How to respond to peer review comments? ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★
After submitting your well-written research paper to a journal of your choice, you will most likely have to wait nervously for weeks or even months before receiving a decision from the journal editor on the paper. Journal decisions and peer-reviewed recommendations are not trivial if you are prepared to respond effectively.
As an author, you may dread receiving peer reviewers’ suggestions for major changes. Reworking a paper that took a lot of effort to write can be daunting. But don’t give up. In most cases, the end result is worth the effort.
Here are some tips on how to answer the judges’ suggestions: ● Take a break: It’s natural to be stimulated at first. Take a break, and then re-read the recommendations carefully and objectively to make sure you fully understand the reviewer’s point of view. ● Answer item by item: Number and answer the reviewer’s suggestions in order. Use a title such as “Reviewer 1” followed by “Recommendation 1”. It is important to be sure to answer all points raised by peer reviewers or journal editors. ● Provide well-reasoned evidence: If you disagree with a reviewer’s advice, you should answer truthfully. However, you should not simply state that you have different opinions. Provide as much detail as necessary to help the reviewer understand your argument. If possible, cite published research to support your argument. ● Pay attention to detail: Detail is important when describing how you deal with various suggestions. For example, if the reviewer feels that you need to add/reinterpret data, you can state the experiments you have undertaken and the results obtained, and indicate where you have added this information. You should be thoughtful and even paste in specific sentences that are added or modified as suggested by the reviewer, because this saves the editor/reviewer the trouble of alternating between different documents. ● Watch your tone: Remember that the reviewers are reviewing your paper, not you. Your answer does not reflect a complaint. If you disagree with some of the suggestions, do so truthfully and humbly, using sound scientific explanations to support your opinion and, if possible, using references as evidence. ● Thank your peer reviewers for their work: Peer reviewers give their time to review your paper, without pay. In most cases, the purpose of their reviews is to help authors improve their own research. Their suggestions should be made full use of. In fact, a long and detailed list of review recommendations usually means that reviewers have spent a lot of time evaluating your research and providing constructive feedback. Reviewers must be appreciated for their advice and efforts.
Is peer review always correct? Peer reviewers are generally experts in their fields. But that does not mean their advice should be taken as truth. Evaluate the merits of each reviewer’s recommendations. Do not agree to the reviewer’s recommendations simply for the sake of agreeing, or because you have a one-sided view that the journal editor wishes to accept all of the reviewer’s recommendations. In the end, it’s your research and reputation that counts.
You may also receive conflicting feedback from reviewers. One reviewer may be happy with the research method, while another reviewer may consider it inappropriate.
Nuances of opinion are natural, but such diametrically opposed views can be confusing. Identify which reviewer you agree with and follow their advice, and provide the editor with a basis for your decision. Alternatively, you may ask the journal editor to provide you with a third opinion. Finally, it is up to the journal editor to decide how to resolve the conflict. Providing well-reasoned arguments is crucial to helping you get your paper published.
● Reduce the number of words: Sometimes your paper will be accepted for publication, but the journal editor will ask you to reduce it by, say, one-third. Such seemingly unreasonable demands are often normal, as journal editors often face a lack of space when they need to publish high-quality papers quickly. Of course you have no choice but to oblige.
● Add data or text: Reviewers may suggest changes ranging from individual sentence adjustments to whole paragraphs. Sometimes, you may be asked to provide large amounts of data or add multiple pages of text. If the proposed changes are within the scope of the paper and you agree with the suggestions, you will first need to consult the journal editor to determine whether data and text additions can be made due to space constraints.
Conclusion Recommendations from peer reviewers are often an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of a paper. Properly handled, these recommendations, even if not published in this journal, will at least improve the chances of publication in other journals.