Author & Reviewer Answer Sheet Management

Submit New Answer Sheet

Upload your author responses to reviewer comments

Track & Edit Existing Submission

Access, Download, and edit your submitted answer sheets

Submission Guidelines

Important: Follow these guidelines to ensure smooth processing of your submission

Revision Requirements

  • Authors' Response Sheet: A separate document where you answer the questions posed by the reviewers. Fill in and download the sheet.
  • Highlighted Revisions: All changes must be marked in red font (Word .docx format) and reply to the comments in the text referring to the editor or reviewer query (if any). Be sure when you upload your revised version that the changes are clearly visible on the Word (.docx) file prior to resubmission.
  • Equations, Tables, and Graphs: Ensure all equations, tables, and graphs are in their original format and not in picture format.
  • Similarity Index: The similarity index of the study must be less than 10% (Turnitin report required).
  • AI Content: Zero tolerance for AI-generated content.
  • Language Quality: Ensure the revised file is free of any grammatical errors. Your study must be proofread, edited, and structured to eliminate grammatical errors.
  • Anonymous File: Remove all author details and save the file as anonymous.
Note: Submissions not meeting these requirements will be returned for corrections before further processing.

Method for Responding to Reviewers' Comments

1
Thank the Reviewer

Begin by thanking the reviewer for their time and valuable feedback. Acknowledge the specific points raised by the reviewer.

2
Address Each Comment Separately

Number or bullet-point each of the reviewer's comments. Provide a detailed response to each comment.

3
Be Specific and Direct

Clearly indicate the changes made in response to the comment. If no changes were made, explain why, using scientific reasoning or other justifications.

4
Refer to the Manuscript

Point to specific sections, page numbers, or line numbers in the manuscript where changes have been made or where the existing content already addresses the comment.

5
Be Polite and Professional

Even if you disagree with a comment, respond respectfully and provide a logical explanation.

6
Use a Consistent Format

Use a consistent format for each comment and response. Include the original comment, your response, and the location of the revision.

Response Examples

Below are examples of how to respond to different types of reviewer comments:

Example 1: Reviewer Suggestion Leading to a Revision
Reviewer's Comment: Author's Response: Location
"The introduction section is well-written but could benefit from a more detailed discussion of the existing literature on intercultural communication models. This would help to set the stage for your study more effectively." "Thank you for your suggestion. In response, we have added a more detailed discussion of intercultural communication models in the introduction section. Specifically, we have included references to the works of [Author A, Year], [Author B, Year], and [Author C, Year] on page 3, lines 45-67. This addition provides a stronger foundation for the study and aligns with the reviewer's recommendation." p.3
ln.45-67
Example 2: Reviewer Suggestion Not Leading to a Revision
Reviewer's Comment: Author's Response: Location
"I recommend expanding the scope of the discussion to include the economic implications of intercultural communication failures." "Thank you for this insightful comment. While we agree that the economic implications of intercultural communication failures are important, we believe that this topic is beyond the scope of the current study, which focuses specifically on communication strategies within educational institutions. We have, however, acknowledged this point in the limitations section of the discussion (page 15, lines 230-235), suggesting it as a potential area for future research." p.15
ln.230-235
Example 3: Reviewer Comment on Methodology
Reviewer's Comment: Author's Response: Location
"The sampling method is not clearly described. Please provide more details on how participants were selected." "We appreciate the reviewer's comment and have now clarified the sampling method in the methodology section. Specifically, we have added a description of the participant selection process on page 5, lines 120-130, which includes the criteria used for inclusion and the recruitment process. We hope this provides a clearer understanding of the methodology." p.5
ln.120-130
Example 4: Reviewer Comment Leading to a Clarification
Reviewer's Comment: Author's Response: Location
"The term 'cultural competence' is used throughout the paper, but is not clearly defined. Please provide a definition." "Thank you for highlighting this point. We have now provided a definition of 'cultural competence' at the first instance where it appears in the manuscript (page 4, line 85). We have defined it as 'the ability to effectively communicate and interact with people across cultures by understanding their cultural norms, values, and practices.' We hope this addresses the reviewer's concern." p.4
ln.85
Important Reminder: When responding to reviewers, always aim to demonstrate that you have carefully considered their comments. Whether you agree with the suggestion or not, your response should be clear, respectful, and supported by evidence or logical reasoning. This approach not only strengthens your manuscript but also fosters a positive relationship with the reviewers.