LAUSR

In this editorial, we reflect on the review response document that is crafted by authors in parallel to the revision that they undertake on their paper following a ‘revise and resubmit’ decision. We draw from our cumulative experiences as authors and editors to offer our view on how authors can construct a review response document that effectively addresses the concerns of the review team. We understand that from an author's perspective, writing a review response document may entail a mix of thoughts and feelings. This is because, as authors, we may view review comments in a number of ways: as an obstacle to getting our work published; as supportive critique to help us improve our work; as a scholarly obligation to engage with other scholars on topics of mutual interest; or even as the opportunity to engage with the review team in a scholarly conversation, albeit mediated by the review ‘system’ and the editors. Given these various views, it is not surprising that authors approach the writing of a review response document in different ways. Some authors may view the writing of this document as a chore, something that needs to be done to include as a supplement to a revised manuscript in a review process. Others may view the document as an opportunity both to inform the review team and, more importantly, to have a respectful, constructive conversation with scholars who have an interest in their work. Some may view the document as a useful reminder of all the tasks that need to be done during the revision process. Others may be quite annoyed by the need to write this document, since they may feel that the review team does not trust the author(s) to do a good job of the revision and therefore need to micromanage the process. At the ISJ, we advocate for reflective, respectful, and engaged intellectual conversation between authors and the review team. Overall, a review response document is considered as both a communication and an assessment tool in the publication process. In the following paragraphs, we elaborate on those characteristics that we consider the hallmark of healthy and productive interactions between authors and the review team.