<p>When providing an edit, the editor should also include feedback as to what and why the changes are being made. It sometimes happens that what appears to be trivial to the author is not at all trivial. For peer reviewed journals, the default procedure for answering a reviewer is to accept whatever the reviewer says. This site is structured more ineffectually than standard peer review, as points are awarded to those of moderate reputation who do edits, so that there can be more garbage reviews than for a standard peer reviewed journal. (Edit) <em>There is an opportunity to provide a justification for not agreeing with peer review when rolling back an edit back and explain why in the edit summary box on this site, whereas for a typical journal this would be a bit less ambiguously directed communication, by just explaining why not to make a change to the reviewer. Herein,</em></p>
<ul>
<li>When providing an edit, make it absolutely clear why this is being done, there is only a one time opportunity for doing so.</li>
<li>When reversing an edit be absolutely certain that this is correct. There may be no other opportunities to correct an error that may be insidious.</li>
<li>In cases of disagreement as to edits, the author should consider providing a comment to the attention of the editor. Although this is not an obvious feature of the software, it is actually present and should be used for dispute reconciliation.</li>
</ul>
