Navigating the Peer Review Process 11-15
Minor comments:
1. The Introduction is too long. The long beginning paragraph on Z cancer as a public health problem should be shortened to two or three sentences. The information on the X gene’s possible role in Z cancer is mentioned twice — the first time should be deleted. The Introduction also seems to meander somewhat from topic to topic and should be organized in a more linear format. A good scientific editor could help the authors resolve these problems (and also those with the Discussion). [Your editor will be a great help to you.] 2. The Discussion is also too long, by about two pages. The authors should remove the first page, which just reiterates the results, and also the paragraphs on pages 20 and 21 about the role of the X and Y genes in Z cancer, which was adequately addressed in the Introduction.
3. Page 10, line 4: Shouldn’t “below” be “above?” This line doesn’t make sense otherwise.
4. Reference 16 is incomplete.
Below is an example of an author’s response to Review 2. Each point is addressed in the order in which it was listed in the reviewer’s comments. (Make a separate response sheet for each reviewer.) A common format for responses is to briefly state the reviewer’s comment, address it or answer the question asked, and then state where in the revised manuscript you have added the required information. Note that, as in the response to the first comment below, it is not always necessary to do everything the reviewer asks, but you must address every request, if only to explain why you did not make the change.
Response to Review 2
We thank the reviewer for his or her insightful comments and clear suggestions, which we believe improved the quality of our paper . [Optional opening statement. Editors and reviewer appreciate a sincere “thank you.”]
Major comments:
1. Use of two different Y antibodies: We believe the results from antibodies Y-12 and Y-83 are comparable. This
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software