how to respond to comments by peer reviewers

How to respond to comments by peer reviewers

Helping you get published

Once you submit your painstakingly written research paper to

the journal of your choice, you will most likely be on

tenterhooks for weeks or months before you hear from the

journal editor about the decision on your manuscript. The

journal’s verdict and the peer reviewers’ comments need not

be a bitter pill to swallow if you are prepared to deal with

them pragmatically.


them pragmatically.

The impact factor and other measures of journal prestige

Tips for responding to reviewers

As authors, you may dread receiving reviewer comments asking for major revisions. It’s

daunting to rework something for which you have already taken great pains. But don’t

be tempted to give up. Most often, the final outcome is worth the effort. Here are some

pointers on how to respond to such comments.

1. Take a break

2. Give point-by-point responses2. Give point-by-point responses

3. Provide well-reasoned arguments

4. Pay attention to detail

5. Watch your tone

6. Appreciate the reviewers’ work


1. Take a break: Initial irritation is only natural. Take time off and then read the comments

again carefully and objectively to ensure that you have clearly understood the

reviewers’ concerns.

2. Give point-by-point responses: Number the reviewers’ points and respond to them

sequentially. Use headings such as “Reviewer 1” then “Comment 1.” This makes it


sequentially. Use headings such as “Reviewer 1” then “Comment 1.” This makes it

easier for the editor/reviewers to follow what you have done. It is essential to address

each and every point that the peer reviewer or journal editor may have raised.


3. Provide well-reasoned arguments: If you do not agree with a reviewer’s comment, you

should say so. However, do not simply state your disagreement. Provide as many details

as necessary to help the reviewer understand your line of reasoning. Where possible,

cite published studies to support your argument.



4. Pay attention to detail: Details are important when explaining how you have addressed

each concern. For example, if a reviewer has said that you need to include/reinterpret

data, you can describe the tests you performed and the results you got and mention

where you have added this information. You may be considerate and even paste the

exact sentences that you have added or modified in the manuscript when following a

reviewer’s suggestion, since this can save the editor/reviewer the trouble of switching


reviewer’s suggestion, since this can save the editor/reviewer the trouble of switching

between files.


5. Watch your tone: Remember, the reviewers are critiquing your work, not you. Do not let

your responses reflect any bitterness. If you disagree on some point, say so honestly but

respectfully, and support your statement with a rational, scientific explanation, citing

references from the literature for support.



6. Appreciate the reviewers’ work: Peer reviewers invest their own time in reviewing your

manuscript, without pay. For the most part, their intention is to help authors improve

their study. Take advantage of their advice. In fact, a long list of detailed comments from

a reviewer usually means that reviewer has spent time evaluating your study and

providing constructive feedback. Be sure to thank the reviewer for their consideration

and effort .


and effort .


Editor Speak

The point-by-point responses should address the concerns directly, offering a

description of the changes made or an explanation as to why the comment

was set aside. There should be reasoned disagreement and not just was set aside. There should be reasoned disagreement and not just

disagreement.2

- A former journal editor


Are peer reviewers always right?

Peer reviewers are essentially experts in their field. However, this does not mean that their

comments should be taken as gospel. Evaluate each of the reviewers’ comments on their

merits. Do not agree with a reviewer just for the sake of agreeing or with the mistaken

impression that the journal editor expects you to incorporate all of the reviewers’

suggestions. At the end of the day, it is your study and reputation at stake.


Are peer reviewers always right?

You may also find yourself receiving conflicting feedback from reviewers. One reviewer may

be satisfied with the methodology while another may consider it inappropriate.

Minor differences of opinion are natural, but such diametrically opposite views can be

perplexing. See which reviewer you agree more with and follow his/her advice, and justify

your decision to the editor. your decision to the editor.

Alternatively, you could request the editor to give you a third opinion. Ultimately, it is the

journal editor who will make the decision on how to handle the conflict. Providing a well-

reasoned argument is likely to tip the balance in your favor.


Dealing with requests for major changes

Word count reductions: Sometimes, your paper may be accepted for publication, but the

journal editors may request you to trim your article by, say, one-third. This seemingly

unreasonable request is often justified because in their endeavour to publish high-quality

articles promptly, editors often face the problem of shortage of space. You will almost

certainly have no choice but to comply with this request.


Dealing with requests for major changes

Requests for extra data or text: Reviewers may suggest various types of changes, from

tweaking certain sentences to revising entire paragraphs. Occasionally, you may be asked to

supply large sets of data or include more than a page of text. Provided the suggested

changes are within the scope of the manuscript and you agree with them, you may wish to

first consult with the journal editors to determine whether space constraints allow you to

make the additions.make the additions.


Conclusion

Comments from peer reviewers, more often than not, offer an excellent opportunity to

improve the quality of your manuscript. Addressing them adequately may increase the

chances of acceptance, if not in that journal, elsewhere at least.


REFERENCES:

1. Williams H.C. (2004). How to reply to peer review comments when submitting papers for

publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51, 79–83.

2. Samet J.M. (1999). Dear Author—Advice from a Retiring Editor. American Journal of Epidemiology,

150, 433–436

Connect

http://www.facebook.com/Editage

http://www.twitter.com/Editagehttp://www.twitter.com/Editage

http://www.linkedin.com/company/cactus-communications

how to respond to comments by peer reviewers

Education