In this fictional research meeting, lead author Lina, co-author Omar and supervisor Huda prepare a response to critical reviews of an interview study about university advising.
01Read the Arabic conversation
الرَّدُّ عَلَى نَقْدِ الْمُحَكِّمِينَ
لِينَا: وَصَلَتْنَا مَلَاحَظَاتُ الْمُحَكِّمَيْنِ عَلَى دِرَاسَتِنَا عَنْ صُعُوبَاتِ الْوُصُولِ إِلَى الْإِرْشَادِ الْجَامِعِيِّ. قَرَأْتُهَا أَوَّلًا بِانْزِعَاجٍ، لَكِنَّنِي أُرِيدُ الْآنَ أَنْ نُحَوِّلَهَا إِلَى خُطَّةِ مُرَاجَعَةٍ وَاضِحَةٍ.
عُمَرُ: أَقْتَرِحُ أَنْ نَفْصِلَ بَيْنَ نَقْدٍ يَكْشِفُ نَقْصًا حَقِيقِيًّا، وَسُوءِ فَهْمٍ سَبَّبَتْهُ صِيَاغَتُنَا، وَطَلَبٍ يَتَجَاوَزُ سُؤَالَ الدِّرَاسَةِ. لَيْسَ كُلُّ اعْتِرَاضٍ مِنَ النَّوْعِ نَفْسِهِ.
هُدَى: وَلَا نَحْكُمُ عَلَى الْمَلَاحَظَةِ مِنْ نَبْرَتِهَا وَحْدَهَا. قَدْ تَكُونُ الْعِبَارَةُ حَادَّةً وَالْمُشْكِلَةُ حَقِيقِيَّةً؛ مَسْؤُولِيَّتُنَا أَنْ نَفْحَصَ الْحُجَّةَ، وَنُجِيبَ بِأَدَبٍ وَدِقَّةٍ، دُونَ افْتِرَاضِ نِيَّةِ صَاحِبِهَا.
لِينَا: الْمَلَاحَظَةُ الْأُولَى تَقُولُ إِنَّنَا لَمْ نُوَضِّحْ كَيْفَ اخْتَرْنَا الْمُشَارِكِينَ. دَعَوْنَا أَرْبَعِينَ طَالِبًا، وَأَجْرَيْنَا مُقَابَلَاتٍ مَعَ ثَمَانِيَةَ عَشَرَ مُتَطَوِّعًا، لَكِنَّ النَّصَّ لَا يَذْكُرُ عَدَدَ الْمَدْعُوِّينَ.
عُمَرُ: هَذَا نَقْصٌ يَجِبُ تَصْحِيحُهُ. سَأُضِيفُ طَرِيقَةَ الدَّعْوَةِ وَعَدَدَ الْمَدْعُوِّينَ وَالْمُسْتَجِيبِينَ، وَأُوَضِّحُ أَنَّ الْمُشَارَكَةَ طَوْعِيَّةٌ. فَمَنْ يَقْبَلُ الْمُقَابَلَةَ قَدْ تَخْتَلِفُ تَجْرِبَتُهُ عَنْ تَجْرِبَةِ مَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَجِبْ لَنَا.
هُدَى: وَيَجِبُ أَنْ يَنْعَكِسَ ذَلِكَ عَلَى الِاسْتِنْتَاجِ أَيْضًا. عِبَارَةُ «يُعَانِي طُلَّابُ الْجَامِعَةِ» أَوْسَعُ مِمَّا تَسْمَحُ بِهِ الْمُقَابَلَاتُ. لِنَنْسِبِ الْخِبْرَاتِ إِلَى الْمُشَارِكِينَ، مَعَ بَيَانِ حُدُودِ نَقْلِهَا إِلَى سِيَاقَاتٍ أُخْرَى.
لِينَا: سَأُعَدِّلُ الْخُلَاصَةَ وَالْمُلَخَّصَ مَعًا. لَا يَكْفِي أَنْ نُضِيفَ تَحَفُّظًا فِي آخِرِ الْبَحْثِ، ثُمَّ نَتْرُكَ فِي أَوَّلِهِ ادِّعَاءً عَامًّا يَقْرَؤُهُ كَثِيرُونَ دُونَ بَقِيَّةِ التَّفَاصِيلِ.
عُمَرُ: الْمُحَكِّمُ الثَّانِي يَسْأَلُ لِمَاذَا لَا نَعْرِضُ نِسَبًا تُمَثِّلُ جَمِيعَ الطُّلَّابِ. يَبْدُو أَنَّهُ فَهِمَ الدِّرَاسَةَ عَلَى أَنَّهَا اسْتِبَانَةٌ وَاسِعَةٌ، بَيْنَمَا هِيَ مُقَابَلَاتٌ لِفَهْمِ تَجَارِبَ مُحَدَّدَةٍ.
