Key Guidelines for Responding to Reviewers

Introduction

The process of preparing a scientific manuscript involves eight fundamental steps: pre-writing, research development, drafting, editorial procedures including the peer review process (PRP), editing, publication, dissemination, and access.^1–4 A successful PRP typically entails collaboration between editors, reviewers, and authors.⁴ Authors are responsible for conducting research, analyzing data, and writing the manuscript to present their findings clearly, accurately, and comprehensively.⁴ Reviewers, on the other hand, evaluate the manuscript’s quality and provide ‘constructive’ feedback.⁴ Their goal is to ensure that the research meets the journal’s standards and contributes significantly to the field.⁴ Misunderstandings between authors and reviewers can lead to the frequent rejection of high-quality submissions.^4,5

Responding to reviewers’ critiques is one of the most stressful phases of the publication process.⁴ Therefore, it is crucial to establish strategic methods for authors to handle reviewers’ feedback in alignment with ethical guidelines,⁶ and to provide thorough protocols for addressing diverse reviewers’ comments and principles for implementing successful revisions.⁷ Given that a document titled “Responses to Reviewers” is mandatory during the PRP, and recognizing that some authors may struggle with addressing reviewers’ comments, it is essential to develop authors’ skills in resubmitting research and clinical scholarship reports.⁸ This is critical for the effective dissemination of the authors’ work.

This opinion article aimed to equip authors with the knowledge needed to engage effectively in the PRP and improve the chances of manuscript acceptance.

Tips and advice

The PRP is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, ensuring the rigor and quality of research.⁴ Authors must navigate this process skillfully to enhance their manuscripts and address reviewers’ feedback.⁴ According to Day and Gastel,⁹ “Responding to reviewers’ comments is not just about defending your work; it is about engaging in a constructive dialogue to improve the manuscript”. To help authors defend their manuscript and engage in constructive dialogue, this paper emphasizes understanding critiques, prioritizing feedback, and maintaining professionalism throughout the process.

Table 1 summarizes the key guidelines and tips for responding to reviewers. The following sections describe these tips to help authors confidently address peer reviewers’ comments and move closer to publication.

Consume reviewers’ critiques

Given that the review report is crucial for the editor’s publication decision,¹⁰ authors should:

It is crucial that authors recognize that while the article has not been rejected, the editor has given an opportunity for revision and resubmission.⁴ To navigate this process effectively, the authors should advocate adhering to some general guiding principles, which are systematic review, patience and reflection, and maintain composure. First, authors should methodically examine comments, categorize them as “major” or “minor,” and store them securely. This structured approach ensures careful consideration and appropriate addressing of all feedback. Second, authors should let feedback sit for a couple of days before responding, and then avoid hastily formulating responses.⁷ Authors are asked to “sleep on it” before starting the revision process.¹³ Third, feeling overwhelmed by numerous revision suggestions is natural. However, authors should remain composed and evaluate each comment objectively. Rather than panicking, authors should approach revisions calmly and discern the value of each suggestion.¹³

Read carefully and understand the reviewers’ or editor’s comments/critiques/suggestions

After reviewing the comments, authors should:

The objective is to show the editor and reviewers a commitment to the process by meticulously addressing each comment and implementing necessary changes.

Seek opinion

The PRP can be complex, and addressing reviewers’ comments effectively requires careful consideration and expertise.⁴ Consulting co-authors and colleagues well-versed in the work can provide valuable insights and perspectives that authors may not have considered on their own.¹⁵ Brainstorming with the research group can generate innovative ideas, particularly when addressing complex reviewers’ criticisms. It also helps reach a consensus on how to address the comments.⁷ In practice, if authors are uncertain about how to address specific comments, they are encouraged to consult the editor in chief or reach out to a mentor with expertise in the field. This approach provides clarity and helps ensure that responses are well informed and appropriate.

Prioritize feedback dealing with requests for major revisions

Reviewers typically structure their comments with a summary paragraph, followed by detailed constructive feedback and recommendations for refinement.¹⁰ They categorize comments as “major” or “minor”.

Major comments reflect the most concerning issues that must be revised for the paper to be considered for publication.^19,20 Effectively revising and clarifying major issues is fundamental to understanding the manuscript.^16,21 These comments typically refer to the scientific and methodological aspects of a manuscript. ⁴ Examples of major comments include modifying the central hypothesis, the main algorithm, and redoing an experiment (e.g.; the central hypothesis of the study needs to be revised to better align with the presented data. Specifically, the hypothesis should address the potential impact of variable X on outcome Y, which is currently not considered).

