112 PRS Proofreading and Editing Service PhD Experts • All Academic Areas • Fast Turnaround • High Quality much more complicated than others, and each situation unique, but below you’ll find a brief discussion of three main categories of criticism that often arise in the letters academic and scientific authors receive from editors. 7.3.1 Formatting, Structure and Referencing Style One of the easiest forms of criticism to deal with is that addressing noncompliance with journal guidelines regarding the formatting, structure and referencing style used in a paper. If, for instance, the letter you’ve received informs you that you haven’t followed the journal guidelines in the structure and layout of your paper, in the formatting of your tables or perhaps in the citation and referencing style you’ve used, and those are the only problems mentioned, they can be easily resolved. If the letter is a conditional acceptance based on your improving these aspects of your paper, then it’s simply a matter of complying (see Chapters 3 & 5 of this Guide). Reply to the editor with thanks for the helpful criticism and explain that you understand the problems, are beginning revisions and will be sending the edited paper back as soon as possible (or within a certain time frame if one has been given). Because it takes a good deal of work to reformat a paper carefully, however, and the format required differs considerably from journal to journal, it’s a good idea to be certain that reformatting for the same journal will be worth the effort. So if the letter you received only suggests that the editor might reconsider your paper if you resolve the problems identified, or simply points out the problems as the reason for not accepting the paper, it would be best if you wish to continue pursuing publication with the journal to confirm that your efforts will in fact result in serious consideration. Reply to the editor PARt III: commUnIcAtIng wItH JoURnAl edItoRs: sUBmIssIon, AccePtAnce, RevIsIon And ReJectIon