research paper reviewer comments

Reviewer comments: examples for common peer review decisions

Peer-reviewing an academic manuscript is not an easy task. Especially if you are unsure about how to formulate your feedback. Examples of reviewer comment s can help! Here you can find an overview of sample comments and examples for the most common review decisions: ‘minor revisions’, ‘major revisions’, ‘revise and resubmit’ and ‘reject’ decisions.

Examples of ‘minor revisions’ reviewer comments

Examples of ‘major revisions’ reviewer comments.

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘major revisions’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘major revisions’ .

Examples of ‘revise and resubmit’ reviewer comments

Examples of ‘reject’ reviewer comments.

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘reject’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘reject’ decisions .

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox, minor revisions: sample peer review comments and examples, 5 proven ways to become an academic peer reviewer, related articles, separating your self-worth from your phd work, 10 tips for engaging your audience in academic writing, how to paraphrase a quote: 4 simple strategies, 24 popular academic phrases to write your abstract (+ real examples).

• Peer Review System
• Production Service
• OA Publishing Platform
• Law Review System
• Why Scholastica?
• Customer Stories
• eBooks, Guides & More
• Schedule a demo
• Law Reviews
• Innovations In Academia
• New Features

Subscribe to receive posts by email

• Legal Scholarship
• Peer Review/Publishing
• I agree to the data use terms outlined in Scholastica's Privacy Policy Must agree to privacy policy.

How to Write Constructive Peer Review Comments: Tips every journal should give referees

Like the art of tightrope walking, writing helpful peer review comments requires honing the ability to traverse many fine lines.

Referees have to strike a balance between being too critical or too careful, too specific or too vague, too conclusive or too open-ended — and the list goes on. Regardless of the stage of a scholar’s career, learning how to write consistently constructive peer review comments takes time and practice.

Most scholars embark on peer review with little to no formal training. So a bit of guidance from journals before taking on assignments is often welcome and can make a big difference in review quality. In this blog post, we’re rounding up 7 tips journals can give referees to help them conduct solid peer reviews and deliver feedback effectively.

You can incorporate these tips into your journal reviewer guidelines and any training materials you prepare, or feel free to link reviewers straight to this blog post!

Take steps to avoid decision fatigue

Did you know that some sources suggest adults make upwards of 35,000 decisions per day ? Hard to believe, right?!

Whether that stat is indeed the norm, there’s no question that we humans make MANY choices on the regular, from what to wear and what route to take to work to avoid construction to which emails to respond to first and how to go about that really tricky research project in the midst of tackling usual tasks, meetings — and, well, everything else. And that’s all likely before 10 AM!

In his blog post “ How to Peer Review ,” Dr. Matthew Might, Professor in the Department of Medicine and Director of the Hugh Kaul Precision Medicine Institute at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, explained that over time the compounding mental strain of so much deliberation can result in a phenomenon known as decision fatigue . Decision fatigue is a deterioration in decision-making quality, which for busy peer reviewers can lead to writing less than articulate comments at best and missing critical points at worst.

In order to avoid decision fatigue, Might said scholars should try to work on peer reviews early in the day before they become bogged down with other matters. Additionally, he advises referees to work on no more than one review at a time when possible, or within one sitting at least, and to avoid reviewing when they feel tired or hungry. Taking steps to prevent decision fatigue can help scholars produce higher quality comments and, ultimately, write reviews faster because they’ll be working on them at times when they’re likely to be more focused and productive.

Of course, referees won’t always be able to follow every one of the above recommendations all of the time, nor will journal editors know if they have. But, it’s worth it for editors to remind reviewers to take decision fatigue into account before accepting and starting assignments.

Be cognizant of conscious and unconscious biases

Another decision-making factor that can cloud peer reviewers’ judgment that all editors should be hyper-attuned to is conscious and unconscious biases. Journal ethical guidelines are, of course, the first line of defense for preventing explicit biases. Every journal should have conflict of interest policies on when and how to disclose potential competing interests (e.g., financial ties, academic commitments, personal relationships) that could influence reviewers’ (as well as editors’ and authors’) level of objectivity in the publication process. The Committee on Publication Ethics offers many helpful guides for developing conflict of interest / competing interest statements, and medical journals can find a “summary of key elements for peer-reviewed medical journal’s conflict of interest policies” from The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) here .

But what about unconscious biases that could have potentially insidious impacts on peer reviews?

Journals can help curb implicit bias by following double-anonymized peer review processes. Though, as the editors of Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology acknowledged in an announcement about their decision to move to double-anonymized peer review, even when all parties’ identities are concealed “unintentional exposure of author or institution identity is sometimes unavoidable, such as in small, specialized fields or subsequent to early sharing of data at conferences.”

Truly tackling unconscious biases requires getting to their roots, starting with acknowledging that they exist. Journals should remind reviewers to be cognizant of the fact that everyone harbors implicit biases that could impact their decision-making, as IOPScience does here and Cambridge University Press does here and provide tips for spotting and addressing biases. IOP advises reviewers to “focus on facts rather than feelings, slow down your decision making, and consider and reconsider the reasons for your conclusions.” And CUP reminds referees that “rooting your review in evidence from the paper or proposal is crucial in avoiding bias.”

Journals can also offer unconscious bias prevention training or direct referees to available resources such as this recorded Peer Reviewer Unconscious Bias webinar from the American Heart Association.

Null or negative results aren’t a basis for rejection

Speaking of forms of bias that can affect the peer review process, “positive results bias” — or the tendency to want to accept and publish positive results rather than null or negative results — is a common one. In a Royal Society blog post on what makes a good peer review, Head of the Department of Population Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Dr. Rebecca Sear, spoke to how positive results bias can throw a wrench in peer review. Speaking from the perspective of an author, editor, and reviewer, Sear said, “at worst, this distorts science by keeping valuable research out of the literature entirely. It also creates inefficiencies in the system when publishable research has to be submitted to multiple journals before publication, burdening several reviewers and editors with the costs of evaluating the same research. A further problem is that the anonymity typically given to peer reviewers can result in unprofessional behavior being unleashed on authors.”

Journals can help prevent positive results bias by clearly stating that recommendations regarding manuscript decisions should be made on the basis of the quality of the research question, methodology, and perceived accuracy (rather than positivity) of the findings. Remind reviewers (and editors) that null and negative results can also provide valuable and even novel contributions to the literature.

List the negatives and the positives

When it comes time to write peer review comments, some scholars may intentionally or not lean heavily towards giving criticism rather than praise. Of course, peer reviews need to be rigorous, and that requires a critical eye, but it’s important for reviewers to let authors know what they’re doing right also. Otherwise, the author may lose sight of the working parts of their submission and could end up actually making it worse in revisions.

