Below are examples and templates for decision letters to authors that Associate editors can use to add information and instructions beyond that already the ScholarOne templates. 

Major revision - Insufficient support in the study’s data for the stated conclusions

Case 1 - If the reviews are consistent and recommend concrete actions

• reviewers agree in their assessment,

• reviewers make concrete recommendations on how to fix overstatements,

• and you agree with those recommendations.

_______________________________________________________________________

Example 1 - complete decision letter replacing the ScholarOne template

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled “[insert title here]” to Integrative and Comparative Biology.  The manuscript explores [main topic: “elastic energy storage as a control mechanism”]. The main finding of the study is [main finding: “that the elastic energy stored in muscle tendons is not constant, but changes as a function of strain”].

   I received three overall supportive reviews, with all three reviewers agreeing that this manuscript is of [insert phrases that reflect overall assessment as per check boxes: “high scientific importance and relevant to a broad readership”].  The reviewers found that the manuscript [summarize main positive comments here: “is well written and mainly request that the authors more explicitly state assumptions, clarify terminology, and remove inconsistencies”].  The only major concerns are [summarize each major concern that you want the authors to address here: “requests for better explanations, in particular about the approach and the data interpretation”, followed by how you want that concern to be addressed: “Concerning those explanations, all three reviewers make several suggestions that require the authors to address implications and (simplifying) assumptions, and the reviewers suggest that the Discussion section is often an appropriate place to do so.”].  I hope that you will find the reviewers’ comments useful while revising your manuscript.

    My apologies for burdening you with additional work to revise your manuscript. Please note that ICB discourages multiple rounds of revision.  To ensure a single round of revision, please address all reviewer comments.  If you disagree or do not comply with a particular comment or suggestion, please explain your reasoning in your 'reply to the reviewer' document.

I am looking forward to the revised version of your manuscript.  Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me to ask for clarification during in the revision process if you feel that the suggestions in the reviews are unclear or conflicting, or if you have concerns about how best to address the reviewers’ comments.  Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to ICB.

Example 2 - appended comments at the bottom of the decision letter

Editors' Comments to the Author: 

The reviewers are overall supportive of the manuscript. Both reviewers raise concerns that can be addressed by revising the text, adding in the relevant information about the Methods as requested by Reviewer 1, and revising the Introduction as suggested by Reviewer 2.  

Given that this manuscript requires a second round of review (it is difficult for peer reviewers to assess scientific soundness when information on sample size and statistical procedures is incomplete), please complete these revisions quickly. When you submit your revision, please address each comment and query in your reply; if you decide not to comply with a particular request, please explain your decision. 

Major revision - Flawed data analysis (and poorly organized manuscript)

Example 1

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled “[insert title here]” to Integrative and Comparative Biology.  The manuscript explores [main topic: “elastic energy storage as a control mechanism”]. The main finding of the study is [main finding: “that the elastic energy stored in muscle tendons is not constant, but changes as a function of strain”].

   I received two overall supportive reviews, with both reviewers agreeing that this manuscript is of [insert phrases that reflect overall assessment: “topic is of considerable scientific interest and relevant to a broad audience”].  The reviewers also appreciate  [summarize main positive comments here: “the innovative approach and feel that these innovations will be highly relevant to the scientific community”].  However, both reviewers raise serious concerns about the quality of the manuscript, with the two main points of concern being presentation of the manuscript and the statistical analysis.

  Concerning the form, both reviewers criticize [insert main concerns here, plus suggested actions: “the amount of important material that is presented in the supplementary materials.  The reviewers point out that they found it difficult to follow the narrative of the study because so much relevant material was presented in the supplementary materials.  The reviewers suggest that the authors might want to focus this manuscript on a narrower,  yet broadly relevant set of findings to create a manuscript with a clearer and more cohesive narrative; for example by focusing on the scientific findings (such as the effect tendon cross section on energy storage) and omitting from the narrative aspects that focus on techniques (such as the importance of documenting deformations).”]  ICB aims to publish manuscripts that increase or change or current understanding and that are relevant to the SICB readership.  So the revision of this manuscript should not reduce its scope. 

    My apologies for burdening you with additional work to revise your manuscript. Please note that ICB discourages multiple rounds of revision.  To ensure a single round of revision, please address each of reviewers’ comments.  If you disagree or do not comply with a particular comment or suggestion, please explain your reasoning.

  I am looking forward to the revised version of your manuscript.  Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me to ask for clarification during in the revision process if you feel that the suggestions in the reviews are unclear or conflicting, or if you have concerns about how best to address the reviewers’ comments.  Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to ICB.

