My paper was rejected from a journal. However, remarks of one of the reviewers were useful, and I incorporated them into the next version of the paper.
Is there a general pattern of acknowledging such contribution (in the Acknowledgement section)?
Or should I leave it, not to advertise information that the paper was rejected from a particular journal?
(As a side note, this paper was rejected two times, each time with one positive review, and one of type "OK, but I think it is not of general interest".)
EDIT:
In my case (as in general in my field) reviewers were anonymous. (Otherwise I would just use their names.)
And in my case the helpful comments were in positive reviews (but I doubt whether it changes anything).
Answer
Piotr has asked that I add one of my comments as an answer. Please note that I am a fairly inexperienced academic, so don't take anything I say too seriously!
Firstly, I'll reiterate one of my comments on Peter Jansson's answer:
You really really should not mention journal names or the fact that the paper was previously rejected. The journal you are publishing in would not appreciate it! (It makes it clear they were only your second, or in this case third, choice.)
Since you say that the helpful remarks of the earlier reviewer were about grammar, typos and a few small changes throughout the document rather than something that substantially changed the exposition of your paper, I think that conveying your thanks directly to the reviewer via the journal's editor (which you say you have already done) is probably a more appropriate acknowledgment, especially given the difficulty of making it clear you are thanking a reviewer from a different journal while not mentioning any names or the fact that the paper was rejected.
No comments:
Post a Comment