Searchable abstracts of presentations at key conferences in endocrinology
Endocrine Abstracts (2015) 37 EW1.4 | DOI: 10.1530/endoabs.37.EW1.4

AMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.


A statement attributed to Aristotle is: ‘You can easily avoid criticism by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing.’ If you want to do research, apply for competitive grants and publish relevant scientific papers in competitive journals, criticism is a fact of life. There is also a positive twist to criticism: it is a major driving force to advance knowledge in science.

Frequently, the first reaction of authors to critical comments of reviewers is anger. Nonetheless, most reviewers involved in the review process are reasonable. They are intermediates between the authors and the editors. The authors like to publish in high ranking journals and the editors aim to accept papers with the highest potential for citations. In this respect authors and editors depend on each other.

In many cases the criticisms can be predicted in advance. Weaknesses in objectives, study design, methods, analyses, data acquisition, interpretation of results will frequently be identified by the reviewers. To prevent these comments, the authors should aim for high quality research from the start of the study. Ultimately, the comments of the reviewers frequently enable to improve the manuscript. It is important to address these comments in an elegant constructive way, precisely answering each comment in detail.

Article tools

My recent searches

No recent searches.

My recently viewed abstracts