Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers¶
Noble. (2017). Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Concession
- Editors and reviewers read the frank admission as scholarly integrity, the disagreement narrows to whether the scoped claim holds, and the burden shifts to the reviewer to show why the conceded limitation should sink a suitably qualified conclusion.
This sourceGuidance on writing responses to reviewers that advises authors to accept the blame for unclear writing, to state plainly when a reviewer is correct, and to say when a request falls outside the manuscript’s scope.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“It is certainly acceptable to say that the requests go beyond what you perceive to be the scope of the current work.”
- Editors and reviewers read the frank admission as scholarly integrity, the disagreement narrows to whether the scoped claim holds, and the burden shifts to the reviewer to show why the conceded limitation should sink a suitably qualified conclusion.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:60f1b34567ca · see in the full table