Author: Oh, no! i’m therefore embarrassed, we shall simply withdraw my paper!

Everyone makes errors, therefore you shouldn’t be disheartened. The review procedure should allow you to boost your paper.
The review procedure is generally “blind”, therefore the reviewer will maybe perhaps perhaps not know writer names or affiliations.

List of positive actions

Then do so if you can fix the problem with your paper.
If this involves more experimental research, ask the Editor before continuing, and suggest the most likely period of time.
In the event that you can’t repair the problem, could you save yourself such a thing from your own research this is certainly worth publishing?

How exactly to respond:

We have been incredibly grateful to Reviewer X for pointing down this issue. We now have [recalculated the data]/[revised Table 1]/[re-examined the scans that are original and modified the written text where highlighted.

Reviewer: highlights a mistake in your paper, however you disagree

Author: This reviewer is an idiot. Does not he know any thing about that topic area?

Not all reviewer is a specialist into the precise industry he’s asked to examine. It’s difficult for the log to find sufficient reviewers for a paper. Or simply the Editor-in-Chief just isn’t acquainted with this area, and assigned the paper to a reviewer from the various industry.
However, the reviewer provided their viewpoint, along with to answer it.

Author: i do believe this reviewer is biased!

The review procedure is normally “blind”, so that the reviewer will not understand who the writer is.
Perchance you think the reviewer guessed you had been non-English speaking, and sometimes even from Asia, and ended up being prejudiced as a result of that.
Possibly you might think the writer is biased against particular view points, or research industries.

As with any people, even reviewers have preferences, they might be unacquainted with their prejudices that are own.
As above, the reviewer offered their viewpoint, along with to answer it.

Do the following

Stick to the reality. Stay courteous, but keep feeling from it.
In the event that reviewers remark isn’t well launched in reality, it ought to be really simple to provide a effective reaction.
If you believe the paper will not need an alteration, provide an explanation that is brief supporting sources or information.
Maybe a change that is small your paper might explain the purpose. Any indicator that the reviewer misunderstood your paper recommends you might have to make some modifications.
If the paper ended up being refused due to the review, you have to possibility to appeal your decision. But understand that it’s the Editor-in-Chief who makes the choice to reject. Only appeal if you think the review misjudged your paper.
You may submit your paper to some other log after rejection. But keep in mind that you will find a number that is limited of in just about any industry of research. Your paper can be assigned to your exact same reviewer by a various log, in which he will never be impressed if he views that their reviewer responses have already been ignored.

Simple tips to respond:

and it has tactfully recommended to your Editor that the paper is aligned along with other posted research in this industry.

The reviewer has commented that individuals purchased the incorrect way to test for ABC. Y was introduced by White et al. (J Sci Method 1999:35;1-10) this has become the standard, and so is now mentioned in research reports without further justification (as in the references in cited in our paper) although we agree with the reviewer that method X was the accepted method in the past, since method. We’ve currently included a citation towards the initial paper by White et al. in the event that you need further discussion for this technique, I will be very happy to put in a supporting paragraph towards the paper.