هُدَى: هَلْ سَاهَمَ عُنْوَانُ الْجَدْوَلِ فِي هَذَا الْفَهْمِ؟ كَتَبْنَا «تَوْزِيعُ الْمُشْكِلَاتِ» دُونَ تَحْدِيدِ مَا نَعُدُّهُ. وَحْدَةُ الْعَدِّ هِيَ الْمُقَابَلَةُ الَّتِي وَرَدَ فِيهَا الْمَوْضُوعُ، وَلَيْسَتْ جَمِيعَ حَالَاتِ الْمُشْكِلَةِ.
لِينَا: صَحِيحٌ؛ سَأُسَمِّيهِ «الْمَوْضُوعَاتُ الْوَارِدَةُ فِي الْمُقَابَلَاتِ»، وَأَشْرَحُ وَحْدَةَ الْعَدِّ. نُصَحِّحُ الْغُمُوضَ، لَكِنَّ الْأَعْدَادَ لَنْ تَتَحَوَّلَ بِذَلِكَ إِلَى تَقْدِيرٍ لِانْتِشَارِ الْمُشْكِلَةِ فِي الْجَامِعَةِ كُلِّهَا.
عُمَرُ: سَنَكْتُبُ فِي الرَّدِّ أَنَّ الْمَلَاحَظَةَ كَشَفَتْ غُمُوضًا فِي الْعَرْضِ، وَنُشِيرُ إِلَى التَّعْدِيلِ. لَنْ نَكْتَفِيَ بِقَوْلِ «أَسَاءَ الْمُحَكِّمُ الْفَهْمَ»، لِأَنَّ الْقَارِئَ الْآخَرَ قَدْ يَفْهَمُ الْعِبَارَةَ بِالطَّرِيقَةِ نَفْسِهَا.
هُدَى: أَمَّا طَلَبُ مُتَابَعَةِ الطُّلَّابِ سَنَةً كَامِلَةً، فَيَحْتَاجُ إِلَى نِقَاشٍ. هَلْ يُعَالِجُ خَلَلًا فِي إِجَابَتِنَا الْحَالِيَّةِ، أَمْ يَقْتَرِحُ بَحْثًا آخَرَ عَنْ تَغَيُّرِ التَّجَارِبِ بِمُرُورِ الْوَقْتِ؟
لِينَا: سُؤَالُنَا يَتَعَلَّقُ بِكَيْفِيَّةِ وَصْفِ الْمُشَارِكِينَ لِلْعَوَائِقِ الْحَالِيَّةِ، لَا بِتَطَوُّرِهَا. لِذَلِكَ أَرَى أَنَّ الْمُتَابَعَةَ سَتُضِيفُ مَعْرِفَةً مُهِمَّةً، وَلَكِنَّهَا تَتَطَلَّبُ تَصْمِيمًا جَدِيدًا وَمُوَافَقَةً جَدِيدَةً مِنَ الْمُشَارِكِينَ.
عُمَرُ: أُوَافِقُ عَلَى ذَلِكَ بِشَرْطِ حَذْفِ جُمْلَتِنَا عَنْ اسْتِمْرَارِ الْعَوَائِقِ طَوَالَ الدِّرَاسَةِ الْجَامِعِيَّةِ. فَهِيَ تَدَّعِي امْتِدَادًا زَمَنِيًّا لَمْ نَدْرُسْهُ، وَقَدْ تَكُونُ سَبَبَ ذَلِكَ الطَّلَبِ.
هُدَى: إِذَنْ لَا نَرْفُضُ الطَّلَبَ مُبَاشَرَةً، بَلْ نُرَاجِعُ أَوَّلًا مَا جَعَلَهُ مَعْقُولًا. بَعْدَ تَضْيِيقِ الِادِّعَاءِ، نُبَيِّنُ لِمَاذَا لَا تَلْزَمُ الْمُتَابَعَةُ لِلْإِجَابَةِ عَنِ السُّؤَالِ الْمُحَدَّدِ.
لِينَا: هُنَاكَ طَلَبٌ بِإِضَافَةِ ثَلَاثِ دِرَاسَاتٍ، دُونَ شَرْحِ صِلَتِهَا بِمَوْضُوعِنَا. لَنْ أُضِيفَهَا آلِيًّا لِإِرْضَاءِ الْمُحَكِّمِ، وَلَنْ أَسْتَبْعِدَهَا لِأَنَّنِي انْزَعَجْتُ مِنْ طَرِيقَةِ طَلَبِهَا فِي التَّقْرِيرِ.
