Responding to peer review
Author Resources >Journal ethics checks > Responding to peer review
Responding to peer review
You have just spent months completing your study, writing up the results and submitting them to your top-choice journal. Now the feedback is in and it is time to revise. Learn how to set out a clear plan for your response, keep yourself on-track, and ensure edits do not fall through the cracks.
Stay calm and assume positive intent
Always start by assuming reviewers have the right intentions. After reviewing your manuscript comments, it might be helpful to take a step back and clear your head. When you return to it, ask yourself: what are the fundamental issues the reviewer wants me to address?
It is also worth remembering that peer review feedback verifies and strengthens your work. In addition, peer reviewers represent the journal’s general readership so they are best placed to help you craft a better, clearer publication for your audience.
How to respond to reviewer feedback
Once experts in your field have reviewed your paper, you might need to make changes and address reviewer feedback. However, if the changes or responses are not sufficient, your paper could go through another round of revisions or get rejected.
So, how should you respond to peer reviewers' comments? Read on for a simple step-by-step guide to make this process easier.
Set a plan and stick to it
Do not lose track of the important changes you intend to make. Making a plan for revising and crafting your response to the reviewers can help you organize your steps, get a better idea of what work needs to be done, and help the process run smoothly. This is particularly important if you have co-authored a manuscript.
List important vs. unimportant requests to prioritize your work
The editor's note may help you see which edits are required to meet journal standards. Do not overlook the non-essential items on the list, however. While these edits may be "nice to have" rather than "required," they can strengthen your work for that journal's typical audience. If you have the time and resources to tackle these, do so.
Decide whether you will need time to conduct additional experiments
Do not be afraid to provide additional data. If you already have the data requested by the reviewers, but do not feel it fits the scope of your work, you can include these in your response as a show of good faith, and indicate in your letter why you think they should be left out of the published article. If you need extra time for your revision to complete additional research, let your editor know.
Make sure you have a system for responding to each comment - and demonstrate your changes
This might sound tedious, but a clear, point-by-point response can save you time in subsequent review rounds. Use track changes to show your edits and/or indicate line numbers in your response where the requested change can be found in the manuscript.
Do not ignore comments
Even if you have decided not to make a change, your response to the reviewers should explain why you have done so. You may need to provide additional evidence why this is not relevant. That is okay. Your goal here is to ensure reviewers have enough clarity on your work to understand your thinking. Without an adequate reason, reviewers may request the same change in subsequent review rounds.
Common questions on reviewer feedback
How do I respond to conflicting feedback?
It is almost inevitable that you will encounter reviewers who disagree on a course of action, or even an editor who disagrees with the reviewers. Here are some tips for navigating each case:
What if the reviewer and editor disagree on a suggested edit?
In general, the editor should be able to provide commentary more closely aligned with the journal's scope and editorial policies. If the editor disagrees on a suggested edit, you should cite the editor's comments in your response to the reviewers.
What if reviewers offer conflicting advice?
When two reviewers offer conflicting advice, your editor may be able to provide guidance as to the journal's standards, and which course of action they feel is more appropriate. As before, be sure to cite the editor's advice in your response.
In addition, if the editor has not provided clarity in their response, ask a colleague familiar with your work and check in with your co authors for a second opinion.
Moreover, rely on yourself. Ultimately, the decision to make any change is up to you. Provide a clear and defensible response to reviewers, citing your reasons for complying or not complying with a suggested edit, so that the reviewers and the editor understand your decision.
How to write a good response letter
Keep your letter short, but do call out important information about your changes and any points you wish to clarify further. If you found the feedback from the reviewers particularly helpful, thank them for their thoughtful commentary.
Assume both the editor and reviewers will see everything you write.
If you have submitted to a journal with an open peer review process, your readers could see your comments as well. Bearing that in mind, be respectful and courteous in your language, acknowledging the expertise of the reviewers and editor.
Keep your responses clear, unemotional, and easy to follow.
Respond in-line to every comment, indicating line numbers where a change can be found
Write your response, take a break, and come back to it.
Re read your comments and make sure they come across calm and professional. If you are struggling to come up with the right way to say something, try these reviewer response examples for inspiration.
Final thoughts
So now you are ready to respond to peer review feedback. Remember, the goal of your response letter is to demonstrate your willingness to engage with feedback constructively while maintaining professionalism. By following this guide, you are ensuring that your communication is clear, respectful, and effective. Good luck with your revisions.
More author resources
How to write a data management plan
How to choose a data repository
Choosing the right journal
