Q: What should I do if I cannot understand a peer reviewer's comment?
I have submitted a paper to a journal with impact factor 4.2 in the field of computer science. My paper is accepted with major revision. However, a reviewer commented that the imitations of the proposed solution should be further discussed. I did not understand what he means with "imitation". My paper focuses on pattern recognition. Can you please if you can help me because to understand the reviewers’ comment. thank you.
It is difficult to comment on the reviewers’ concern without going through the entire manuscript. Broadly speaking, it seems from your description that the reviewer is suggesting that you include a discussion on the proposed solution from the perspective of the imitation models. Generally, imitation models are designed for any step of description of objects with high complexity or when extrapolated to a large scale increasing the number of internal and external relations.
We would suggest discussing the concern with your colleagues and/or supervisor to decide the correct approach for revision. If you want to confirm the reviewer’s intended meaning, you may write a letter to the editor of the journal requesting further explanation on the comment.
Suggested reading:
Too late to answer this. But in case, if it helps. I'm pretty sure the reviewer meant "limitations" and it's just a typo.
Hi, Aravind! Yes, two years late. :-) Actually, no. Knowledge is incremental. And you are right. Now that we look back at it, it probably should have been 'limitations.' Thanks for the inputs. And welcome to the forum! :-)
This content belongs to the Journal submission & peer review Stage