Journals should remind reviewers that their goal is to help authors identify what they are doing correctly as well as where to improve . Reviews shouldn’t be so negative that the author ends up pulling apart their entire manuscript. Additionally, it’s worth reminding reviewers to keep snarky comments to themselves. As Dr. Might noted in his blog, the presence of sarcasm in peer review may nullify any useful feedback provided in the eyes of the author.

Give concrete examples and advice (within scope!)

No author likes hearing that an area of their paper “needs work” without getting context as to why. It’s essential to remind reviewers to back up their comments and opinions with concrete examples and suggestions for improvement and ensure that any recommendations they’re making are within the scope of the journal requirements and research subject matter in question.

Remind reviewers that if they make suggestions for authors to provide additional references, data points, or experiments, they should be within scope and something the reviewer can confirm they would be able (and willing) to do themselves if in the author’s position.

One of the best ways to help train reviewers on how to give constructive feedback is to provide them with real-world examples. These “ Peer Review Examples “ from F1000 are a great starting point.

Another way editors can help reviewers give more concrete commentary is by advising them to log their reactions and responses to a paper as they read it. This can help reviewers avoid making blanket criticisms about an entire work that are, in fact, only applicable to some sections. It may also encourage reviewers to recognize and point out more positives!

Providing reviewers with detailed feedback forms and manuscript assessment checklists is another surefire way to help them stay on track.

Don’t be afraid to seek support

Journals should also remind prospective reviewers that it’s OK to ask for support when working on peer reviews. For example, an early-career researcher might want to seek a mentor to co-author their first review with them or provide general guidance on how to determine whether an experiment was conducted in the best manner possible (keeping manuscript information confidential, of course).

To help new referees get their footing, journals can assist them in identifying mentorship opportunities where applicable and offer peer reviewer training or links to external resources. For example, Taylor & Francis has an “ Excellence in Peer Review “ course, and Sense About Science has a “ Peer Review Nuts and Bolts “ guide.

For journals dealing with specialized subject matter, it’s also critical to be prepared to bring in expert opinions when needed. Editors should let reviewers know not to hesitate to suggest bringing in an expert if they feel it’s necessary.

Follow the Golden Rule

Finally, perhaps the best piece of advice journals can give reviewers is to follow the Golden Rule. You know it, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

In his “How to peer review” guide, Dr. Matthew Might provided a clear barometer for referees to determine if they’ve prepared a thorough and fair review. “Once you’ve completed your review, ask yourself if you would be satisfied with the quality had you received the same for your own work,” he said. “If the answer is no, revise.”

Related Posts

How Libraries Can Help Journals Cut Corporate Ties: LPForum Presentation Recap

During the 2017 LPForum Scholastica presented ways libraries can facilitate the democratization of academic journals beyond library publishing programs. Here's a recap.

Why every academic journal should track digital publishing analytics

How much do you know about your online journal readership? If you're not yet tracking publishing analytics, it may not be as much as you think. In this blog post, we're rounding up three analytics areas all journal teams should be assessing and why.

4 Reasons editors should independently promote their academic journals and tips to get started

While a reputation for publishing high-quality content will always be the number one way for journals to set themselves apart in the eyes of authors and readers, regular promotion is becoming paramount to building and retaining a following. In this blog post, we break down why and steps to get started.

Steps journals can take to support authors living with disabilities: Interview with Tekla Babyak

In this interview, Independent Musicologist and Disability Activist Tekla Babyak (Ph.D., Musicology, Cornell, 2014) discusses her experience as an academic living with MS and shares steps scholarly journal publishers and editors can take to better support authors with disabilities.

5 Scholarly publishing trends to watch in 2022

Publishing consultant Lettie Conrad and Scholastica's Danielle Padula share the top five scholarly publishing trends they're watching in 2022 and implications for small to mid-sized and independent publishers.

7 Tips if you're thinking about changing journal peer review software

Are you considering changing peer review systems? This blog post overviews seven tips to help you assess your peer review process needs and how to approach a software transition if you decide it's time to make a switch.

Response to Reviewers

Many authors receive an invitation to revise and resubmit their manuscript when the first version of their manuscript has potential for publication but is not quite ready for final acceptance. Journal editors may send the manuscript out for peer review, and then the reviewers suggest changes or pose questions for the authors. For example, reviewers may request that authors provide additional explanatory text, edit overlong passages to be shorter, or conduct additional analyses. The APA Science Student Council provides further guidance on and strategies for navigating the peer review process .

Authors should address this feedback from reviewers in a response to reviewers. A response to reviewers specifies how the authors addressed each comment the reviewers made. The response to reviewers is usually organized by presenting reviewers’ comments one by one, followed by the authors’ response. Authors should distinguish their responses from the reviewers’ comments by using phrases such as “author response” and/or a different font color. Then, each response should clearly explain the change made and where that change can be found in the revised manuscript (i.e., page number, paragraph, and/or line). In the revised manuscript itself, the authors may use highlighting to draw additional attention to the change. If the authors did not make a suggested change, they should provide a rationale for their decision.

Authors should also include a cover letter to accompany the response to reviewers and the revised manuscript.

Responses to reviewers are covered in the seventh edition APA Style Publication Manual in Section 12.8

Sample response to reviewers

This is a sample response to reviewers. It includes suggested language for responding to comments from reviewers. Use this as a template to guide your own response to reviewers, being sure to modify the content to address the specific comments raised by reviewers of your manuscript. When crafting your response to reviewers, carefully read all comments and respond to them thoughtfully and accurately.

• Sample Response to Reviewers (PDF, 150KB)

Responding to reviewers’ comments: tips on handling challenging comments

• Lecture Text
• Published: 21 June 2022
• Volume 8 , article number  16 , ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Shamala Balan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8424-7729 1  

1845 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The goal of every author is to have their research work published. In the process of publishing a peer-reviewed article, authors are often required to revise their original manuscript based on the comments from the reviewers. Although some of these comments are straightforward and concise, others are conflicting and unclear and, as such, authors may find it challenging to plan and carry out the revision as well as compose the accompanying response letter. In this article I outline eight challenges in handling reviewers’ comments that may be useful for novice authors. In general, authors will always benefit from adopting a positive attitude towards reviewers’ comments and make the effort to improve their manuscript.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Writing as Communicating with Reviewers: Strategies for Anticipating and Addressing Insightful and Skeptical Reviews

Empowering peer reviewers with a checklist to improve transparency

The Journal Editor as Academic Custodian

Explore related subjects.

