사례로 배우는 답변서 — Before / After

사례 1 — 표본 크기 지적(수용해야 할 경우)

심사자 코멘트 > The sample of 24 participants is too small to support the conclusions drawn in the Discussion. Before (문제 있는 답변) > Qualitative research does not require large samples. Our sample size is appropriate for this type of study. 무엇이 문제인가. 지적의 핵심(결론이 자료를 넘어섰다)에 답하지 않고 방법론 일반론으로 회피했다. 원고는 전혀 바뀌지 않았고, 심사자는 무시당했다고 느낀다. After (권장 답변) > Response: We thank the reviewer for this important point. We agree that our conclusions were stated more broadly than a sample of 24 can support. > We have taken three steps. First, we revised the Discussion to frame the findings as context-specific patterns rather than general claims (pp. 17–19). Second, we added an explicit limitations paragraph addressing sample size and transferability (p. 20, lines 441–450). Third, we clarified in the Methods that the sample was purposively selected to capture variation in [특성], not to represent a population (p. 9). > Revised text (p. 20): “These findings are drawn from a purposive sample of 24 students at one institution and should therefore be read as an account of how such students made sense of [현상] in this setting, rather than as evidence of a general pattern.”

사례 2 — 이론틀 변경 요구(부분 수용)

심사자 코멘트 > The authors should use Framework B instead of Framework A, which is outdated. Before > We disagree. Framework A is still widely used and suits our study better. 무엇이 문제인가. 근거 없는 반대이며, 대안도 없다. “widely used”는 검증 가능한 근거가 아니다. After > Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and considered it carefully. > We have retained Framework A for two reasons. First, our research questions concern [초점], which Framework A explicitly theorizes and Framework B treats only peripherally. Second, our coding scheme was derived from Framework A’s dimensions, so a change of framework would require re-analysis of the full dataset under a different conceptual structure. > To acknowledge the value of the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added a paragraph in the Discussion (p. 19, lines 402–415) comparing how Framework B would interpret our findings, and we identify this comparison as a direction for future work. We also updated our citations of Framework A to include recent applications (2022–2025) to address the concern about currency. > We defer to the editor’s judgment should a fuller engagement with Framework B be considered necessary.

사례 3 — 심사자의 오해(정중한 해명)

심사자 코멘트 > It is unclear why the authors did not use a pre-test/post-test design. Without it, learning gains cannot be measured. Before > As we already stated in the Methods section, this is not an intervention study. 무엇이 문제인가. “이미 썼다”는 표현은 심사자를 탓하는 인상을 준다. 오해가 생겼다는 것은 원고가 불명확했다는 뜻이다. After > Response: We apologize for the lack of clarity that led to this misunderstanding, and we are grateful for the opportunity to correct it. > The present study does not evaluate learning gains; it examines how students describe and interpret their own use of [대상] during one semester. A pre-test/post-test design would therefore not address the research questions as posed. > We recognize that our original phrasing invited this reading. We have revised the aim statement in the Introduction (p. 3, lines 58–63) and the opening of the Methods (p. 8, lines 171–176) to state the study’s purpose and design explicitly. > Revised text (p. 3): “This study does not measure learning outcomes. It asks how students account for their own practices, and it therefore adopts a qualitative, interpretive design.”

사례 4 — 두 심사자의 상충하는 요구

심사자 1 > The literature review should be expanded to include work on [주제 X]. 심사자 2 > The literature review is too long and should be reduced by at least one third. Before > We followed Reviewer 1 and expanded the literature review. 무엇이 문제인가. 다른 심사자의 지적을 무시했고, 그 사실을 편집자에게 알리지도 않았다. 2차 심사에서 반드시 문제가 된다. After > Response: We note that the two reviewers offered differing guidance on the literature review, and we have sought a solution that responds to both. > Following Reviewer 1, we added coverage of [주제 X] (p. 5, lines 96–118), as we agree it is directly relevant to our framing. Following Reviewer 2, we reduced overall length by condensing three descriptive paragraphs into one synthetic paragraph and by moving the extended methodological discussion to the Discussion section, where it supports interpretation (pp. 6–7, 18). > The net length of the literature review decreased from 1,850 to 1,540 words while the coverage requested by Reviewer 1 was incorporated. We would be glad to adjust the balance further according to the editor’s preference.

사례 5 — AI 사용에 관한 질의

편집자 코멘트 > Please clarify whether and how generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript. Before > We only used AI for grammar. It did not affect the content. 무엇이 문제인가. 구체성이 없고 검증 가능한 진술이 아니다. 저널이 요구하는 공시 형식도 따르지 않았다. After > Response: We are glad to clarify. In preparing this manuscript, the authors used [도구명, 버전] for two purposes: (a) improving the grammar and readability of the English text, and (b) checking the logical consistency of the argument structure in the Introduction and Discussion. > The tools were not used for data collection, data analysis, or the interpretation of results. All references were verified against the original sources by the first author, and all AI-assisted text was reviewed and revised by the authors, who take full responsibility for the content. > We have added a Declaration of AI Use following the Acknowledgments (p. 22), in the format specified in the journal’s author guidelines. 자기 점검

• 내 답변서에 Before 유형의 표현이 남아 있지 않은가?

• 각 응답이 “인정 → 조치 → 위치·원문”의 구조를 갖추었는가?