Revised text should focus on the comments/recommendations and be of appropriate length. There are no page limits for the revisions, but content and clarity are preferable to volume. Be sure to cite the page where those changes appear or, clearly explain why changes were not made. Lack of adoption of a given suggestion must be justified.Įach 'ARS response' should be sufficiently detailed to stand on its own. The CONTENT of the response should indicate that the scientists have made all reasonable efforts to accommodate the suggestions made. The TONE of the response should be neutral and never defensive or condescending.
Project revisions professional#
The response should be professional and convey a respectful difference of opinion. It is entirely acceptable to disagree with a panel recommendation. While all recommendations must be carefully considered, there is no requirement that all be incorporated.
(See Appendix 10: Sample Peer Review Recommendations and ARS Responses)When comments involve recommendations or questions about project objectives, NPLs share responsibility for formulating the response. In most cases, scientists review and respond to the guidance provided. Responses are needed ONLY where a response box is present. Panel Recommendations will contain expandable text boxes labeled “ARS Response” for answering the queries and recommendations of the panel. This describes the level of revision required, the timing of revision and whether the revised project plan will be re-reviewed (Go to the OSQR Handbook). After the peer review, scientists will receive a composite 'Action Class' score.
0 kommentar(er)