• Environmental Chemistry

Scholz F (2022) Writing and publishing a scientific paper. ChemTexts 8:8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00160-7

Article   Google Scholar  

McGrail MR, Rickard CM, Jones R (2006) Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. High Educ Res Dev 25:19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500453053

Johnston J, Wilson S, Rix E, Pit SW (2014) Publish or perish: strategies to help rural early career researchers increase publication output. Rural Remote Health 14:372–377

Google Scholar  

Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K (2014) Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, and a survival guide. EJIFCC 25:227–243

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Annesley TM (2011) Top 10 tips for responding to reviewer and editor comments. Clin Chem 57:551–554

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Gabbaï FP, Chirik PJ (2018) Dos and don’ts: thoughts on how to respond to reviewer comments. Organometallics 37:2655

Ensom MHH (2011) Improving the chances of manuscript acceptance: how to address peer reviewers’ comments. Can J Hosp Pharm 64:389–391

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nahata MC, Sorkin EM (2019) Responding to manuscript reviewer and editor comments. Ann Pharmacother 53:959–961

Hiemstra PS (2018) How to write a response to the reviewers of your manuscript. Breathe 14:319–321

Hunt MJ, Ochmanska M, Cilulko-Dolega J (2019) How to write an effective response letter to reviewers. Med Sci Pulse 13:60–63

Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD (2019) Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ 7:e8247. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Curran-Everett D (2017) The thrill of the paper, the agony of the review. Adv Physiol Educ 41:338–340. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00069.2017

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2020) The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. Int Orthop 44:413–415

Hites RA (2021) How to convince an editor to accept your paper quickly. Sci Total Environ 798:149243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149243

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Johnson SH (1996) Dealing with conflicting reviewers’ comments. Nurse Author Ed 6:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4910.1996.tb00365.x

Adib S, Nimehchisalem V (2021) Reasons for manuscript rejection at internal and peer-review stages. Int J Educ Lit Stud 9:2–8

Kim SD, Petru M, Gielecki J, Loukas M (2019) Causes of manuscript rejection and how to handle a rejected manuscript. In: Shoja M, Arynchyna A, Loukas M, D'Antoni AV, Buerger SM, Karl  M et al (eds) A guide to the scientific career. Hoboken, Wiley, pp 419–422

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ware M (2008) Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Citeseer.  http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.9676&rep=rep1&type=pdf . Accessed 17 May 2022

Ralph P (2016) Practical suggestions for improving scholarly peer review quality and reducing cycle times. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 38:13

Rasmussen SC (2020) Peer review-critical feedback or necessary evil? Substantia 4:5–6

Agarwal R (2013) Editorial notes. Inf Syst Res 24:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2013.0476

Street C, Ward KW (2019) Cognitive bias in the peer review process: understanding a source of friction between reviewers and researchers. ACM SIGMIS Database Adv Inf Syst 50:52–70

Barroga E (2020) Innovative strategies for peer review. J Korean Med Sci 35:e138–e138. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Pharmacy Department, Tunku Azizah Hospital, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kampung Baru, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Shamala Balan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shamala Balan .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Balan, S. Responding to reviewers’ comments: tips on handling challenging comments. ChemTexts 8 , 16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00167-0

Download citation

Received : 11 February 2022

Accepted : 07 June 2022

Published : 21 June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00167-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Peer review process
• Reviewers’ comments
• Authors’ responses
• Tactfulness
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions

Once you’ve submitted your paper to an academic journal you’re in the nerve-racking position of waiting to hear back about the fate of your work. In this post we’ll cover everything from potential responses you could receive from the editor and example peer review comments through to how to submit revisions.

My first first-author paper was reviewed by five (yes 5!) reviewers and since then I’ve published several others papers, so now I want to share the insights I’ve gained which will hopefully help you out!

This post is part of my series to help with writing and publishing your first academic journal paper. You can find the whole series here: Writing an academic journal paper .

The Peer Review Process

When you submit a paper to a journal, the first thing that will happen is one of the editorial team will do an initial assessment of whether or not the article is of interest. They may decide for a number of reasons that the article isn’t suitable for the journal and may reject the submission before even sending it out to reviewers.

If this happens hopefully they’ll have let you know quickly so that you can move on and make a start targeting a different journal instead.

Handy way to check the status – Sign in to the journal’s submission website and have a look at the status of your journal article online. If you can see that the article is under review then you’ve passed that first hurdle!

When your paper is under peer review, the journal will have set out a framework to help the reviewers assess your work. Generally they’ll be deciding whether the work is to a high enough standard.

Interested in reading about what reviewers are looking for? Check out my post on being a reviewer for the first time. Peer-Reviewing Journal Articles: Should You Do It? Sharing What I Learned From My First Experiences .

Once the reviewers have made their assessments, they’ll return their comments and suggestions to the editor who will then decide how the article should proceed.

How Many People Review Each Paper?

The editor ideally wants a clear decision from the reviewers as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. If there is no consensus among the reviewers then the editor may send your paper out to more reviewers to better judge whether or not to accept the paper.

If you’ve got a lot of reviewers on your paper it isn’t necessarily that the reviewers disagreed about accepting your paper.

You can also end up with lots of reviewers in the following circumstance:

• The editor asks a certain academic to review the paper but doesn’t get a response from them
• The editor asks another academic to step in
• The initial reviewer then responds

Next thing you know your work is being scrutinised by extra pairs of eyes!

As mentioned in the intro, my first paper ended up with five reviewers!

Potential Journal Responses

Assuming that the paper passes the editor’s initial evaluation and is sent out for peer-review, here are the potential decisions you may receive:

• Reject the paper. Sadly the editor and reviewers decided against publishing your work. Hopefully they’ll have included feedback which you can incorporate into your submission to another journal. I’ve had some rejections and the reviewer comments were genuinely useful.
• Accept the paper with major revisions . Good news: with some more work your paper could get published. If you make all the changes that the reviewers suggest, and they’re happy with your responses, then it should get accepted. Some people see major revisions as a disappointment but it doesn’t have to be.
• Accept the paper with minor revisions. This is like getting a major revisions response but better! Generally minor revisions can be addressed quickly and often come down to clarifying things for the reviewers: rewording, addressing minor concerns etc and don’t require any more experiments or analysis. You stand a really good chance of getting the paper published if you’ve been given a minor revisions result.
• Accept the paper with no revisions . I’m not sure that this ever really happens, but it is potentially possible if the reviewers are already completely happy with your paper!

Keen to know more about academic publishing? My series on publishing is now available as a free eBook. It includes my experiences being a peer reviewer. Click the image below for access.

Example Peer Review Comments & Addressing Reviewer Feedback

If your paper has been accepted but requires revisions, the editor will forward to you the comments and concerns that the reviewers raised. You’ll have to address these points so that the reviewers are satisfied your work is of a publishable standard.

It is extremely important to take this stage seriously. If you don’t do a thorough job then the reviewers won’t recommend that your paper is accepted for publication!

You’ll have to put together a resubmission with your co-authors and there are two crucial things you must do:

• Make revisions to your manuscript based off reviewer comments
• Reply to the reviewers, telling them the changes you’ve made and potentially changes you’ve not made in instances where you disagree with them. Read on to see some example peer review comments and how I replied!

Before making any changes to your actual paper, I suggest having a thorough read through the reviewer comments.

