound
11:20scientific grounds
11:22we make sure we are elaborate
11:24we are scientific in our approach
11:27we are specific in addressing
11:30the comments
11:32we are not here to confront the reviewer
11:36we are neither
11:38here to avoid the issues
11:40make sure you professionally
11:43and methodologically handle the peer
11:44review
11:47i will now talk about
11:49the step by step approach to respond to
11:52reviewers comments
11:54the first step is to acknowledge
11:57the reviewers comments you can thank
11:58them or make sure
12:00you acknowledge
12:02the usefulness of the comment
12:05and then you refer
12:07to each of the comments specifically
12:10by the order in which they appear
12:12and
12:14make sure
12:15you address them effectively
12:18one of the tips is to make sure you cut
12:20and paste the electronic version of the
12:22comments on the left hand side and for
12:24each one of these comments and
12:25suggestions you provide your
12:28response
12:30you may choose to agree
12:32and make a suggested change as per the
12:34reviews comments you may and you deserve
12:37the right to disagree
12:40in which case you have to provide an
12:41explanation as why
12:43you are disagreeing
12:46the game is all about
12:49giving
12:50in at least on some points
12:55and make sure
12:56there is a
12:57professional approach in that as well
13:02you need to respond
13:03within the timeline
13:05set by the
13:06journal that is very important
13:10we have a recommendation as to in a
13:13general format in which response can be
13:16given to the reviewer's comments
13:18on the top you provide the title of the
13:20manuscript
13:21very important
13:23you specify the manuscript id
13:25as given by the journal
13:27and then you say that this is response
13:29to reverse comments
13:30you can type out reviewer 1 review 2
13:33review three reviewer four separately in
13:35separate tables
13:37and on the first column
13:39you type out the serial number
13:41in which the reviewer's commands are
13:42going to appear and in the second column
13:44you provide the comments by bullet by
13:46bullet sometimes if you get a lengthy ah
13:49comments from the reviewer you split
13:50them in such a way that
13:52you will be able to respond to them
13:54in a very
13:56logical manner
13:58the third column is in terms of your
14:00response and the fourth column ideally
14:02should be
14:04to indicate
14:05where these revisions are appearing
14:07which page number and in which line
14:10some journals give
14:12specifically you to attach
14:15the revised or updated manuscript with
14:18track changes or without track changes
14:19so that also you need to
14:21keep in mind that that's also part of
14:23the response
14:25in this process
14:27you need to make sure when you will
14:29agree and how you will agree when you
14:30will disagree and how you will disagree
14:33with the peer review
14:35if you are changing the manuscript based
14:37on the comments you make sure you say
14:39that we modified the manuscript
14:41according to your suggestion and this is
14:43what we have done
14:44in particular line and particular
14:46paragraph
14:47when you are
14:48in a position to
14:50not to change the manuscript you offer
14:53an explanation and clarification
14:55why you agree with the comment but then
14:58you are not
15:01going to change
15:02or it is not necessary to change the
15:04manuscript
15:06you offer an explanation or a
15:08clarification to make sure you
15:10respectfully disagree with the
15:12documentation of your point this is very
15:14important
15:16and this is what we reiterate that
15:18professional approach is very much
15:20important rather than an emotional
15:22approach
15:24while modifying the manuscript be
15:26conservative
15:28point to your changes
15:30provide details in the letter
15:32highlight the changes
15:34and as mentioned
15:36if the journal demands
15:39that they need a track changes version
15:41do so if they do not demand they need
15:44only a clean version do so so make sure
15:46you follow the instructions while
15:48responding to the reviews comments
15:51this is a sample response to reverse
15:53comments
15:54as you can see on the
15:57left hand side
15:58the first column is in terms of the
16:00serial number the second column is in
16:02terms of the comments of the reviewer
16:04split into
16:06one by one and then the third column is
16:09reply to the authors
16:12and then the fourth column is whether we
16:14have done changes and if at all done
16:16which paragraph which page which line it
16:18appears
16:20and then on the top you have we have
16:21written
16:22reply to reviewer comments review number
16:24one or two or three or four or five
16:28there may be situations
16:30although rarely
16:32that you may have to
16:34resolve a conflict
16:37you may have a point
16:39where you need to say
16:40that i have a conflict i want to resolve
16:44for example
16:46even after the reviewers have given
16:49their comments and you have addressed
16:51them adequately and very effectively
16:54according to you
16:56and majority of the reviewers have given
16:58up within quotes constructive comments
17:01and then it goes to the editorial office
17:03but then the editor's decision is to
17:05reject your manuscript
17:07so what you want to do is you want to
17:09appeal against the rejection decision so
17:12that could be one of the
17:13conflict resolution
17:15what you need to make sure
17:17is to appeal in writing
17:20there are journals which provide such
17:23conflict resolution options
17:25it could be in the form of
17:27emailing to the editor for example
17:30in the bmc editorial policies there is a
17:32section called appeals and complaints
17:35others who have a case
17:37against rejection they need to complain
17:40following a procedure that is available
17:43in the bmc editorial policy so we need
17:46to look for such opportunities
17:48to make our case loud and clear
17:52finally
17:53the take-home messages are
17:56once you are ready with your work
17:59completed make sure your first draft is
18:01ready
18:03to the maximum extent possible
18:04conforming to scientific principles and
18:07then with inputs
18:08also from mentors and your head
18:11and you work with your authors
18:13co-authors in polishing this manuscript
18:16so that the the draft is in good shape
18:19and therefore it is ready to be
18:21submitted to any journal
18:24make sure you handle the rejections
18:26positively and professionally
18:29submit
18:30submit submit until the
18:33manuscript is accepted
18:35make sure you enjoy the peer review game
18:37all the best

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of 13_Responding to Peer-Review by NPTEL-NOC IITM, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 2,507 words across 517 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.