عُمَرُ: قَرَأْتُ الدِّرَاسَاتِ الثَّلَاثَ. إِحْدَاهَا تُنَاقِشُ عَائِقًا مُشَابِهًا وَتُفِيدُ الْمُنَاقَشَةَ، أَمَّا الْأُخْرَيَانِ فَتَتَنَاوَلَانِ تَقْنِيَّاتٍ لَا يَسْتَخْدِمُهَا الْمَرْكَزُ الَّذِي دَرَسْنَاهُ. أَسْتَطِيعُ شَرْحَ هَذَا الْفَرْقِ فِي الرَّدِّ.
هُدَى: نَعَمْ، وَنَذْكُرُ مَا أَضَافَتْهُ الدِّرَاسَةُ الْمُلَائِمَةُ إِلَى تَفْسِيرِنَا، وَلَا نَكْتَفِي بِوَضْعِ اسْمِهَا. أَمَّا الِاعْتِذَارُ عَنْ إِدْرَاجِ الْأُخْرَيَيْنِ فَيَسْتَنِدُ إِلَى الصِّلَةِ الْعِلْمِيَّةِ، لَا إِلَى ضِيقِ الْمَسَاحَةِ وَحْدَهُ.
لِينَا: أَخْشَى أَنْ يَبْدُو رَدُّنَا انْتِقَائِيًّا إِذَا قَبِلْنَا بَعْضَ الْمَلَاحَظَاتِ وَخَالَفْنَا بَعْضَهَا. هَلْ نَحْتَاجُ إِلَى مُقَدِّمَةٍ تَقُولُ إِنَّنَا نُقَدِّرُ الْمُرَاجَعَةَ، مَعَ بَقَاءِ خِلَافٍ مُعَلَّلٍ؟
عُمَرُ: تُفِيدُ مُقَدِّمَةٌ مُخْتَصَرَةٌ، لَكِنَّ الْحُجَّةَ تَظْهَرُ فِي التَّفَاصِيلِ. سَأُنْشِئُ جَدْوَلًا يَضُمُّ كُلَّ مَلَاحَظَةٍ، وَرَدَّنَا عَلَيْهَا، وَمَوْضِعَ التَّعْدِيلِ، أَوْ سَبَبَ عَدَمِ إِجْرَائِهِ، حَتَّى لَا نُهْمِلَ شَيْئًا.
هُدَى: وَنُرَاجِعُ تَطَابُقَ الرَّدِّ مَعَ النَّصِّ الْمُعَدَّلِ. مِنْ السَّهْلِ أَنْ نَكْتُبَ «أَوْضَحْنَا ذَلِكَ»، ثُمَّ يَبْقَى التَّوْضِيحُ فِي رِسَالَتِنَا وَحْدَهَا، بَيْنَمَا يَقْرَأُ الْجُمْهُورُ الْبَحْثَ دُونَ هَذِهِ الرِّسَالَةِ.
لِينَا: مَا رَأْيُكُمَا فِي إِرْسَالِ سُؤَالٍ إِلَى الْمُحَرِّرِ عَنِ الْمُتَابَعَةِ لِمُدَّةِ سَنَةٍ؟ إِذَا كَانَ يَعُدُّهَا شَرْطًا لِلنَّشْرِ، فَسَنَحْتَاجُ إِلَى مَعْرِفَةِ ذَلِكَ قَبْلَ اسْتِكْمَالِ جَمِيعِ التَّعْدِيلَاتِ.
عُمَرُ: لِنُرْسِلْ سُؤَالًا مُحَدَّدًا، مَعَ صِيَاغَةِ الِادِّعَاءِ الْمُضَيَّقِ وَسَبَبِ اقْتِرَاحِنَا. لَا نَطْلُبُ مِنَ الْمُحَرِّرِ أَنْ يَخْتَارَ طَرَفًا، بَلْ أَنْ يُوَضِّحَ مَا يَلْزَمُ لِتَقْيِيمِ النُّسْخَةِ الْمُنَقَّحَةِ.
هُدَى: وَفِي الْأَثْنَاءِ نُنْجِزُ التَّعْدِيلَاتِ الَّتِي اتَّفَقْنَا عَلَيْهَا. سَأَتَوَلَّى مُرَاجَعَةَ الْمُلَخَّصِ وَالْخُلَاصَةِ، وَأَتَحَقَّقُ مِنْ أَنَّ كُلَّ ادِّعَاءٍ يَسْتَنِدُ إِلَى مَا جَمَعْنَاهُ فِعْلًا، لَا إِلَى مَا نَتَمَنَّى إِثْبَاتَهُ.
