Responding to Reviewer Comments

For aspiring scientists, receiving reviewer feedback on a manuscript can be both exciting and daunting. Reviewer comments signal that the paper has progressed through initial editorial checks and is now receiving expert attention. These comments, however, often include requests for revision, clarification, or additional analysis. Understanding how to respond effectively is a key skill for any researcher seeking publication success.

Responding to reviewer comments is not simply a matter of fixing technical points. It is a professional dialogue that demonstrates the author’s commitment to scientific accuracy, clarity, and collaboration. A thoughtful, well-organised response can transform a challenging revision into an opportunity to strengthen the paper.

Understanding the Purpose of Reviewer Comments

Reviewer comments are intended to improve the quality of published research. Reviewers assess the scientific validity, methodological soundness, and clarity of the manuscript. Their feedback highlights issues that may limit the interpretation or reproducibility of the findings.

It is important to recognise that even critical comments are rarely personal. Reviewers are tasked with ensuring that published work meets the standards of the journal and the broader scientific community. By addressing their feedback with care, authors show respect for the process and for the shared goal of maintaining high-quality literature.

Initial Steps After Receiving Comments

When reviewer feedback arrives, it is natural to feel a strong emotional response. Whether the comments are largely positive or heavily critical, it is best to take time to read them carefully and reflect before responding.

Start by reading all comments thoroughly. Identify the key points raised by each reviewer. Make note of comments that align with your own sense of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses. For more challenging feedback, take time to consider whether there is a way to address the concern constructively.

Once you have reviewed all feedback, set the comments aside for a short period. Returning to them later with a fresh perspective can help you approach the task more objectively.

Structuring Your Response

A well-structured response letter is essential. Most journals expect a point-by-point reply to each comment. This reply is typically organised as a separate document submitted alongside the revised manuscript.

Key principles of an effective response letter include:

• Professional tone: Maintain a respectful and constructive tone, even when you disagree with a comment.

• Clarity: Make it easy for editors and reviewers to see how each comment has been addressed.

• Evidence: Support your responses with data, references, or clear reasoning where necessary.

• Completeness: Address every comment, even if you choose not to make a suggested change.

Responding to Different Types of Comments

Reviewer comments vary widely in focus and scope. Some may be straightforward, while others require substantial revision.

Requests for Clarification

These are often the most straightforward to address. A reviewer may ask for more detail about a method, a clearer explanation of results, or better justification of a conclusion. Adding sentences or adjusting figures can often resolve these points.

Requests for Additional Data or Analysis

Sometimes reviewers ask for more experiments or further analysis. It is important to evaluate whether these requests are reasonable and feasible. If you can perform the requested work within a reasonable timeframe, it may strengthen the manuscript. If the request is outside the scope of the study, explain clearly why it cannot be addressed in the current paper and, if possible, offer alternative approaches such as reanalysis of existing data.

Critical or Negative Feedback

More critical comments can be difficult to receive, but they also provide opportunities to improve the manuscript. Addressing major criticisms directly and professionally can significantly increase the chances of eventual acceptance.

Contradictory Comments

At times, different reviewers may give conflicting advice. In such cases, explain in your response letter how you chose to address the comments, providing a rationale for your decision. Editors are familiar with such situations and will appreciate a clear explanation.

Writing the Response Letter

An effective response letter generally follows a consistent format:

1. Opening Statement

   Thank the reviewers and editor for their time and constructive feedback. Acknowledge that the comments have helped improve the manuscript.

2. Point-by-Point Response

   Present each reviewer comment in full (often in italics or bold), followed by your response. Clearly indicate where changes have been made in the manuscript, referring to page and line numbers.

3. Summary of Changes

   Some journals request a brief summary of major changes at the start of the letter. This overview can help editors quickly understand the scope of the revision.

Example of a response to a minor comment:

Reviewer comment: The methods section does not clearly describe how participants were selected.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have revised the methods section (page 4, lines 102–110) to provide a clearer description of the inclusion criteria and recruitment process.

Example of a response to a major comment:

Reviewer comment: The statistical analysis does not appear to control for age as a potential confounding variable.Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s point regarding age as a potential confounder. We have reanalysed the data using a multivariable regression model with age as a covariate. The results remain consistent with the original findings (page 7, lines 190–210). These results are now presented in Table 3.

When You Disagree with a Comment

There are occasions when you may disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion. In such cases, it is important to explain your reasoning respectfully. Avoid dismissive language and provide evidence to support your position.

For example:

Reviewer comment: The discussion section should include a comparison with Study X published in 2018.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have reviewed Study X and agree that it is an important contribution to the field. However, the study’s focus differs significantly from our research question, and we believe a detailed comparison would risk distracting from the main findings. We have instead added a brief reference to Study X in the discussion (page 10, lines 270–273) to acknowledge its relevance.

By demonstrating that you have considered the suggestion seriously, you show respect for the reviewer while explaining why you did not adopt the change in full.

Maintaining a Professional Relationship

Responding to reviewer comments is part of building a professional reputation. Editors and reviewers remember authors who respond thoughtfully and thoroughly. A respectful, well-prepared response letter shows that you value the collaborative nature of scientific publishing.

Even if a paper is eventually rejected, a strong response can leave a positive impression for future submissions to the same journal.

Learning from the Process

The process of responding to reviewer comments does more than improve a single manuscript. It also builds skills in clear communication, scientific reasoning, and critical self-evaluation. Many experienced researchers can trace improvements in their writing, data presentation, and study design to lessons learned through peer review feedback.

For aspiring scientists, each round of comments is an opportunity to become more effective at presenting research. Over time, familiarity with the process reduces the anxiety that often accompanies reviewer feedback.

Conclusion

Responding to reviewer comments is a central part of scientific publishing. While the process can be challenging, it is also a valuable opportunity to refine your work and demonstrate professionalism.

Approaching reviewer feedback with care, respect, and a systematic plan will help turn even a long list of revisions into a stronger paper. By understanding the purpose of the comments, structuring your response clearly, and maintaining a professional tone, you not only improve your chances of publication but also build skills that will serve you throughout your career.

Contact us if you would like expert writing support for your manuscript.