Once you’ve read through the comments you might be keen to dive straight in and make the changes in your paper. Instead, I actually suggest firstly drafting your reply to the reviewers.

Why start with the reply to reviewers? Well in a way it is actually potentially more important than the changes you’re making in the manuscript.

Imagine when a reviewer receives your response to their comments: you want them to be able to read your reply document and be satisfied that their queries have largely been addressed without even having to open the updated draft of your manuscript. If you do a good job with the replies, the reviewers will be better placed to recommend the paper be accepted!

By starting with your reply to the reviewers you’ll also clarify for yourself what changes actually have to be made to the paper.

So let’s now cover how to reply to the reviewers.

1. Replying to Journal Reviewers

It is so important to make sure you do a solid job addressing your reviewers’ feedback in your reply document. If you leave anything unanswered you’re asking for trouble, which in this case means either a rejection or another round of revisions: though some journals only give you one shot! Therefore make sure you’re thorough, not just with making the changes but demonstrating the changes in your replies.

It’s no good putting in the work to revise your paper but not evidence it in your reply to the reviewers!

There may be points that reviewers raise which don’t appear to necessitate making changes to your manuscript, but this is rarely the case. Even for comments or concerns they raise which are already addressed in the paper, clearly those areas could be clarified or highlighted to ensure that future readers don’t get confused.

How to Reply to Journal Reviewers

Some journals will request a certain format for how you should structure a reply to the reviewers. If so this should be included in the email you receive from the journal’s editor. If there are no certain requirements here is what I do:

• Copy and paste all replies into a document.
• Separate out each point they raise onto a separate line. Often they’ll already be nicely numbered but sometimes they actually still raise separate issues in one block of text. I suggest separating it all out so that each query is addressed separately.
• Form your reply for each point that they raise. I start by just jotting down notes for roughly how I’ll respond. Once I’m happy with the key message I’ll write it up into a scripted reply.
• Finally, go through and format it nicely and include line number references for the changes you’ve made in the manuscript.

By the end you’ll have a document that looks something like:

Reviewer 1 Point 1: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!

What To Actually Include In Your Reply To Reviewers

For every single point raised by the reviewers, you should do the following:

• Address their concern: Do you agree or disagree with the reviewer’s comment? Either way, make your position clear and justify any differences of opinion. If the reviewer wants more clarity on an issue, provide it. It is really important that you actually address their concerns in your reply. Don’t just say “Thanks, we’ve changed the text”. Actually include everything they want to know in your reply. Yes this means you’ll be repeating things between your reply and the revisions to the paper but that’s fine.
• Reference changes to your manuscript in your reply. Once you’ve answered the reviewer’s question, you must show that you’re actually using this feedback to revise the manuscript. The best way to do this is to refer to where the changes have been made throughout the text. I personally do this by include line references. Make sure you save this right until the end once you’ve finished making changes!

Example Peer Review Comments & Author Replies

In order to understand how this works in practice I’d suggest reading through a few real-life example peer review comments and replies.

The good news is that published papers often now include peer-review records, including the reviewer comments and authors’ replies. So here are two feedback examples from my own papers:

Example Peer Review: Paper 1

Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!

• Reviewer Comments
• My reply to Reviewer 1
• My reply to Reviewer 2

One round of reviews wasn’t enough for Reviewer 2…

• My reply to Reviewer 2 – ROUND 2

Thankfully it was accepted after the second round of review, and actually ended up being selected for this accolade, whatever most notable means?!

Nice to see our recent paper highlighted as one of the most notable articles, great start to the week! Thanks @Materials_mdpi 😀 #openaccess & available here: https://t.co/AKWLcyUtpC @ICBiomechanics @julianrjones @saman_tavana pic.twitter.com/ciOX2vftVL — Jeff Clark (@savvy_scientist) December 7, 2020

Example Peer Review: Paper 2

Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by three academics and was given minor revisions.

• My reply to Reviewer 3

I’m pleased to say it was accepted after the first round of revisions 🙂

Things To Be Aware Of When Replying To Peer Review Comments

• Generally, try to make a revision to your paper for every comment. No matter what the reviewer’s comment is, you can probably make a change to the paper which will improve your manuscript. For example, if the reviewer seems confused about something, improve the clarity in your paper. If you disagree with the reviewer, include better justification for your choices in the paper. It is far more favourable to take on board the reviewer’s feedback and act on it with actual changes to your draft.
• Organise your responses. Sometimes journals will request the reply to each reviewer is sent in a separate document. Unless they ask for it this way I stick them all together in one document with subheadings eg “Reviewer 1” etc.
• Make sure you address each and every question. If you dodge anything then the reviewer will have a valid reason to reject your resubmission. You don’t need to agree with them on every point but you do need to justify your position.
• Be courteous. No need to go overboard with compliments but stay polite as reviewers are providing constructive feedback. I like to add in “We thank the reviewer for their suggestion” every so often where it genuinely warrants it. Remember that written language doesn’t always carry tone very well, so rather than risk coming off as abrasive if I don’t agree with the reviewer’s suggestion I’d rather be generous with friendliness throughout the reply.

2. How to Make Revisions To Your Paper

Once you’ve drafted your replies to the reviewers, you’ve actually done a lot of the ground work for making changes to the paper. Remember, you are making changes to the paper based off the reviewer comments so you should regularly be referring back to the comments to ensure you’re not getting sidetracked.

Reviewers could request modifications to any part of your paper. You may need to collect more data, do more analysis, reformat some figures, add in more references or discussion or any number of other revisions! So I can’t really help with everything, even so here is some general advice:

• Use tracked-changes. This is so important. The editor and reviewers need to be able to see every single change you’ve made compared to your first submission. Sometimes the journal will want a clean copy too but always start with tracked-changes enabled then just save a clean copy afterwards.
• Be thorough . Try to not leave any opportunity for the reviewers to not recommend your paper to be published. Any chance you have to satisfy their concerns, take it. For example if the reviewers are concerned about sample size and you have the means to include other experiments, consider doing so. If they want to see more justification or references, be thorough. To be clear again, this doesn’t necessarily mean making changes you don’t believe in. If you don’t want to make a change, you can justify your position to the reviewers. Either way, be thorough.
• Use your reply to the reviewers as a guide. In your draft reply to the reviewers you should have already included a lot of details which can be incorporated into the text. If they raised a concern, you should be able to go and find references which address the concern. This reference should appear both in your reply and in the manuscript. As mentioned above I always suggest starting with the reply, then simply adding these details to your manuscript once you know what needs doing.

Putting Together Your Paper Revision Submission

• Once you’ve drafted your reply to the reviewers and revised manuscript, make sure to give sufficient time for your co-authors to give feedback. Also give yourself time afterwards to make changes based off of their feedback. I ideally give a week for the feedback and another few days to make the changes.
• When you’re satisfied that you’ve addressed the reviewer comments, you can think about submitting it. The journal may ask for another letter to the editor, if not I simply add to the top of the reply to reviewers something like:

“Dear [Editor], We are grateful to the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments that have led to an improved manuscript.  Here, we address their concerns/suggestions and have tracked changes throughout the revised manuscript.”

