Description

would you be willing to review a revision of this manuscript ?

Here are some links that might be useful to you:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13674935221083721

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13674935221083721
Would you be willing to review a revision of this manuscript?
This can be a personal source of seeing an issue from another angle, or sometimes as simple as adding a sentence to enhance the clarity around the issue. Exploring these justifications can be valuable learning. So, for you, our authors, our readers, our journal and for science, please say yes, that you are again.
LoginForgotten your password

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/13674935221083721

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/13674935221083721
Would you be willing to review a revision of this manuscript?
Conducting a paper’s review should be aimed at delivering constructive feedback for authors to improve their paper towards publication. Alternatively, feedback can help authors understand why their beloved manuscript is being rejected. Providing a good review takes time.

https://authorservices.wiley.com / Reviewers / journal-reviewers / how-to-perform-a-peer-review / reviewing-revised-manuscripts.html

https://authorservices.wiley.com / Reviewers / journal-reviewers / how-to-perform-a-peer-review / reviewing-revised-manuscripts.html
Reviewing Revised Manuscripts | Wiley
How to review revised manuscripts. It is uncommon for a paper to be accepted for publication without changes – most papers are revised at least once in light of comments from reviewers and editors. When a revised paper is received: Rarely, the editor may invite comments from a new reviewer – the editor should explain why fresh …

https://www.euppublishing.com/early-career-researcher-hub/peer-review/reviewing-a-revision

https://www.euppublishing.com/early-career-researcher-hub/peer-review/reviewing-a-revision
Reviewing a revision – Edinburgh University Press
If a manuscript that you’ve reviewed is sent back to the authors to revise and resubmit, the editor will often ask you to comment on the revision as well. You’re not obliged to review a revision, but you will be the best placed person to check the updated manuscript, so editors are likely to contact you in the first instance. For the most …

https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html

https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html
Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript | Wiley
See Improving the Manuscript. Recommending Revision. Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in …

https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.05.0782

https://www.ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.05.0782
A Systematic Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript | AJR
OBJECTIVE. In this article, we provide a step-by-step guide to reviewing a manuscript that we hope will improve the quality of reviews for the AJR. CONCLUSION. We have provided a detailed series of guidelines for providing excellent reviews of manuscripts. The template we have provided can be used to serve as a checklist for important questions to ask about during the …

https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article/59/7/1028/5621856

https://academic.oup.com/clinchem/article/59/7/1028/5621856
Writing an Effective Manuscript Review: The 6 Be’s to Success
Remember, you are the one who must re-review the manuscript should a revision be submitted, so this exactness will benefit you if and when you are called upon to evaluate the revised manuscript. Be specific in your comments. Do not simply state that the Discussion is unclear in some spots, or that the sentence on line 5 of page 13 is …

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4900210

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4900210
From the editor’s desk: A systematic guide to revising a manuscript
Abstract. Once a manuscript is submitted, the journal editor decides whether the manuscript merits further peer review, and the section editor or editor-in-chief reviews those comments and makes a decision that is conveyed to the corresponding author. Almost all accepted manuscripts require some kind.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8994827

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8994827
Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript
3. Process of the Revision. A step-by-step process for revising a manuscript is summarized in Figure 1.Five main steps can be identified and are defined for the revision process: (1) Reading and understanding the comments and marking them as major or minor, (2) planning a timeline for the and assigning the comments to the co-authors to address, (3) conducting and …

https://blog.mdpi.com/2022/12/13/review-manuscript

https://blog.mdpi.com/2022/12/13/review-manuscript
Reviewing Your Manuscript Q&A – MDPI Blog
6 nov. 2023Once you’ve submitted your manuscript, it will be pre-checked, and then sent for review. … you can reach out to the journal in question to see if they are willing to do so. Reply. Maria. 29 June 2023. Hi, … The result of the first round of peer review was ‘major revision’ and the result of the second round was ‘minor and …
lesoutrali bot