This question requires you to download and read 3 resources provided in ATTACHMENT (the paper in question 3 resource file ). These documents are (i) the original submission of a manuscript to a journal (ii) the comments of one reviewer in assessment of the manuscript, and (iii) the resubmitted manuscript, amended by the authors in response to the reviewer’s comments (and also amended in response to additional comments from a second reviewer – you have not been provided with these second reviewer’s comments).
These are real documents relating to a paper that was subsequently published. The 3 documents you have been provided with have been censored to obscure the identity of the authors. Although there is no doubt you could still, with effort, identify the final publication that the 3 documents pertain to, doing so will likely be obvious to your assessor and will not improve your grade.
|Please answer the following questions||Marks (25)|
|a) Name the appropriate reporting guideline for this study design and describe how well the amended manuscript adheres (or not) to this guideline (word limit = 500 words)||6|
|b) Suggest a title and 4 keywords for the manuscript||4|
|c) Draft a formal response letter to the journal, imagining you were responding to the reviewer’s comments and resubmitting the amended version of the manuscript.To do this you will need to use the reviewer’s comments along with the original and amended versions of the manuscript to see the changes that were made.|
Note: some of the changes that were made in the amended manuscript relate to reviewers comments which you have not seen. In your letter, respond only to the concerns of the reviewer that you have been provided with, and refer to changes that relate to those comments.