Once you’re ready to submit:

• Double check that you’ve done everything that the editor requested in their email
• Double check that the file names and formats are as required
• Triple check you’ve addressed the reviewer comments adequately
• Click submit and bask in relief!

You won’t always get the paper accepted, but if you’re thorough and present your revisions clearly then you’ll put yourself in a really good position. Remember to try as hard as possible to satisfy the reviewers’ concerns to minimise any opportunity for them to not accept your revisions!

Best of luck!

I really hope that this post has been useful to you and that the example peer review section has given you some ideas for how to respond. I know how daunting it can be to reply to reviewers, and it is really important to try to do a good job and give yourself the best chances of success. If you’d like to read other posts in my academic publishing series you can find them here:

Blog post series: Writing an academic journal paper

Subscribe below to stay up to date with new posts in the academic publishing series and other PhD content.

Share this:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)

Related Posts

How to Plan a Research Visit

13th September 2024 13th September 2024

The Five Most Powerful Lessons I Learned During My PhD

8th August 2024 8th August 2024

Minor Corrections: How To Make Them and Succeed With Your PhD Thesis

2nd June 2024 2nd June 2024

2 Comments on “My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions”

Excellent article! Thank you for the inspiration!

No worries at all, thanks for your kind comment!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Privacy Overview

• SpringerLink shop

Writing a reviewer report

Whether you recommend accepting or rejecting the manuscript, keep in mind that one of your goals is to help the authors improve this and future manuscripts—not to make them give up in despair. Avoid overly negative wording or personal comments, point out the main strengths of the manuscript as well as its weaknesses, and suggest specific ways to fix the problems you identify. Also, avoid making overly brief and direct comments, as these can give your report an unfriendly tone. Reviewers for most journals are anonymous, so if anonymity is important to you, avoid comments that could make your identity obvious to the authors.

If the editor sent specific instructions for the reviewer report, or a form to fill out as part of the review, you should write your report in the requested format. If you received no specific instructions, the reviewer report should be divided into two parts:

• comments to be read only by the editor, and
• comments to be read by both the editor and the authors.

Comments for only the editor:

In this section, give the editor your recommendation for the manuscript and, more importantly, your reasons behind it. These usually have to do with the manuscript’s scientific soundness, novelty, quality, importance, and suitability for the journal. Editors take many factors into consideration when deciding whether a paper is right for their journal so providing evidence or reasoning for your recommendation is extremely helpful.

TIP: Recommendations are usually one of the following: accept manuscript in its current form, publish with minor changes, publish only if major improvements are made, or to reject the paper.

Comments for both the editor and authors:

In this section, write a detailed report reviewing the different parts of the manuscript. Start with the short summary of the manuscript you wrote after your first reading. Then, in a numbered list, explain each of the issues you found that need to be addressed. Divide the list into two sections: major issues and minor issues. First, write about the major issues, including problems with the study’s method or analysis. Next, write about the minor issues, which might include tables or figures that are difficult to read, parts that need more explanation, and suggestions to delete unnecessary text. If you think the English language of the manuscript is not suitable for publication, try to give specific examples so that the authors know what and how to address the problems. Be as specific as you can about the manuscript’s weaknesses and how to address them. If the manuscript has line numbers, include the page and line number(s) specific to the part of the study you are discussing. This will help both the authors and the editor, who may later need to judge if the authors have fixed the problems in their revised manuscript. For example, instead of, “ The explanation of the proposed mechanism is not clear. ” You might write,  “The explanation of the proposed mechanism should be more detailed. Consider referring to the work of Li and Smith, et al. (2008) and Stein and Burdak, et al. (2010). ”

Keep in mind that the authors – and even the editor – may not be native English speakers. Read over your comments after you finish writing them to check that you’ve used clear, simple wording, and that the reasons for your proposed changes are clear.

Back  │  Next

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

• What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
• How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
• Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
• If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
• If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

• Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
• The use of a discredited method
• Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

• The sampling in analytical papers
• The sufficient use of control experiments
• The precision of process data
• The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
• The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
• That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

• Insufficient data
• Unclear data tables
• Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
• Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

• Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
• Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
• Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

• Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
• Are the methods used appropriate?
• Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

• Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
• Try to group similar concerns or praise together
• If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
• Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

• Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
• Any factual errors
• Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

• Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
• Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
• Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
• Is the paper an appropriate length?
• Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

• Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
• Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
• Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

• Sets out the argument
• Summarizes recent research related to the topic
• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
• Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

• Control experiments
• Repeated analyses
• Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

• Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
• The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
• Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

• They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
• They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
• Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
• The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

• The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
• The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
• There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

• Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
• Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
• If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
• References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

• Helpful to the reader
• Fair to competing authors
• Not over-reliant on self-citation
• Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

• Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
• Highlight important findings sufficiently?
• Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

• Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
• Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
• Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
• Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
• Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
• State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

• Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
• Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
• Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
• If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
• Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
• Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

• Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
• Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
• Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
• Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

• Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
• Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
• Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
• If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
• Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

• Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
• Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
• Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think!   opens in new tab/window

3 top tips for responding to reviewer comments on your manuscript

February 12, 2015

An editor and publisher highlight the dos and don’ts when providing feedback

Peer review has a vital role to play in research and publishing and a key step in that process is the revision of your paper. However, knowing how to respond to reviewers' comments isn't always easy - get it right and you could see your paper published, get it wrong and it could mean rejection. So  what can you do to increase your chances of success?

There's plenty of room for improvement, says Imre Pázsit, Executive Editor of the  Annals of Nuclear Energy   opens in new tab/window  and a Professor at  Chalmers University of  Technology   opens in new tab/window  in Göteborg, Sweden.

Annals of Nuclear Energy book cover

"Originally I thought the mistakes in authors' responses were because of a lack of information on the journal website, or in the letter asking them to revise, but I think it's actually more than that," explains Professor Pázsit. "When early career researchers start publishing, they do so under the  guidance of more senior researchers, who show them how to write a paper. Except this part – responding to reviewers' comments – often gets left out."

He thinks this aspect of the process needs to be systematically included in training for authors, like in our recent Publishing Connect webinar " How reviewers look at your paper   opens in new tab/window ".

Professor Pázsit says: "It's difficult to systematize manuscript writing in general, a bit like trying to explain how to compose music, but there should be training. Responding to reviews is a point missed by most people who provide professional training. I think there are a few main things that could  make the work of editors and reviewers as effective as possible."

You can disagree, as long as you explain

As an author, it can be difficult to read reviewers' suggestions – after all, you have probably poured blood, sweat and tears into the manuscript. You might even have a knee-jerk reaction to defend your article.

According to Professor Pázsit, disagreement is fine – in fact, it is actually part of the process – but it's important you can back it up. "The author may not agree with a comment – this is the essence of the scientific debate, a natural part of the business."