Example 2

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled “[title]” to Integrative and Comparative Biology.  I have received two reviews for your manuscript, both of which find the study highly interesting but also raise substantial concerns in particular about the data analysis.

  I appreciate that the study explores the functional morphology of gymnotiform swimmers, such as knifefish, which swim by undulating their anal fin.  The study finds that this swimming mode evolved independently in two fish lineages, with convergence in their morphology.  The study also explored whether morphological specialisation for gymnotiform swimming leads to performance trade-offs, but the study found no strong evidence for such trade-offs.

  Overall, the reviewers appreciated the scope and topic of the study.  However, both reviewers raise substantial concerns about the analysis that might affect the validity of the conclusions.  Reviewer 1 recommends consulting with a statistician to find a solution to the lack of phylogenetic corrections.  While the manuscript explicitly acknowledges this issue, the scientific community is likely to disregard such a study because of this limitation.  Reviewer 2 concurs on this point and raises two additional substantial concerns about the analysis.  First, the study does not account for body size effects in the performance metrics; and as with the previous concern, this limitation runs into the issue that we currently lack suitable methods to do so, yet such a lack does not change the fact that without such a correction for size effects the conclusions might be invalid.  Second, Reviewer 2 is concerned about the statistics approach, querying about testing for statistical power, correcting for multiple testing, and taking into account possible collinearity in the variables.

  The reviewers make several suggestions on how to strengthen the manuscript’s analysis, and I hope that you will find the reviewers’ comments useful.  My apologies for burdening you with additional work to revise your manuscript. Please note that ICB discourages multiple rounds of revision.  To ensure a single round of revision, please address each of reviewers’ comments.  If you disagree or do not comply with a particular comment or suggestion, please explain your reasoning.

  I am looking forward to the revised version of your manuscript.  Please don’t hesitate to reach out to me to ask for clarification during in the revision process if you feel that the suggestions in the reviews are unclear or conflicting, or if you have concerns about how best to address the reviewers’ comments.  Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to ICB.

Minor or major revision - Editor disagrees with one of the reviewers

If the suggestion is not feasible

• reviewer makes a concrete suggestion,

• but you want the authors NOT to execute that suggestion.

_______________________________________________

Example 1

  While Reviewer 3 recommends a more detailed introduction to reach a wider audience,  I cannot recommend this because ICB has a strict page limit.  Instead, the authors might consider increasing clarity by emphasizing concepts rather than by adding more explanations and detail.

Example 2 

Both reviewers had major concerns about the methods and the statistical analyses. I recommend the authors pay close attention to the statistical concerns the reviewers have presented and I recommend they consult a statistician to reanalyze their data and adjust their conclusions as appropriate to make this manuscript acceptable for publication. Be careful not to over-interpret the conclusions beyond the capabilities of the methodology and statistical power.  

The second reviewer suggested multiple new experiments (or redo of the current experiments) that likely are not practical in the timeframe of publication if this manuscript is to be included in the targeted issue. But authors may find them very useful to improve their methodology in future works.

Resubmission - requiring further minor revisions

If the reviewer asks for additional work and recommends concrete actions

• reviewers make additional suggestions not made in the first round of revisions,  which could be due to a change in reviewers (often a more palatable explanation even if it is not the case)

• reviewers make concrete recommendations on how to address concerns,

• and you agree with those recommendations.

_______________________________________________

Example

Thank you for re-submitting your manuscript entitled “[title here]” to Integrative and Comparative Biology.  I have received two peer reviews.   Integrative and Comparative Biology aims to send resubmitted manuscripts to the reviewers of the first submission; however, it is not always possible to have all original reviewers agree to a second round of reviews.

  I very much appreciate the authors’ thoughtful reply to the peer reviews and all the additional work that the authors have put into the revised manuscript, including replication experiments.  Overall, the reviewers find the study valuable and the findings compelling; I agree that the manuscript has been strengthened considerably by the revision.   In this second round of peer review, the reviewers voice just a few additional requests for clarification or requests to rephrase.  I agree with the reviewers and feel that the manuscript will be further strengthened by addressing these comments.  In particular the comments of Reviewer 3 concerning the title and the request for a discussion of the study’s ‘potential pitfalls and limitations’ should be addressed to avoid any impression of overstating.  I understand that my request is burdening you with additional work and I appreciate your continued cooperation and effort.  I am looking forward to your revised manuscript.