Hi Leanne,

you have my sympathy, I have been through the same process. The transcribing takes ages, often due to partipants mumbling, several speaking at the same time etc. etc. Often participants go on and on about something irrelevant and it takes takes to transcribe, while you know it won't be of value.

I know it is too late now, but the advice, on this forum, to get a quality microfone was a very good one.

Finally, although it was a pain, eventually I was happy that I had done the transcriptions myself, as I think it provides a much better understanding of the material one has collected.

Hi 4matt,

yes "How to read a paper" (Trisha Grishalm?), is about critically appraising a paper. It provides an approach, e.g. relevance of the paper, quality of the journal, credentials of the authors, inclusion and exclusion criteria, potential bias, will it change your practice etc. I think it is orientated on clinicians who need to assess literature and what impact this could have on their clinical practice.

I think the principles are OK, yet perhaps these are not specific enough for immunological studies.

Hi Moocow,

I had a very similar experience as Keenbean. I have contacted the editor who was very understanding and suggested to make changes as far I thought was reasonable.

I have made several minor changes. In the letter to the reviewers I explained my actions and why several of their suggestions were not followed.
I have resubmitted and am now waiting for the final reply.:-)

Hi Jimkin65,

I think Paralax is completely right. There seem to be two issues here:

1. You set it up, did the work, therefore you should be the first author.

2. There is a link between editor and your supervisor. Your supervisor may find it hard to admit that it is not really his work etc. etc. Whatever the reason for insisting to be the first auther, it probably will be hard to change this.

Hi Shimot,

I do not think it is that unusual to find results which are not completely in line with the literature. Even stronger, why would you do a project if you knew already in advance that the results would be exactly the same as described before?

Perhaps you could write something like:

" My research indicated this and this. This contrasts with the existing literature.
What could be potential explanations?
1. Results found in the literature are not that certain
2. Results could be depending on the circumstances e.g. apply in this industry yet not in the other
3. Results may be depend on how the research was done
4. Perhaps there could be a bias in my results, what could that be?
etc. etc."

By the way, just out of interest, what do you mean when you indicate that service quality depends on switching intention? Switching intention of what?

Hi Starlight,

just reacting to your first question. You indicated that the editor only wanted a few minor corrections and you have made these changes and resubmitted. This means that the editor seems happy with this version and most likely will publish your resubmitted paper. In my opinion it would be best to stick to that and just have that published.

If you really want your third version to be published, then I would contact the editor as quickly as possible. Yet be aware that if you have made major changes it could be that the new version is not acceptable for the editor.:-)

Hi Hydi,

I not know the difference between a thematic approach and a framework one. I know that the framework approach is often used in health care research. The idea it to have a relative good idea about that you are going to talk about (topic guide!), then to do all the interviews, then to put the data together, start looking for themes and based on that create a framework.

As such a framework approach is useful to identify themes and to use when time and resources are limited.

Please note that "grounded theory" is often used, this means that you analyse while you collect, while with a framework approach you collect things more or less all at once and then start analysing.

Hi EV,

you could try for each paper you have read to write a tiny summary with an indicated key word. Cut these out. Put all parts together with the same key words. Write a short passage about each key word based on the information you have just put together. Then juggle those short passages together into a logical sequence. Then try and connect the different parts, then add the introduction and the conclusion.
:-)

Hi Keenbean,

thank you for your extensive posting and for your specific advice. This is very helpful.
I think I will follow a similar line as you did: Acknowledge the reviewer's points, change the minor issues, explain politely why certain areas should not be changed and for what reason.

Also thanks to all other posters, appreciate it.

Sneaks,

yeah, the word count. I could also use it the other way round: I can only make minor changes taking the limited word count into account;-)

I know the reviewer's names yet I do not recongise them from the literature, otherwise could add a reference from them to make them happy!

Sue,

Funny, just posted something on your thread, now saw your remarks on here. Thanks for those.

Like you wrote must be very annoying to have to go through changing papers all the time. Perhaps it help to see that to a certain extent were all in the same boat.

I have seen the text of my paper so often, it has been fine tuned to often, they I just cannot find the energy to go through it again!

Hi Sue,

you mentioned that perhaps you were "not intelligent enough for academic writing". Presume tongue in cheek remark, as obviously the fact that you are writing various bits and editors want to publish it, shows the opposite.

Indeed I think it is perseverence that counts. However must admit you having to rewrite after a rewrite, that sounds very frustrating! As such you have my sympathy, do not give up!:-)

Hi Sneaks,

thanks for your suggestions.

Sorry for the confusion. When I wrote regarding the authors and the data analysis, I meant myself as one of them.

The problem with adding quotes is that there is a limit regarding the word count. I am just at the edge in words, and as such if I add something I need to take something else away.

Good point regarding asking a third unrelated person.

Perhaps other forum users have any suggestions? I would find that really useful, as it helps as a means of reflection.

Hi Sneaks,

thanks for your reply.

It is a study based on focus group interviews.

Reviewer 1 just wanted some changes of wording regarding cetain elements, which is fine.

Reviewer 2 remarked a lot more on content, expressed that certain quotes were not representative for what the text indicated. She advised a change of quotes. Obviously the authors have spent a lot of time on the actual data analysis and have specifically used those as being the best ones. In other words using other ones would, in my opinion, weaken the argument, the text needs to be fully changed, this again would have an impact on the introduction and conclusion.

She also thought that the title did not completely represent what comes forward in the paper, while in our view is says exactly what is in the tin.

Do you know whether reviewer remarks are just suggestions or do they have to be followed?

Dear all,

I have just received feedback from a journal that they are interested in publishing my submission, subject to addressing the remarks of the peer reviewers.

Reviewer 1 seems perfectly happy with what is written and has only made very minor corrrections, which I am completely happy with.

Reviewer 2 expects major changes, which would not only be a lot of work, yet it would, in my opinion, completely ruin the congruence of the paper. In other words it would make it a "bad" paper.

I am tempted to say that I go with reviewer 1, to mention to reviewer 2 that the paper was created over many months with very careful considerations by all authors and that we do not agree with such extensive alterations.

However I am also a bit anxious that the paper would be rejected, and that I have to start the submission process again for another journal, which would mean that adjustments would be required anyway (based on the submission protocol, which for each journal is slightly different).

Any thoughts?