To facilitate the evaluation of revised text, I suggest that you provide
a concise, point-by-point listing of the significant changes that you made in response to your reviewer's comments. List
each major comment you received in a table, and please number each comment. Then, describe the changes you made in response
to the reviewer's comments (and where these changes were made in your revised text). Alternatively, you may rebut any
challenges you consider inappropriate provided that you explain why. Minor comments should not be listed in the table, but
you should attend to them in your revision, as they will undoubtedly improve the quality of your writing.
| |
|
Summary of reviewer's comment
|
Your response
|
Location in revised text
|
|
Examples:
1. Jane said she didn't see the relevance of the article by Smith and Jones (2002) to my paper.
|
I rewrote the introduction to the paragraph in which I reviewed Smith and Jones' research, making it more explicit that this
research influenced the choice of methods that are commonly used in this field.
|
2nd paragraph, page 1
|
|
2. Jane suggested that I delete some of the background details from the Introduction; she thought they were too basic and
that the target audience would already know that information.
|
I discussed this with both my readers after class. John said that he didn't know all those details, and that he appreciated
the extended background section. So, I decided to keep all the details I presented in the background section, but to revise
it for conciseness.
|
Paragraphs 2-5
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|