Minor issues, while important, do not typically influence the overall conclusions of the manuscript. Authors should make even minor requests and changes without engaging in disagreements with reviewers, even if they do not completely agree.²² Minor remarks may include unclear statements, missing or incorrect references, unclear data presentation, grammatical concerns, reformulation, adding additional references, adding an extra paragraph/table/figure, and adding an appendix (e.g.; the introduction section would benefit from the inclusion of recent references on the topic, particularly those published in the last five years).⁷

In practice, authors are advised to categorize each reviewer comments into major and minor ones, focusing on major revisions that directly influence the study’s methodology, results, or conclusions. This approach helps authors address the most critical issues first. For example, if a reviewer requests a clarification on data analysis or the inclusion of additional experiments, these points should be addressed before responding to minor grammatical corrections or stylistic suggestions.

Be polite and respectful of all reviewers/express gratitude

Throughout the process of responding to reviewers’ reports, authors should remember that reviewers are typically well-meaning colleagues who generously invest their time to assist authors in enhancing their study.⁴ Therefore, it is essential to regard their comments as constructive feedback and express gratitude for their invaluable contributions.¹⁵ Even if authors have reservations about a reviewer’s perceived understanding, it is not advisable to convey such impressions to the reviewer.¹³ If the reviewers encounter difficulty comprehending certain aspects, it might be due to the authors’ failure to clarify the idea sufficiently.^23,24 Authors should remember that readers may vary in expertise, and some may be less experienced than the reviewers may.¹⁵ Thus, the authors should ensure that their work is clear and accessible to all readers, not just experts.²³ Therefore, if the reviewers do not understand certain points, it is appropriate to apologize for not making them clear and to strive to clarify them further. Proceeding with revisions demonstrates to the reviewers that authors take their comments seriously.⁸

In some instances, authors may perceive reviewers’ criticisms as discourteous.¹⁷ However, this could simply be a case of miscommunication.¹⁵ Responding rudely is unwarranted, especially considering the ultimate goal of getting the manuscript published.^23,25 It is then strongly advised to maintain a polite tone throughout the response to the reviewers, and to refrain from emotional, confrontational, or defensive expressions, even if the authors disagree with the reviewers or feel that the requested changes are unnecessary.²³ Even if it appears that the reviewers are using the review as an opportunity to “teach” them,¹⁰ it is important to remain composed and respectful and to welcome reviewers’ recommendations with a positive perspective.⁸

In practice, authors are advised to remain objective and not personalizing challenging critiques. Fr example, if a reviewer’s tone seems harsh or overly critical, authors can acknowledge the reviewer’s input, express gratitude, and focus on the content of the critique without addressing the tone directly. For instance, a response might begin with, “We thank the reviewer for his/her insightful feedback on our methodology,” followed by a detailed explanation of how the comments were addressed or respectfully refuted with supporting evidence.

Pay attention to details: Respond to every point raised

Generally, reviews are bulleted.²³ If two distinct issues are brought up within one bullet point, authors should ensure that both critiques are explicitly responded to.²³ Interspersing responses, breaking up one bullet point with multiple answers, helps maintain clarity and ensures each criticism receives a thorough response.²³ If the authors are unable to respond to all points, it is reasonable to:

This comprehensive approach demonstrates the authors’ commitment and consideration of the review to both the editor and the reviewers, facilitating a smoother re-evaluation of their manuscript.^6,27

Finally, to uphold scholarly integrity, it is essential to avoid directly copying and pasting reviewers’ comments into the manuscript.^8,28 Instead, valuable suggestions provided by reviewers should be paraphrased and integrated into the manuscript using the author’s own words.^8,28 This practice not only maintains academic standards but also ensures that the incorporation of feedback reflects originality and thoughtful engagement with the review process.^8,28 Emphasizing this issue reinforces the commitment to academic integrity,²⁹ and enhances the quality of the work.

