https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3624-5208
ABSTRACT
There have been a couple of times when we have reviewed papers that are essentially publishable as initially submitted; the “criticisms” were more along the lines of constructive suggestions that the authors might want to consider when they submitted a revised version of the paper, but those changes were not required. However, a much more common experience is for the authors to receive a series of comments from multiple reviewers. Most of those comments are critical for the authors to address, to ensure that the data in the paper are of sufficient quality and rigor, with adequate controls, to support the stated conclusions. That said, reviewers sometimes make requests, with the best of intentions, which might be reasonably considered as “beyond the scope of the present study”. Thus, there needs to be a balance between addressing each and every comment of a review and completing a story even though there are additional avenues and questions that remain unexplored. Sometimes, even after a repeated round(s) of review, such questions linger and may impede acceptance of a worthy study.
We think it is time to establish a more formal “mechanism” for authors to address reviewers’ comments with a side box that would be labeled “Study limitations”. The rationale is as follows: The editors of Autophagy acknowledge that most studies represent a snapshot in time, rather than a conclusion of a project. Along these lines, these studies can be improved, and reviewers of papers often have constructive suggestions for additional experiments. However, we also realize that it is not always possible to address every reviewer comment, or to do so in a reasonable amount of time. Accordingly, we are now offering an additional avenue for authors to address some of these comments. Specifically, we encourage authors to provide in the revised manuscript a short description of the limitations of the current study that would be published in a side box under the title “Study limitations” at the end of the Discussion. The authors would be encouraged to state the remaining unresolved issues clearly and briefly, and why they are not being addressed at the present time. This format is not intended to allow authors to ignore critical comments from the reviewers. Rather, it is meant to be used to indicate that a request involves the addition of a new experimental system (such as an animal model when one is not currently being used), or a new methodology that is not readily available in the researcher’s lab, or the inclusion of clinical samples when they are not integral to the focus of the study.
An example of such a response might be the following:
Study limitations
The current issue of the journal includes the first paper that utilizes a “Study limitations” box.
The editor handling the manuscript will be encouraged to consider the study limitations box as part of the formal response to the reviewers’ comments. The idea is that this option could be included so that authors do not have to address every comment, yet the missing information could be acknowledged up front. Conversely, an editor could also decide that the manuscript does not provide a sufficient advance, based in part on the stated limitations.
Note that this change is not meant to alter the fact that the data in the paper must be of sufficient quality and substance to support the conclusions of the manuscript. Rather, the “Study limitations” box allows authors to note limitations of the study and provides readers with a quick indication of remaining issues. This box should not be included in an initial submission, and, in general, is not even appropriate in response to the first round of reviews. Rather, we propose that the “Study limitations” box be used, if necessary, as part of a response to a second round of revisions. Thus, if there continue to be unresolved issues during a second revision, the “Study limitations” box included in the revised manuscript as part of the rebuttal is intended to help allow the editors to make a final decision rather than having the paper sent back for a third round of reviews; papers rarely change substantially at that stage of the process, and the necessity of addressing the remaining issues may be a matter of opinion.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).