Searchable abstracts of presentations at key conferences in endocrinology
Endocrine Abstracts (2014) 34 EW2.5 | DOI: 10.1530/endoabs.34.EW2.5

Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK.


Preparing and submitting a paper is a lot of work: designing the study; collecting the data; analysing the results; writing the manuscript. Then, depending on your supervisor or co-workers, writing the manuscript again. The last thing anyone wants is rejection. Even when accompanied by positive comments and useful steers on how best to improve things, it can feel as though the peer review process is not fair. Put simply, the world does not understand. While this may be true, it is often a distortion.

Ultimately, there is mutuality in the relationship between author and Journal editor. Managing the relationship is key. Authors want their quality work to be published while editors want to publish quality work. Most colleagues involved in peer review are reasonable, even though this may not appear to be the case in the heat of your initial reaction to their judgements.

This talk will focus on how to respond to the peer review process: giving examples of how to approach problems without escalating conflict; and how to engage (constructively) with apparent criticism. There are some basic rules that are good to know.

Article tools

My recent searches

No recent searches.

My recently viewed abstracts