لِينَا: سَأُرَاجِعُ وَصْفَ الْعَيِّنَةِ وَعُنْوَانَ الْجَدْوَلِ، وَأُضِيفُ حُدُودَ الدِّرَاسَةِ فِي مَوَاضِعِهَا. إِذَا بَقِيَ اعْتِرَاضٌ لَا نَفْهَمُهُ، نَطْلُبُ تَوْضِيحَهُ بَدَلًا مِنْ صِيَاغَةِ رَدٍّ عَلَى افْتِرَاضٍ خَاطِئٍ.
عُمَرُ: وَسَأُرَاجِعُ الْجَدْوَلَ بَعْدَ دَمْجِ التَّعْدِيلَاتِ، لِأَنَّ أَرْقَامَ الصَّفَحَاتِ قَدْ تَتَغَيَّرُ. كَمَا سَأَتَأَكَّدُ مِنْ أَنَّنَا لَمْ نُغَيِّرْ عَدَدًا أَوْ تَفْسِيرًا فِي مَوْضِعٍ وَنَتْرُكْهُ قَدِيمًا فِي آخَرَ.
هُدَى: قَبْلَ الْإِرْسَالِ نَقْرَأُ الرَّدَّ كَأَنَّنَا لَا نَعْرِفُ هَذَا النِّقَاشَ. يَجِبُ أَنْ يَفْهَمَ الْقَارِئُ مَا قَبِلْنَاهُ، وَمَا عَدَّلْنَاهُ، وَمَا خَالَفْنَاهُ، وَالْأَسْبَابَ الَّتِي تَدْعَمُ كُلَّ مَوْقِفٍ.
لِينَا: أَشْعُرُ الْآنَ أَنَّ الرَّدَّ لَيْسَ دِفَاعًا عَنِ النُّسْخَةِ الْأُولَى بِأَيِّ ثَمَنٍ. إِنَّهُ شَرْحٌ لِكَيْفِيَّةِ تَحْسِينِهَا، مَعَ حِمَايَةِ حُدُودِ السُّؤَالِ وَالِاعْتِرَافِ بِمَا لَا تَسْتَطِيعُ الدِّرَاسَةُ أَنْ تَقُولَهُ.
Show English translationHide English translation
Lina: The reviewers’ comments on our study of difficulties accessing university advising have arrived. I initially read them with frustration, but now I want to turn them into a clear revision plan.
Omar: I suggest separating criticism that reveals a real shortcoming, a misunderstanding caused by our wording, and a request beyond the research question. Not every objection is of the same kind.
Huda: Nor should we judge a comment by tone alone. Its wording may be sharp while the problem is real; our responsibility is to examine the argument and respond courteously and precisely, without assuming the reviewer’s intention.
Lina: The first comment says we did not explain how we selected participants. We invited forty students and interviewed eighteen volunteers, but the text omits the number invited.
Omar: That is an omission we must correct. I will add the invitation method and the numbers invited and responding, and explain that participation was voluntary. Those accepting an interview may have different experiences from those who did not respond.
Huda: That must also affect the conclusion. “The university’s students experience difficulties” is broader than the interviews support. Let us attribute the experiences to the participants and state the limits on transferring them to other contexts.
Lina: I will revise both the conclusion and the abstract. Adding a caveat at the end is insufficient if we leave a broad claim at the beginning that many people read without the remaining detail.
Omar: The second reviewer asks why we do not present percentages representing all students. It appears they understood the study as a broad survey, whereas these are interviews intended to understand particular experiences.
Huda: Did the table heading contribute to that understanding? We wrote “distribution of problems” without specifying what we count. The counting unit is an interview in which a theme occurred, not every instance of the problem.
Lina: Exactly. I will call it “themes occurring in the interviews” and explain the counting unit. We correct the ambiguity, but that does not turn these counts into an estimate of the problem’s prevalence throughout the university.
Omar: Our response will say the comment exposed ambiguity in the presentation and point to the revision. We will not merely say “the reviewer misunderstood,” because another reader might interpret the wording the same way.
Huda: The request to follow students for a full year needs discussion. Does it address a flaw in our current answer, or propose another study of how experiences change over time?
Lina: Our question concerns how participants describe current barriers, not how those barriers evolve. Follow-up would therefore add valuable knowledge, but it would require a new design and renewed participant consent.