Explaining why you disagree will help the reviewer and editor understand your point of view and ultimately help them make an informed decision about your paper. As Elsevier Executive Publisher Dr. Jaap van Harten advises, "don't fall into the trap of writing to the editor to say that the reviewer is crazy, or incompetent. Make it a factual response. You should have a complete, solid and polite rebuttal to the editor. Write in such a manner that your response can be forwarded to the reviewer – editors love copy pasting."

Spell it out

"The main mistake I see in authors' responses to reviewers' comments is in what I call the 'ergonomy' of the information – how well it's described to the editors and reviewers," says Professor Pázsit. "The editors and reviewers don't have time to check the new draft line by line and find the author's changes."

According to Dr. van Harten, the simplest way to ensure your responses are informative is to "copy paste each reviewer comment, and type your response below it. If you do so, you should be very specific. So if the reviewer says 'the discussion section is not clear', it's not enough to say 'we changed the discussion section'. What you should say is 'we changed the discussion section on page 24, lines 7-23'. That makes it clear to the editor what you have changed, and when it goes back to the reviewer, the reviewer sees it immediately and you create a win-win situation".

Further reading

Peer Review: the nuts and Bolts   opens in new tab/window (a publication by Sense About Science)

Responding to a reviewer – Academia Stack Exchange   opens in new tab/window

Reviewers' home on Elsevier.com

Don't forget to make the changes

One of the biggest mistakes made by authors is to respond to all the comments, but forget to actually update the paper.

Don't be that person: one way to make sure you remember is to always include line numbers in your changes. That way, you actually have to make the change first before including the line numbers in your response.

What are your top tips for responding to reviewers' comments? Tell us in the comments below!

Contributor biographies

Professor Imre Pázsit is an Executive Editor of  Annals of Nuclear Energy . He is full professor at the Division of Nuclear Engineering, Department of Applied Physics at Sweden's Chalmers University of Technology,  with a state-endowed chair. He is also a Fellow of the  American Nuclear Society   opens in new tab/window , a Member of the  Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences   opens in new tab/window , and a Member of the  Royal Society of Arts and Sciences   opens in new tab/window  in Göteborg. He is Adjunct Professor at the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Radiological Sciences of the  University of Michigan   opens in new tab/window , and a Visiting Professor at the Department of Mechanical Engineering of the University of  South Carolina   opens in new tab/window . Recently he became the first recipient of the 'National Energy Prize' from the State Utility Hungarian Electricity Ltd.

Imre Pázsit

Dr. Jaap van Harten is Executive Publisher for Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical Sciences at Elsevier in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. He trained as a pharmacist at  Leiden University   opens in new tab/window , The Netherlands, and got a PhD in clinical pharmacology in 1988. He then joined Solvay Pharmaceuticals, where he held positions in pharmacokinetics, clinical pharmacology, medical marketing, and regulatory affairs. In 2000, he moved to Excerpta Medica, Elsevier's medical communications branch, where he headed the Medical Department and the Strategic Publication Planning Department. In 2004, he joined Elsevier's Publishing organization, initially as Publisher of the Genetics journals and books, and since 2006 as Executive Publisher Pharmacology & Pharmaceutical Sciences.

Dr. Jaap van Harten

Lucy Goodchild van Hilten

Science Writer

Authors' Update - keeping journal authors in touch with industry developments, support and training

How to respond to reviewers’ comments: A practical guide for authors

Whether you publish your referee reports with your paper or not, how you respond to reviewers’ comments on submitted articles is essential to publication.

It is true that the journal editor will decide whether to accept or reject your manuscript based on the scientific integrity of the work you are reporting. However, your response to reviewers and the journal editor will steer the journal editor’s decision-making process. So, a well-crafted letter to reviewers can only work in your favor.

But how should you reply to reviewers to convince them your paper should be published in your target journal? The following advice should guide you in the right direction, no matter the type of criticism you received from peer reviewers.

The right mindset drives the right response to reviewers

Before you respond to reviewers’ comments, celebrate three good things that happened to you:

• Your research paper was deemed good enough to be sent to peer review.
• The peer reviewers carved time out of their schedules to evaluate your work for free.
• Your paper was not rejected, and you were either invited to revise and resubmit or your paper was accepted with minor or major changes.

Now you can move on. Prepare to accept the criticism from your peers—it is an essential part of getting published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Getting detailed reviewer reports is a good thing. It means the reviewers have done a thorough job of finding the weak spots of your paper and are giving you the chance to improve your paper.

Getting a harsh reviewer is possible, but it doesn’t happen often if you submit papers to top scholarly journals. Most reviewers are helpful and offer constructive criticism, but they don’t waste much ink praising the manuscript. Remember they are doing the work for no remuneration, and the best use of their time is to make comments that will improve your manuscript, not boost your ego.

So, prepare to receive more criticism than praise before you respond to reviewers’ comments.

While a helpful review summarizes the major positives and details the negatives of a manuscript, in general, most reviewer comments are negative. Or, you’ll perceive them as negative. This doesn’t mean your paper has more weaknesses than strengths. It means that the reviewer has to detail your paper’s limitations, as these—not its strong points—need to be addressed by your revision.

Revise the manuscript before you respond to reviewers’ comments

It usually takes so long to receive feedback from the journal editor after submitting a paper that once you finally have their response in your inbox, you get defensive and inpatient. You are tempted to jump right into replying to the journal editor to defend every bit of your original submission and list your reasons for disagreeing with the reviewers.

If this situation looks familiar, you may not be ready to respond to reviewers’ comments just yet. To cool off, read the article “The Five Stages of Rejection” . It will prepare you to face the processes of revision and responding to reviewers.

When you’re finally ready to deal with the reviewers’ comments in a professional, objective manner, discuss the peer review reports with your co-authors. Decide which changes to accept and which to rebut, revise the paper, and only then start writing your responses to reviewers.

Practical advice for responding to reviewers’ comments

This section is based mainly on my experience as an author and freelance editor, and is supported by information I gathered from the hyperlinked resources.

1. Say thanks

Begin by thanking the reviewer for their comments and advice.

2. Summarize the revisions you made

Specify that you’ve addressed all of the reviewer’s concerns and summarize the changes you made.

Addressing a reviewer’s comment doesn’t mean you made the change the reviewer suggested. It means that you’ve considered it and either made the change or explained why you chose not to.

3. Make your answers easy to see

List all the reviewer’s comments and your answer to each one. Use a different font or color to highlight your responses. This makes the text easier to scan.

4. Avoid giving yes or no answers

Even if you’ve been asked to make minor changes, such as correcting a misspelled word, respond to reviewers’ comments with “We’ve corrected the typo” or “This was an oversight. We’ve corrected the error.” If it’s a more serious mistake, you may also want to add “We apologize for our error”.

