1. Strategi Memperbaiki dan Menyiapkan Naskah (Manuscript) Hasil Review
Akhmad Sabarudin
Editor in Chief

2. Why is revision important and necessary?
Which procedure do you prefer?
Send out a sloppily prepared manuscript -> get rejected after 1-2 months - send out again only a few days later  get rejected again….
Take 1-2 months to prepare the manuscript  get the first decision after 1-2 months  revise carefully within time limitation….accepted

4. Revision before submission
Revision before submission can prevent early rejection
What can I do to ensure my paper is in the best possible state prior to submission?
Ask colleagues to take a look and be critical
Check that everything meets the requirements set out in the Guide for Authors – again!
Check that the scope of the paper is appropriate for the selected journal – change journal rather than submit inappropriately 4

5. Revision before submission
Revision before submission can prevent early rejection
What can I do to ensure my paper is in the best possible state prior to submission?
If necessary, get a colleague or approved editing service to improve the language and ensure that the manuscript possesses the three “C”s (Clarity, Conciseness, Correctness)
Ensure that the literature cited is balanced and that the aims and purpose of the study, and the significance of the results, are clear
Use a spellchecker 5

7. Hasil Review Manuscript (Naskah)
Decision
Recommendation
Accept
Publish as is
Optional minor revision
Revise
Minor revision
Major revision
Reject
Encourage resubmission after substantive changes
Strongly against publication

8. Strategy to Revise
Revision should be made according to Reviewer`s and Editor`s comments
Deciding What to Change
Revising the Paper

9. Deciding What to Change
We must address all comments
We can’t pick-and-choose which comments to address
Even minor comments need to be addressed
Address does not always mean change
Author and co-authors should decide what to change, and what to defend
Often, changing is the easiest route (demonstrates openness to suggestions)

10. Deciding What to Change
Change does not always mean revamp
Easy changes include:
Rewording
Adding extra references
Adding an extra paragraph, table, or figure
Adding an appendix
More difficult changes include:
Modifying your central hypothesis
Modifying your main algorithm
Redoing an experiment

11. Deciding What to Change
Always change technical errors
It’s the reviewer’s job to find these
Even minor errors can cause doubt
Always change errors in references
Skilled reviewers know the history better than newer authors
You don’t want to get off on the wrong foot with experts in the field by not citing the correct papers in the correct order

12. Deciding What to Change
Always change parts which yielded “I didn’t understand”-type comments
If the reviewer didn’t understand it, the readers might not either
The effort required to defend this point will be more than the effort required to change the paper
“I didn’t understand” is a polite way of saying “you didn’t explain clearly enough”

13. Deciding What to Change
Always change parts which are have been mentioned by multiple reviewers
If two or more reviewers make similar comments, the readers will likely have the same comments
Repeated comments stand out to the editor
The effort required to defend this point will be more than the effort required to change the paper

14. Revising the Paper Divide the comments into two categories:
Easy changes
Difficult changes
Do the difficult changes first
This might take some time (especially if you need to repeat an experiment)
Easy changes might be eliminated
Consult with your co-authors on changes

16. Revision after submission (Post-referee revision)
Carefully study the reviewers’ comments and prepare a detailed letter of response
Respond to all points; even if you disagree with a reviewer, provide a polite, scientifically solid rebuttal rather than ignore their comment
Provide page and line numbers when referring to revisions made in the manuscript
Perform additional calculations, computations, or experiments if required; these usually serve to make the final paper stronger 16

17. Revision after submission
State specifically what changes you have made to address the reviewers’ comments, mentioning the page and line numbers where changes have been made
Avoid repeating the same response over and over; if a similar comment is made by multiple people explain your position once and refer back to your earlier response in responses to other reviewers or the editor 17

18. Revision after submission
Clearly differentiate responses from reviewers’ comments by using a different font style
Reviewer’s Comments: It would also be good to acknowledge that geographic routing as you describe it is not a complete routing solution for wireless networks, except for applications that address a region rather than a particular node. Routing between nodes requires further machinery, which detracts from the benefits of geographic routing, and which I don't believe you have made practical.
Author’s reply: We agree and will add an appropriate caveat. Note that for data-centric storage (name-based exact-match and range queries for sensed events), the storage and query processing mechanisms "natively" address packets geographically – without a "node-to-location" database.
Dr. Ramesh Govindan,
Professor, Computer Science Department, University of Southern California