I do methodological research in Field A and am aware of the the related methodologies of Field B but have not used them. I was asked to review an article from Field B, which I initially declined due to lack of expertise. The editor asked me to reconsider because the article makes some claims about Field A and he wanted comments specifically from that perspective. I agreed to review.

I am reviewing the article and the editor was right to be concerned. The paper is otherwise excellent, however the authors are claiming that what they are doing in Field B is actually Field A (and using terminology from Field A but have ignored substantial literature). I am fine to write the review. However, I would really like to make a comment recommending that any mention of Field A should be removed from the paper (it would be fine without it) and noting that the overlap is an interesting question in its own right that should not be dealt with from the perspective of just one of the fields within an empirical paper about a specific topic.

I actually think that a specific methodological paper about the overlap and differences would be very worthwhile, coauthored from both fields and preferably written as the outcome of some sort of discussion at a workshop where each field trained the other. While the review is blind, I strongly suspect that the authors are from the institution that would be the most appropriate to develop such a workshop and paper. However, I am already aware of a researcher in my field who is drafting a paper (from the perspective of Field A, with no involvement of authors from Field B).

If I make the comment about interesting question in its own right, am I suggesting the separate paper? If so, is that a problem given that I know someone is working on something similar? Can I suggest to the person working on it that perhaps he should involve authors from the other field? Can I suggest a workshop to both the person working on it and the authors of the paper I am reviewing?

I got a revise and resubmit after a 4 month review, submitted a revision and, after another 4 month review, got a provisional acceptance with minor and clerical comments to be addressed, and was asked to submit my response within two weeks. I did response within two weeks, which is almost two months ago at this point.

I don’t want to be annoying but a) should I email the editor (through the submission website); and b) if yes, what would be an appropriate way to frame the email? I had in mind something like:

“Dear xxx,

I am emailing to check on the status of my provisionally accepted manuscript (ID=xxx). Please let me know if there is any further information you need and thank you for your continued attention.

Best,

xxx”

If it is relevant, this is a decent psychology journal. Thanks for any feedback.

I just published my first paper (originated from my monograph) in a prestigious journal and that same journal invited me to be part of their Editorial Board as a Review Editor. I feel that this is a good opportunity to improve my skills (e.g.: writing, specific field knowledge, etc) and help others with their papers but I also feel quite intimidate by this offer since I barely started my Master and only know PhD and postdoc students that are reviewers.

I already talked a bit with my supervisor and he feels that this journal is too “high-level” for me, maybe a “lower” journal would be ok to accept it.

I received a review of my journal manuscript that is not organised in a way to facilitate the author reply. Its main problems are:

  1. Sometimes one long paragraph discusses many related points. Quoting each sentence separately does not separate the ideas but produces rough ideas, and on the other hand, it is difficult to provide an organized answer directly without dividing the reviewer comment into distinct points using my own words. So, is it appropriate to do so? And can I e.g., start my answer with: This comment raised several points which are……, Below, my answer to each of them separately.

  2. Sometimes, the same points are repeated many times in non-contiguous parts, e.g., a summary of a critique at the beginning of the review and some details in another comment and a suggestion concerning the same critique in another part. By following the typical way of answering the reviewer comments, I have to quote each part of the review and provide an answer. By doing so, the result will be: one answer repeated many times with separate, noncontiguous comments. So, is it appropriate to quote the noncontiguous parts that discuss the same idea together, summarise what the reviewer wrote, and then provide my answer?

I am currently reviewing a paper for a journal and there’s a section in the ‘Methods’ that may raise a questionable ethical concern on animal handling. The paper has a potential contribution to the field, however, there’s this procedure that harms the animal in the study. I am thinking of rejecting the paper and raise a correspondence with the authors. Will the rejection decision a good decision for the paper?

I received a review of my journal manuscript that is not organised in a way to facilitate the author reply. Its main problems are:

1) Sometimes one long paragraph discusses many related points. Quoting each sentence separately does not separate the ideas but produces rough ideas, and on the other hand, it is difficult to provide an organized answer directly without dividing the reviewer comment into distinct points using my own words. So, is it appropriate to do so? And can I e.g., start my answer with: This comment raised several points which are……, Below, my answer to each of them separately.

2) Sometimes, the same points are repeated many times in non-contiguous parts, e.g., a summary of a critique at the beginning of the review and some details in another comment and a suggestion concerning the same critique in another part. By following the typical way of answering the reviewer comments, I have to quote each part of the review and provide an answer. By doing so, the result will be: one answer repeated many times with separate, noncontiguious comments. So, it is appropriate to quote the noncontiguous parts that discuss the same idea together, summarise what the reviewer wrote and then provide my answer.

I received the editor’s comments as follows:

The revised version of your manuscript xxx has been reviewed by our referees. Referee A is now satisfied with your paper, while Referee B is more or less satisfied but supplies a long list of remarks that need to be taken into account. While we cannot make a definite commitment, we will probably accept your paper for publication, provided you make changes that we judge to be in accordance with the appended comments (or other satisfactory responses are given).

I have revised my manuscript and prepared a detailed explanation of how I have dealt with all of the comments of reviewer B. Actually, there are just 7 comments on the manuscript.

Now, I am going to reply to the editor. Could you suggest me how to write a reply to the editor like this, such as ”While we cannot make a definite commitment, we will probably accept your paper for publication, provided you make changes that we judge to be in accordance with the appended comments”? And What should I need to notice?

Thank you in advance.