Omar: I agree provided we remove our sentence about barriers persisting throughout university study. It claims a duration we did not investigate and may have prompted that request.
Huda: So we do not reject the request immediately; first we review what made it reasonable. After narrowing the claim, we explain why follow-up is unnecessary for answering the defined question.
Lina: There is a request to add three studies without explaining their relevance. I will neither add them automatically to please the reviewer nor exclude them because the way they were requested annoyed me.
Omar: I read all three studies. One discusses a similar barrier and would enrich the discussion; the other two concern technologies unused by the centre we studied. I can explain this distinction in the response.
Huda: Yes, and we explain what the relevant study contributes to our interpretation rather than simply adding its name. Our reason for not including the other two rests on scholarly relevance, not space constraints alone.
Lina: I worry our response may seem selective if we accept some comments and disagree with others. Do we need an introduction expressing appreciation for the review while acknowledging reasoned disagreement?
Omar: A brief introduction helps, but the reasoning appears in the detail. I will make a table with every comment, our response, and the location of the revision or the reason for not making it, so nothing is missed.
Huda: We also check that the response matches the revised text. It is easy to write “we clarified this” while leaving the clarification only in our letter, although the public will read the paper without that letter.
Lina: What do you think about asking the editor about the year-long follow-up? If the editor considers it a publication requirement, we need to know before completing every revision.
Omar: Let us send a specific question with the narrowed claim and the reason for our proposal. We are not asking the editor to take sides, but to clarify what is required to assess the revised version.
Huda: Meanwhile, we will complete the revisions we have agreed on. I will review the abstract and conclusion, checking that every claim rests on what we actually collected rather than what we hope to establish.
Lina: I will review the sample description and table heading, and add the study’s limitations where appropriate. If an objection remains unclear, we will ask for clarification instead of responding to a mistaken assumption.
Omar: I will check the response table after revisions are merged, because page numbers may change. I will also make sure we have not changed a number or interpretation in one place while leaving an old version elsewhere.
Huda: Before sending, we read the response as though we did not know this discussion. A reader must understand what we accepted, changed and disagreed with, and the reasons supporting each position.
Lina: I now feel that the response is not a defence of the first version at any cost. It explains how we improved it, while protecting the question’s boundaries and acknowledging what the study cannot say.
02Useful words and expressions
| Arabic in the conversation | Meaning here |
|---|---|
| خُطَّةِ مُرَاجَعَةٍ | a revision plan |
| نَقْصًا حَقِيقِيًّا | a real shortcoming |
| سُوءِ فَهْمٍ | a misunderstanding |
| الْمُشَارَكَةَ طَوْعِيَّةٌ | participation is voluntary |
| حُدُودِ نَقْلِهَا | limits on transferring them |
| وَحْدَةُ الْعَدِّ | the counting unit |
| لِانْتِشَارِ الْمُشْكِلَةِ | of the problem’s prevalence |
| امْتِدَادًا زَمَنِيًّا | a duration extending over time |
| الصِّلَةِ الْعِلْمِيَّةِ | scholarly relevance |
| خِلَافٍ مُعَلَّلٍ | reasoned disagreement |
| مَوْضِعَ التَّعْدِيلِ | the location of the revision |
| النُّسْخَةِ الْمُنَقَّحَةِ | the revised version |
03Check your understanding
Choose one answer for each question. Look back at the Arabic conversation for evidence. Open the English question support or a hint when you need help.
What to remember
- Separate a reviewer’s tone from the substance of the criticism.
- Follow the relationship between a narrower claim and a justified response about scope.
- Check that a response letter describes changes actually made in the paper.
Explore the Arabic in this conversation
Related grammar and vocabularyOpen Araqick guides connected to this conversation.
Lakinna and Lakin in Arabic: Two Patterns for But
لَكِنَّ الْأَعْدَادَ لَنْ تَتَحَوَّلَ بِذَلِكَ إِلَى تَقْدِيرٍ
Use lakinna to contrast clarification of a heading with what the underlying numbers still cannot establish. Al-aʿdada is its accusative noun.
Because in Arabic: Give a Reason with Lianna
لِأَنَّ الْقَارِئَ الْآخَرَ قَدْ يَفْهَمُ الْعِبَارَةَ بِالطَّرِيقَةِ نَفْسِهَا
Give the reason for changing unclear wording with lianna and its accusative noun al-qariʾa.
Idha in Arabic: How to Say When and If
إِذَا بَقِيَ اعْتِرَاضٌ لَا نَفْهَمُهُ، نَطْلُبُ تَوْضِيحَهُ
Use idha to introduce a possible unresolved objection and the response it would require.