5. Whenever possible, make your responses self-contained

The reviewer or editor shouldn’t have to peruse the manuscript to find a change you made. So, instead of “We’ve made the change. See page 5, line 24 of the revised paper”, write “We’ve changed [original text] to [edited text] (page 5, line 24)”.

But if you rewrote an entire paragraph or section, respond, “We have revised the text to address your concerns and hope that it is now clearer. Please see page 5 of the revised manuscript, lines 9–20, and page 6, lines 1–20.”

Remember that the reviewer may only skim through the revised manuscrip t , but they will likely read all your answers to their comments.

6. Do not omit any concern raised by a reviewer

When you respond to reviewers’ comments, you should address each and every comment—either make the change or reject it and justify your choice.

7. Pick your battles

Even if you don’t agree with a minor change suggested by a reviewer, making the change shows you’re open to suggestions.

8. Be tactful and use supporting evidence

You should always be tactful when answering to peer review comments, but especially so when you disagree with the reviewer . To support your argument, you may use supplementary material , such as figures and tables, that you won’t include in the manuscript. Or, you could share additional evidence with the reviewer and mention it is confidential.

9. Respect your reviewer’s intelligence

When a reviewer fails to understand a point you made, don’t assume they’re ignorant. If they failed to understand something you wrote, it means you’ve failed to express your idea clearly and you confused at least one reader. So, it’s likely the text needs editing for clarity and logic. (More details in the post What to do if the journal editor recommends English language editing services )

10. Respect your reviewer even if it means repeating yourself

Treat each reviewer as if they were the only one. Respond to each referee as if they were the only reviewer of your paper. Do not respond to one reviewer with “Please see our answer to comment 34 of Reviewer #2”.

11. Say thanks again

End the letter to the reviewer with a sentence such as, “We would like to thank the referee again for taking the time to review our manuscript.

How to reply to peer review comments when submitting papers for publication

The length of a response to reviewers’ comments depends on the complexity of the comments—and on how motivated you are to have your paper published in your target journal.

I’ve edited two-page letters to reviewers, and I’ve edited letters that were 30- or 40-page long. A letter to a reviewer should be as long as it needs to be to allow you to prove you’ve considered the criticism you received.

When you agree with a reviewer

This is the simplest case. Acknowledge your mistake and confirm you’ve corrected it.

Here are some examples of answers if you agree with the reviewer:

• We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have revised…
• We have removed…
• We agree and have updated…
• We have fixed the error…
• This observation is correct. We have changed…
• We have made the change. The new sentence reads as follows…
• This was an oversight. We have added…

When you disagree with a reviewer’s comment

Choose your words carefully when drafting your response to revision requests. First, emphasize any part of the reviewer’s comment you agree with. Then explain why you chose not to make the change.

Here are some examples of answers if you disagree with the reviewer:

• We agree with the reviewer that further elaborating on this point using new data would be helpful. However, we believe that expanding our dataset is neither feasible, given the costs involved, nor would significantly support our argument. For this reason, we chose not to make this change, but we added the following sentence to paragraph 3 in the discussion: “Though having a larger dataset would offer further insight…”.
• We apologize if our original Figure 2 did not show…. We did not intend to…. We have modified the figure and hope that it is now clear that…. We believe that adding a new figure, as the reviewer suggested, would be unnecessary given that our new Figure 2 shows….
• We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion and agree that it would be useful to demonstrate that…; however, such an analysis is beyond the scope of our paper, which aims only to show that…. Nevertheless, we recognize this limitation should be mentioned in the paper, so we added the following sentence….

In sum, whether you agree or disagree with the reviewer, aim to prove that you understood their comments and took them seriously.

What to do when reviewers disagree

When reviewers give you conflicting suggestions, don’t respond to reviewers’ comments, “As another reviewer suggested the opposite, we didn’t change the text”. Make a decision. Pick the suggestion you agree with and justify your choice to the other reviewer.

For example, you could answer , “As we received conflicting advice from another reviewer, we decided to make the change they suggested, because…. We hope this was the right decision.”

How to respond to reviewer comments—journal examples

Here are 10 examples of letters to reviewers (PDF files). Note that the authors who rejected a reviewer’s suggestion provided a valid justification:

To find other reviewer letter examples, check the journals that publish the correspondence between authors, reviewers, and journal editors.

Responding to reviewers: Advice on tone and language from the perspective of a freelance editor

When you respond to reviewers’ comments, maintain a positive attitude and be open to criticism. Your responses will tend to reflect your attitude at the time of writing. Word choice, tone, syntax—they may all reveal to the reader your true colors.

As a freelance editor, I’ve edited letters to reviewers that conveyed the message that their authors did not welcome criticism to their manuscripts. Their tone was overly formal, the sentences too short, and the examples few. These letters needed editing for style to make them sound more like a discussion between professionals than a court defense. And I’ve edited other letters that showed the author genuinely appreciated the reviewers’ comments. The authors of these letters used a positive tone, and their language was less formal and more conversational. The letters in the first category tend to be much shorter than those in the second, and maybe it’s not just a coincidence.

Having to respond to reviewers’ comments is tedious and can be unpleasant, because nobody likes their work to be criticized. But if you see the reviewers’ comments as an opportunity to improve your research paper and get credit for it, responding to reviewers will feel less burdensome.

Do you need a freelance editor for your letters to reviewers or for your manuscript? Send me a message at [email protected].

Related posts:

• Why does it take so long to write a journal paper?
• What to do if the journal editor recommends English language editing services
• The basics of editing research papers with math

Last revised on  November 2023

About Cristina N.

A freelance editor and writer with a keen interest in science, nature, and communication, I love to craft articles that help and inspire people.

Is “et al.” singular or plural?

Aim: help and inspire people to improve their written communications.

Neagu Raluca-Cristina | VAT Registration Number: IT04535070264

© 2015–2024 Neagu Raluca-Cristina

• PROOFREADING
• TERMS OF SERVICE
• PRIVACY POLICY
• TESTIMONIALS

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

Expert Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments on Your Research Paper

Introduction

• Read the Reviewers' Comments Carefully

Keep your Response Concise

Avoid being defensive or argumentative, thank the reviewers, submit your revised paper, what should i do if a reviewer makes a comment that i disagree with, how should i address multiple comments from the same reviewer.

• What is the best way to present revisions in response to reviewers' comments?
• Is it appropriate to ask for clarification on a reviewer's comment?

How do I maintain a professional and respectful tone when responding to negative or critical comments from reviewers?

Although completing a research paper is a noteworthy achievement, the process doesn’t finish after the research paper is written. Reviewers will provide criticism of your work, and it’s crucial to effectively address it if you want to enhance it and raise the likelihood that it will be published.

In this post, we’ll examine pro advice and tactics for addressing critiques of your research paper. We’ll talk about how critical it is to read and comprehend the comments, how to respond to each one specifically, how to back up your claims, and how to keep a professional demeanor. Responding to reviewers’ comments in the form of a letter requires good professional email writing skills .

