Just got my reviews back on my first, first author paper and I have a question

[KD1655]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Hello All,

I just got the reviews back on a paper in which I am the first author; it jsut so happens that this is also my first paper/publication. The work was submitted to a journal that specializes in the measurement of physiological systems using physical characterization means. I am an engineer/physicist doctoral student with hopes of medical school post dissertation defense. Anyway, both of the authors praised the work/research in its novility and interesting concepts. It was also nice to see that they did not ask us to increase the n values of any experiments or do any further experiments. The first reviewer was the first person that the journal sent the manuscript to and he reported almost immediately with very good questions and ideas. The journal then sent the manuscript to several reviewers that were all unable to report. Finally they found a reviewer that was able to submit a short report. While he did praise the research and the new application to neuroscience methods, he was somewhat less praising when it came to the introduction and the citation of the previous relevant work. In a round about way, it seems as though he thought that his work should have been cited as among the "great works" in the field. This comment was a sticking point throughout the review. My question is that since the reviews are anonymous to the authors, is there any way to either a) figure out who the reviewer is and what exactly he wants us to cite or b) fulfill the desires of the reviewer without citing his specific work?

 

[gbwillner]

Hello All,

I just got the reviews back on a paper in which I am the first author; it jsut so happens that this is also my first paper/publication. The work was submitted to a journal that specializes in the measurement of physiological systems using physical characterization means. I am an engineer/physicist doctoral student with hopes of medical school post dissertation defense. Anyway, both of the authors praised the work/research in its novility and interesting concepts. It was also nice to see that they did not ask us to increase the n values of any experiments or do any further experiments. The first reviewer was the first person that the journal sent the manuscript to and he reported almost immediately with very good questions and ideas. The journal then sent the manuscript to several reviewers that were all unable to report. Finally they found a reviewer that was able to submit a short report. While he did praise the research and the new application to neuroscience methods, he was somewhat less praising when it came to the introduction and the citation of the previous relevant work. In a round about way, it seems as though he thought that his work should have been cited as among the "great works" in the field. This comment was a sticking point throughout the review. My question is that since the reviews are anonymous to the authors, is there any way to either a) figure out who the reviewer is and what exactly he wants us to cite or b) fulfill the desires of the reviewer without citing his specific work?

Its hard to say if you could find out who the reviewer is. If your mentor is known in the field, and knows others in the field well- they might already know who the reviewer is, or have a good idea. I wouldn't lose sleep over it. You didn't really give us enough information to give good advice- but I would say to read his/her comments carefully and add a few more publications to your citations. They may be saying your intro is just not detailed enough. Either way, looks like your paper will likely go through. Congrats.

 

[Tranquil]

I just got the reviews back on a paper in which I am the first author; it jsut so happens that this is also my first paper/publication. The work was submitted to a journal that specializes in the measurement of physiological systems using physical characterization means. I am an engineer/physicist doctoral student with hopes of medical school post dissertation defense. Anyway, both of the authors praised the work/research in its novility and interesting concepts. It was also nice to see that they did not ask us to increase the n values of any experiments or do any further experiments. The first reviewer was the first person that the journal sent the manuscript to and he reported almost immediately with very good questions and ideas. The journal then sent the manuscript to several reviewers that were all unable to report. Finally they found a reviewer that was able to submit a short report. While he did praise the research and the new application to neuroscience methods, he was somewhat less praising when it came to the introduction and the citation of the previous relevant work. In a round about way, it seems as though he thought that his work should have been cited as among the "great works" in the field. This comment was a sticking point throughout the review. My question is that since the reviews are anonymous to the authors, is there any way to either a) figure out who the reviewer is and what exactly he wants us to cite or b) fulfill the desires of the reviewer without citing his specific work?

You can ask the Journal but the reviewer may want to retain his/her anonymity and the Journal does not want to compromise. Its best to take the review at face value and look again at your citations. In general they would want to see that you know about the key papers in this area and also how current your citations are since the field may be moving rapidly. Also they might worry that you have taken a too narrow view and that you have not taken other perhaps divergent views into account. I would advise you do more searches or look say at review sites such as the Cochran and be open minded admitting to yourself that you may not have been as thorough as you thought. Its all about you proving you are 'expert' in this area, that you know more much more than the average professional. Don't be discouraged as all comment is valuable and in a way negative comment is the most valuable as it tells you where to go next