Be thorough and plan responses

To enhance the quality of their responses and maintain clarity and professionalism, authors should:

If authors believe that a particular comment falls outside the scope of their study, they should explain and clarify the reasons for their stance in cases where they disagree with the reviewers or feel that an additional experiment or analysis is unnecessary.¹³

Avoid arguing every single comment

Authors have the right to engage in discussions regarding reviewers’ comments, but it is best to avoid disputing multiple comments.³¹ If encountering serious disagreement with reviewers, particularly if a suggestion is deemed unreasonable or requests excessive work that strays from the study’s objectives, authors can refute the suggestion and make no changes.⁷ In such instances, it is imperative to:

It is worth noting that reviewers may only tolerate one instance of refusal.³⁴ Engaging in a “fight” with the reviewers is unwise, even if the suggestions are flawed or misunderstood.²³ Arguing extensively with the reviewers may frustrate them and jeopardize the opportunity to publish the manuscript. If a point of contention is substantial enough to jeopardize the manuscript’s integrity or the arguments presented, authors may appeal to the editor for intervention.²³

Ambiguous situations

Sometimes, authors may encounter ambiguous or conflicting feedback, conflict of interest concerns, or suggested additions that exceed the journal guidelines.⁴ In such situations, authors should handle reviewers’ comments with careful consideration and diligence. At times, authors may encounter unclear or ambiguous comments. In such situations, authors should seek clarification rather than provide an incorrect response.⁴ Clarification can be requested in the cover letter or by contacting the editor via email. Sometimes, authors might receive conflicting feedback from two different reviewers.⁷ In such instances, it is important not to become overwhelmed and to start by thoroughly examining both sets of comments, choosing the one that best matches the authors’ vision for the manuscript.³² Authors should then address this selected feedback by making the required adjustments to their manuscript. Additionally, it is advisable to outline to the editor the two contradictory comments and provide arguments in support of the comment selected by the authors.^7,34 This serves to clarify the authors’ rationale behind the decision and helps ensure consistency and coherence in the revision process. In certain instances, suspicions of ethics violations may arise. For instance, a reviewer might reject a manuscript only to later conduct a similar study and publish it.³⁴ Similarly, a reviewer may recommend citing an article that does not align with the study’s scope.³⁴ In such cases, authors may choose to send a separate letter/Email to the editor to clarify the circumstances and possibly suggest a change of reviewer or a reconsideration of the comment.²³ When reviewers express concerns about citing specific authors due to their reputation or past behavior, it is crucial to evaluate whether the issue is related to the individual or the research itself. If the request is rooted in personal or ethical concerns, authors should consider discreetly contacting the editor for guidance. With the increasing popularity of post-publication peer review platforms like PubPeer, ScienceOpen, and PREreview, such situations may become more common, necessitating careful consideration by authors.³⁵ Finally, in case authors suspect that a reviewer has used artificial intelligence -assisted technologies to produce a review report (without acknowledging it), they need to alert the editors.³⁶ To handle such situations, authors can refer to specific guidelines and policies provided by international organizations (e.g., Committee on Publication Ethics,³⁷ International Committee of Medical Journal Editors³⁸). These guidelines provides comprehensive resources and guidelines for ethical practices in publication, including how to handle conflicts of interest and other ethical issues.^37,38 By following these guidelines,^37,38 authors can ensure that they handle ambiguous and ethical situations appropriately, maintaining the integrity of the PRP and their research. These steps/approaches are crucial for maintaining transparency and professionalism and the integrity of the PRP, and ensuring fair and ethical treatment of manuscripts.

Reviewers’ requests and journal’s guidelines

If reviewers request additions such as references, tables, or text that exceed the journal’s limits, authors may encounter a dilemma. If they agree to these changes and believe they enhance the manuscript, authors should implement the changes and address the issue in their responses, seeking the editor’s authorization.⁷ However, if authors find that these changes contradict their vision for the manuscript, they can use the recommendations for authors to justify refusing the change. Authors should then write to the editor to explain why they cannot comply with the reviewers’ request.^23,32 This approach ensures that the manuscript remains aligned with the author’s intentions while also respecting the journal’s guidelines and maintaining transparency in the revision process.^23,32

Highlight changes in the revised manuscript - Use typography to assist the reviewers in navigating through responses

For the benefit of both reviewers and editors, authors should streamline the revision process and make it as easy as possible for them to navigate. Well-organized responses can reduce confusion and frustration, ultimately increasing the likelihood of acceptance. Here are some recommended practices:

If the journal requires identifying changes on a single copy of the manuscript, authors may use Microsoft Word’s track changes feature or highlight with a marker. They may use different colored fonts or highlights to separate corresponding responses to different reviewers and clarify this in the cover letter.⁷ However, authors should be mindful that this approach might result in a lengthy manuscript that is challenging to read and may not effectively juxtapose the reviewers’ comments with authors” changes.

