In my last editorial as HRDI’s editor-in-chief I would like to follow up my editorial in volume 21, issue 1, where I discussed how to avoid a desk reject, by presenting some recommendations about how to respond to editor and reviewer comments. In doing so I am drawing on my experience of writing editorial letters for the past 3 years, and a symposium that took place during the recent University Forum for HRD conference, held at the University of Northumbria, UK from 6 to 8 June 2018. I am also taking the opportunity in this editorial to pay tribute to one of HRDI’s former managing editors, Tracey Brown, who sadly died in April 2018.
Responding to editor and reviewer comments
While the advice I provide in this editorial might seem obvious to experienced authors, for early career academics the review process can seem a somewhat daunting process. It is for this and several other reasons I have been motivated to provide advice on how to respond to editor and reviewer comments. During my time as HRDI editor-in-chief I have been variously perplexed or frustrated by a minority of authors who either do not appear to take the review process seriously or who assume an invitation to ‘revise and submit’ constitutes a polite way to communicate an ultimate rejection of their manuscript. I believe that the majority of HRDI reviewers are constructive and respectful when composing their feedback. Nevertheless, it is in the nature of the review process that the majority of feedback on your paper is unlikely to consist of superlative commentaries on your study’s methodology or paper’s theoretical contribution. The purpose of the peer review system is to provide recommendations to the editor regarding the manuscript’s suitability for the journal as well as suggestions and advice to authors about ways they can improve their paper. For this reason, even experienced researchers are known to dread receipt of an editor’s letter and reviewer comments as they are forced to engage with an unknown audience’s evaluation of a piece of work that will probably have taken many years to produce.
In common with most other peer-reviewed journals HRDI reviewers and editors have different options to choose from when it comes to making recommendations about a paper once it has been reviewed. A small number of authors do receive the happy news that their manuscript is subject to minor revisions following the first round of reviews. If a manuscript is not rejected after peer review, authors are much more likely to be told that their manuscript is subject to either a ‘revise and resubmit’ or a ‘major’ revision decision. An invitation to revise and resubmit communicates to an author that the paper requires a significant number of revisions. At the same time, it also indicates that based upon the reviewers’ recommendations the editor believes the manuscript has the potential to make a contribution to the HRD literature in general, and to HRDI in particular. The revisions required to manuscripts by authors who receive a ‘revise and resubmit’ decision will be more extensive than authors who receive a ‘major’ revision decision. A ‘major’ decision signals to authors that are required to extensive revisions but based on the reviewers’ recommendations the editor believes these are more achievable than a manuscript that has been given a ‘revise and resubmit’ offer.
There are several ways in which authors approach the paper revision process. When HRDI editors write to authors to communicate their decision we aim to guide the author through the reviewers’ comments and sometimes include comments of our own. This is often the case when we receive three different recommendations from three different reviewers. In these cases, the editor’s letter needs to be carefully scrutinised as the letter should provide guidance to authors regarding which recommendations or clarifications are the most important and need to be addressed. At HRDI it is standard practice to ask authors to compose a table with two columns, one column with editor and reviewers’ comments, and the other with authors’ responses which detail how they have addressed these comments. By systematically reading and addressing each comment an author is less likely to omit a comment or recommendation. Once an author has submitted the revised version of their manuscript, it is most likely this will be returned to the original reviewers for further comment. If one thing is guaranteed to raise the ire of reviewers, it is the sense that their recommendations have been ignored. This does not mean that authors are required to undertake all the revisions reviewers suggest. However, authors do need to explain and justify why they have not undertaken a particular recommended revision or attended to a request for clarification.
This brings me to my final suggestion, which is a simple one. When you are responding to the editor and reviewers please remember to be respectful. Although you may not agree with everything they say, most published authors would say their papers have been significantly improved as a result of the peer review process.
I would like to thank all reviewers who have engaged with and commented on manuscripts during my term as editor-in-chief. Without you, the journal would simply not exist. I am now handing the baton to Jessica Li, whom I know will work to develop the journal and extend its presence. It has been a pleasure to work with her and Rajashi Ghosh these past 3 years.
A tribute to Tracey Brown, HRDI managing editor 2015–2016
Tracey Brown acted as HRDI’s managing editor during my first 8 months as HRDI editor-in-chief from September 2015 to May 2016, before I moved to my current university when Katrin Scherschel took over the managing editor role. Some members of HRDI’s editorial board will remember meeting Tracey during the 2016 AHRD conference in Jacksonville, Florida.
Tracey died in April 2018 at the age of 33, having experienced two separate cancers. She left behind two young children, and her husband Steve. She undertook the managing editor role with a customary enthusiasm. Although the role was just one of her many work responsibilities, Tracey demonstrated a willingness to develop in the role to an extent I have rarely witnessed in the workplace. Tracey’s desire to learn and create a positive relationship to all aspects of her work was one to which many of us aspire and through our research and work we also hope to facilitate for others. Tracey is deeply missed by her close family, friends and work colleagues. I remain immensely grateful to her that she helped to make my transition to the editor-in-chief role a smooth process. We all miss her positive approach to life and her warm presence.