Apr 26, 2014 09:30
During the peer review process, how much revision can be done?
One of my papers is at the 2nd-review stage and the journal's stated that if we don't satisfy the reviewers this time around our paper will be rejected. I'm making the changes that were requested about 'my' sections of the paper and I trust my co-author to do the same for 'her' sections. But here's the awkward bit. For 'my' sections (the stats) I asked advice from a friend who's better at stats than I am. He's given good advice and my own thoughts have moved on, after mulling over the reviewers' comments. My friend also gave advice about other aspects of the paper. Aspects which don't seem to have bothered the reviewers at all.
My friend (who happens to be one of the people who turned me onto R, years ago) gave good advice. I'll use it next time I write a paper. But I'm not at all sure we should make changes at this stage, beyond the reviewers' comments. Would you?
publishing,
etiquette-and-ethics