Another effective approach to organizing responses to reviewers is to utilize a table format that includes the reviewers’ comments, author responses, and corresponding changes with page and line references in separate columns^{6,7,13,23,31,34,39} (Appendix 1).⁴⁰

Revise and improve

After addressing all comments, authors must ensure any necessary corrections are made to the manuscript.³¹ It is crucial to meticulously check that all changes made are properly documented. Highlighting the changes is preferable as it makes them easier for reviewers and the editor to verify.^4,32 If the journal requires two versions of the revised manuscript - one with highlighted changes and another in a clean format - authors should comply.^7,34 It is important to carefully review the journal’s submission requirements for the revised version and adhere to the provided instructions, as they specify how changes should be incorporated.⁷

Review again

If English is not the authors’ native language, they should consider having the final version corrected by an expert translator.⁶ Alternatively, authors can use Artificial Intelligence tools to assist with the proofreading process, but it is important to declare the use of such tools.³ Authors should be cautious, as artificial intelligence tools may not catch all linguistic nuances or contextual errors, which can lead to oversight. Authors are advised to use artificial intelligence tools as a supplementary measure, rather than a primary one. This approach ensures a more balanced and thorough proofreading process.^4,38,41 Before finalizing the manuscript, it is crucial to perform a final thorough review to ensure that no errors have arisen due to the changes made.⁷

Express gratitude again

Taking a moment to express gratitude towards the reviewers and the editor demonstrates professionalism and courtesy. Therefore, authors should not forget to reiterate their thanks to them to conclude their cover letter.^4,23,32

In practice, authors are asked to include an introduction and conclusion in their response letter. This provides a comprehensive and respectful response, enhancing the overall impression of the manuscript revision process. Authors should begin the response letter with a brief introductory paragraph expressing appreciation to the reviewers for their time and valuable feedback⁶ (Appendix 1).⁴⁰ This introduction sets a positive tone and acknowledges the reviewers’ contributions. For example: “The authors sincerely thank the reviewers for their thorough and insightful feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and made the necessary revisions to address their concerns. We believe these changes have significantly improved the manuscript.” After addressing each comment, the authors should conclude the response letter with a closing paragraph summarizing the major changes made and reiterating gratitude for the reviewers’ input²³ (Appendix 1).⁴⁰ For example, “In conclusion, we have made substantial revisions to the manuscript based on the reviewers’ comments. We believe these changes have strengthened the quality and clarity of our work. We are grateful for the reviewers’ constructive feedback and look forward to your favorable consideration of our revised manuscript.” Finally, including reviewer acknowledgements in the article’s “acknowledgements section” can strengthen the manuscript. When reviewers’ feedback has substantially improved the work, formally recognizing their contributions demonstrates appreciation beyond the response letter.¹⁵ This practice not only cultivates positive relationships but also acknowledges the crucial role of peer reviewers in advancing knowledge.¹⁵ By highlighting their efforts, authors recognize the often-underappreciated work that reviewers do to refine scholarly articles.¹⁵

Resubmit promptly

It is advisable to resubmit the manuscript as quickly as possible, while the reviewers and the editor still have the work fresh in their minds.⁴ A prompt resubmission, accompanied by a detailed response letter, a clear response table, and highlighted changes, can significantly increase the likelihood of paper acceptance.³² By providing a comprehensive and organized submission, authors demonstrate their commitment to addressing reviewers’ feedback and improving the quality of the manuscript, thereby enhancing its chances of acceptance.

Conclusion

The PRP serves dual purposes.³⁴ For publishers, it offers a comprehensive evaluation of manuscripts from diverse perspectives, guarding against potential pitfalls like plagiarism.³⁴ For authors, it offers invaluable external insights, enabling them to refine and enhance their work, thereby improving its prospects for acceptance.³⁴

Navigating reviewers’ critiques can be daunting for authors.²³ However, the reviewers’ comments are not personal attacks, but rather constructive contributions aimed at facilitating publication.²³ Handling reviewers’ feedback appropriately and ethically significantly enhances the likelihood of manuscript acceptance.²³ Therefore, authors should approach the PRP with diligence, carefully considering each comment and making necessary adjustments to strengthen their manuscript. Additionally, maintaining clear and respectful communication with reviewers and editors throughout the process fosters a collaborative and productive environment conducive to scholarly advancement.

Ethical approval

The study design was determined to be exempt from human subjects’ research review, and therefore, formal approval was not required.

Informed consent

No need.