Scholz F (2022) Writing and publishing a scientific paper. ChemTexts 8:8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00160-7

Article  Google Scholar 

McGrail MR, Rickard CM, Jones R (2006) Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. High Educ Res Dev 25:19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500453053

Article  Google Scholar 

Johnston J, Wilson S, Rix E, Pit SW (2014) Publish or perish: strategies to help rural early career researchers increase publication output. Rural Remote Health 14:372–377

Google Scholar 

Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K (2014) Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, and a survival guide. EJIFCC 25:227–243

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Annesley TM (2011) Top 10 tips for responding to reviewer and editor comments. Clin Chem 57:551–554

CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Gabbaï FP, Chirik PJ (2018) Dos and don’ts: thoughts on how to respond to reviewer comments. Organometallics 37:2655

Article  Google Scholar 

Ensom MHH (2011) Improving the chances of manuscript acceptance: how to address peer reviewers’ comments. Can J Hosp Pharm 64:389–391

PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Nahata MC, Sorkin EM (2019) Responding to manuscript reviewer and editor comments. Ann Pharmacother 53:959–961

Article  Google Scholar 

Hiemstra PS (2018) How to write a response to the reviewers of your manuscript. Breathe 14:319–321

Article  Google Scholar 

Hunt MJ, Ochmanska M, Cilulko-Dolega J (2019) How to write an effective response letter to reviewers. Med Sci Pulse 13:60–63

Article  Google Scholar 

Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD (2019) Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ 7:e8247. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Curran-Everett D (2017) The thrill of the paper, the agony of the review. Adv Physiol Educ 41:338–340. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00069.2017

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2020) The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. Int Orthop 44:413–415

Article  Google Scholar 

Hites RA (2021) How to convince an editor to accept your paper quickly. Sci Total Environ 798:149243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149243

CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Johnson SH (1996) Dealing with conflicting reviewers’ comments. Nurse Author Ed 6:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4910.1996.tb00365.x

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Adib S, Nimehchisalem V (2021) Reasons for manuscript rejection at internal and peer-review stages. Int J Educ Lit Stud 9:2–8

Article  Google Scholar 

Kim SD, Petru M, Gielecki J, Loukas M (2019) Causes of manuscript rejection and how to handle a rejected manuscript. In: Shoja M, Arynchyna A, Loukas M, D'Antoni AV, Buerger SM, Karl  M et al (eds) A guide to the scientific career. Hoboken, Wiley, pp 419–422

Chapter  Google Scholar 

Ware M (2008) Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Citeseer. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.9676&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 17 May 2022

Ralph P (2016) Practical suggestions for improving scholarly peer review quality and reducing cycle times. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 38:13

Google Scholar 

Rasmussen SC (2020) Peer review-critical feedback or necessary evil? Substantia 4:5–6

Google Scholar 

Agarwal R (2013) Editorial notes. Inf Syst Res 24:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2013.0476

Article  Google Scholar 

Street C, Ward KW (2019) Cognitive bias in the peer review process: understanding a source of friction between reviewers and researchers. ACM SIGMIS Database Adv Inf Syst 50:52–70

Article  Google Scholar 

Barroga E (2020) Innovative strategies for peer review. J Korean Med Sci 35:e138–e138. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar