Abstract:Background: The process of preparing a scientific manuscript is intricate, encompassing several critical stages, including pre-writing, research development, drafting, peer review, editing, publication, dissemination, and access. Among these, the peer review process (PRP) stands out as a pivotal component requiring seamless collaboration among editors, reviewers, and authors. Reviewers play a crucial role in assessing the manuscript's quality and providing constructive feedback, which authors must adeptly navigate to enhance their work and meet journal standards. This process can often appear daunting and time-consuming, as authors are required to address numerous comments and requested changes. Authors are encouraged to perceive reviewers as consultants rather than adversaries, viewing their critiques as opportunities for improvement rather than personal attacks. Methods: Opinion article. Aim: To equip authors with practical strategies for engaging effectively in the PRP and improving their publication acceptance rates. Results: Key guidelines include thoroughly understanding and prioritizing feedback, maintaining professionalism, and systematically addressing each comment. In cases of significant disagreement or misunderstanding, authors have the option to refer the issue to the editor. Crafting a well-organized and scientific "response to reviews" along with the revised manuscript can substantially increase the likelihood of acceptance. Best practices for writing an effective response to reviews include expressing gratitude, addressing major revisions first, seeking opinions from co-authors and colleagues, and adhering strictly to journal guidelines. Emphasizing the importance of planning responses, highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and conducting a final review ensures all corrections are properly documented. Conclusion: By following these guidelines, authors can enhance their manuscripts' quality, foster positive relationships with reviewers, and ultimately contribute to scholarly advancement.

Navigating the disappointment of manuscript rejection: An author's dialogue with a reviewer and editor of tropical doctor (TD)

How to handle a rejection. Teaching course presentation at the 21st European Stroke Conference, Lisboa, May 2012

Decoding the Rejection Code: Understanding Why Articles Get Axed

Editorial: How to develop a quality research article and avoid a journal desk rejection

Learnings From 1000 Rejections

How Visualization PhD Students Cope with Paper Rejections

Reviewing the review process: Identifying sources of delay

Reason analyses on rejection during the final decision meetings held for endocrine manuscripts of Chinese Journal of Practical Internal Medicine

Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers

How can editors better serve authors?

Thank You to Our Reviewers

Fate of Manuscripts Rejected by a Specialty Psychiatry Journal: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Why did we reject your paper?

Pathways to publishing a scientific article: listen to the editor

Publishing in high quality journals: perspectives from overworked and unpaid reviewers

Writing manuscripts for peer review

Reducing the stress of revisions: A chat with Scott W. Hiebert

Acknowledgement of reviewers 2011

Readership Awareness Series – Paper 14: The Submission Dilemma – How to Choose a Journal?

Publishing Without Perishing: A Guide to the Successful Reporting of Clinical Data

Letter to the editor: Against the Resilience of Rejected Manuscripts