Module 11: Responding to Feedback From the Editor

  Responding to Feedback From the Editor

Objectives

In this module learners will

  • critically reflect on the editor’s decision about your article and the reviewers’ comments,
  • if requested, revise the manuscript closely following all reviewers’ suggestions,
  • if rejected, revise the manuscript and submit to another journal, and;
  • reflect on your attitude toward writing.

Lectures

Module 11 Slides Download Module 11 Slides

Reviewer and Editor Comments (5:57 min)

Rejection (6:03 min)

Rejection: Research Report (4:25 min)

Experienced Author - Handling Rejection (5:25 min)

Acceptance (3:09 min)

Final Reflection: Congratulations You Have Finished the Course! (1:13 min) 

Activities

  • Download Activity Log Workbook
    • Revision/Rejection (Page 14)
      • Revise your manuscript based on the reviewer's suggestions. If the manuscript was rejected, revise and submit to another journal. See pages 14-16 of the Activity Log Workbook for three examples of manuscript reviews. See page 17 of the Activity Log Workbook for an example of how the author addressed the reviewers' comments when returning the manuscript to the editor.
  • Download Reflection Assignment
    • Feedback/Comments: (Page 12)
      • What do you think about the review and feedback from editors to the example articles found in the Activity Log Workbook? How would you have reacted? Would you have found these comments helpful?
    • How have you changed? (Page 13)
      • Review your journal entries. Have your feelings about the journal writing process changed? Do you still have the same anxieties or fears after taking this course?

Readings and Resources

Bearinger, L. H., Taliaferro, L., & Given, B. (2010). When R & R is not rest & recovers but revise & resubmit. Research in Nursing & Health, 33, 381-385.

Christenbery, T.L. (2011). Manuscript peer review: A guide for advanced practice nurses. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 23,15-22.

Cupples, S. (2001). Responding to reviewers’ comments. Nurse Author and Editor, 11(1), 1-4.

Cupples, S. (2000). Thoughts from a manuscript reviewer. Nurse Author and Editor, 10(4), 8-9.

DeAngelis, C. & Thornton, J.P. (2008). Preserving confidentiality in the peer review process. JAMA, 299(16).

DeMaria, A.N. (2003). What constitutes a great review? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol, 42(7), 1314-1315.

Froman, R. D. (2008). Polishing your shot at the bull’s eye: The “please do” list. Research in Nursing & Health, 31, 541-542.

Happell, B. (2010). Responding to reviewers’ comments as part of writing for publication. Nurse Researcher 18(4),23-27.

Harding, A.D. (2010). How to phrase feedback in peer reviews for nurse authors. Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal, 22(4), 333-337.

Henly, S. & Dougherty, M.C. (2009). Quality of manuscript reviews in nursing research. Nursing Outlook, 57(1), 18-26.

Hoyt, K.S. & Proehl, J.A. (2007). Peer review for professional publications. Advanced Emergency Nursing Journal, 29(3), 260-264.

Johnson, S. (1998). The proofing challenge: Finding hidden errors. Nurse Author and Editor, 8(3), 1-7.

Kearney, M.H., Baggs, J.G., Broone, M.E., Dougherty, M.C., Freda, M.C. (2008). Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 40(4), 395-400.

Miracle, V. (2008). The peer review process. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 27 (2), 67-69.

Morton, P.G. (2013). Insights about the manuscript review process. Nurse Author and Editor, 23(3), 1-4.

Ohler, L. (2002). Manuscript revisions: The team approach. Nurse Author and Editor, 12(2), 7-91-3.

Spear, H. (2004). On ethical peer review and publication. Nurse Author and Editor, 14(4), 1-3.

Valente, S. (2002). Postscript: Follow-up after manuscript submission. Nurse Author and Editor, 12(4), 1-3.