Here are some steps you can take while responding to the reviewer’s comments.

Read the Reviewers’ Comments Carefully

It is crucial to take your time reading the reviewers’ remarks and comprehending the criticism they have made. This can entail going over the comments several times, going over the pertinent passages in your article again, and, if required, discussing the remarks with your co-authors or supervisor.

The context of the manuscript and the general objectives of the research should be taken into account while evaluating the reviewers’ comments. Consider whether a change is required for the article to accomplish its objectives, for instance, if a reviewer suggests one that would affect the focus of the paper.

It’s also critical to take the reliability of the input into account. Despite their good intentions, some remarks might not be well-informed. You may decide not to make the suggested adjustment in such circumstances or to ask the reviewer for clarification.

Even if the reviewers’ recommendations are challenging to put into practice or differ from how you originally envisioned the article, it is crucial to retain an open mind and be prepared to take them into account. Keep in mind that the reviewers are professionals in their fields, and their comments might help your research become more impactful and of higher quality.

Address each Comment Individually

It is crucial to be precise about how you have addressed the input in your edits when responding to each comment separately. This entails responding to each criticism in a straightforward manner, documenting the changes you have made, and describing how these changes resolve the reviewer’s issues.

Consistency in your responses to the reviewers is also crucial. Make sure the section has been updated if you indicate that a certain point has been covered in a particular section.

To structure your responses to the reviewers’ remarks, use a table or bullet points. You should also number your responses to match the particular comment you are addressing. This makes it simple for the reviewers to see your revisions and how you responded to their comments.

Additionally, bear in mind that the reviewer will read both the original manuscript and your response side by side. Therefore, whether it is a single page, line, or paragraph, it is crucial to be precise about where in the manuscript the modifications have been made.

You must keep in mind that the reviewers may have varying levels of knowledge and viewpoints, so you may need to modify your response accordingly.

Additionally, I suggest you to use, some professional grammar-checking software tool to correct any grammatical errors so that you should lose the impression of the reviewer.

I hope these examples provide some guidance on how to address each comment from a reviewer separately. Remember to thank the reviewer for their feedback and show that you are taking their suggestions into consideration as you make revisions to your paper.

Be Specific About Revisions

Be specific and succinct when addressing any objections you may have to the reviewers’ comments.

If you disagree with a comment or believe that a suggested modification might have a negative effect on the paper, it is crucial to respectfully and clearly explain why.

For instance, if a reviewer offers a modification that you feel will materially shift the paper’s focus or take away from the primary conclusions, you might wish to explain why you think the change is unnecessary or why it would lower the paper’s overall quality.

It’s critical to back up your concerns with evidence. This may entail citing more research from the literature or offering information.

Furthermore, it is critical to be open and honest about any study limitations, including any related to sample size or study design. These limits may occasionally be brought up by reviewers, but there are instances when it is preferable to address them proactively.

It’s also crucial to respond diplomatically and refrain from arguing or defending yourself. Keep in mind that the reviewers’ suggestions are meant to enhance the calibre of your work, and that an open debate can result in a stronger finished paper.

Here are some examples of how to respectfully and clearly explain why you disagree with a comment or believe that a suggested modification might have a negative effect on the paper:

I hope these examples provide some guidance on how to respectfully and clearly explain why you disagree with a comment or believe that a suggested modification might have a negative effect on the paper. Remember to explain your reasoning clearly and acknowledge the reviewer’s feedback while still maintaining the integrity of your research.

Explain any Concerns

It’s crucial to be succinct and clear when outlining your response to the reviewers’ comments in the cover letter. This entails summarising the key adjustments you have made to the revised article, emphasizing the key ideas, and describing how the modifications answer the reviewers’ feedback.

In the event that the reviewers haven’t seen the work in a while, it’s also critical to clearly explain the context of the modification. You may, for instance, remind the reviewers of the paper’s core research question, main findings, and main contributions.

It’s also important to mention any unresolved issues you still have with the manuscript or any part of the study that you believe needs further research, it’s an opportunity to convey your understanding and plans for the future.

It’s also a good idea to thank the reviewers for their time and work and to say that you hope the changes have enhanced the article.

Making a solid first impression is crucial because the cover letter is frequently the first thing the reviewers will read. A strong cover letter can improve communication with the reviewers and raise the likelihood that the manuscript will be approved for publication.

It is crucial to make sure that your amended manuscript adheres to the journal’s formatting requirements when you submit it along with your answer.

Making sure the paper complies with the journal’s requirements for length, format, and style is part of this. Additionally, it entails making sure the paper is error-free and that all of the figures and tables are of good quality.

Additionally, it’s crucial to confirm that the work is finished, suitable for publishing, and that all necessary adjustments have been completed. This indicates that every modification has been recorded, and every reviewer’s opinion and recommendation have been taken into consideration.

In order for the reviewers to quickly access your response while reading the revised manuscript, it is crucial to submit both your response and the amended manuscript as separate documents.

A copy of the initial submission, the reviews, and your response should all be kept for your records.

Last but not least, it’s critical to adhere to the journal’s submission requirements and deadlines. If you don’t, your paper might get rejected or postponed.

To maximize the likelihood that your paper will be approved for publication, the key is to be systematic, accurate, and professional.

It’s crucial to refrain from being defensive or argumentative in your responses to reviewers’ comments. This entails holding back from attacking someone personally or reacting unduly emotionally.

It’s critical to keep in mind that the reviewers are subject matter experts who are offering criticism to help your research become better. They are not your adversaries, and their remarks are not directed at you specifically.

Consider their viewpoint and the remarks as helpful criticism that can help you better your paper rather than getting defensive.

Additionally, it’s crucial to refrain from saying anything that could be interpreted as condescending or dismissive. Use of terms like “that’s not a problem” or “that’s not significant,” for instance, can come out as dismissive and may irritate the reviewers.

Additionally, it’s critical to refrain from blaming the original paper’s mistakes or omissions for your study’s limitations or other flaws. Instead, in the amended work, admit the shortcomings and describe the efforts you have done to resolve them.

You may keep a good rapport with the reviewers and raise the likelihood that your work will be accepted for publication by responding in a respectful and professional manner.

When responding to the reviewer’s comments, it can be helpful to incorporate some of the principles of yoga to help maintain a sense of equanimity and avoid becoming overly reactive or defensive.

One way to do this is to take a few deep breaths and focus on the present moment before beginning to read the comments. This can help to quiet the mind and promote a sense of calmness, which can make it easier to approach the feedback with an open mind and a willingness to learn and grow.

Additionally, it can be helpful to view the feedback as an opportunity for growth and improvement, rather than as a criticism of your work. This mindset shift can help to cultivate a sense of curiosity and openness, which can make it easier to receive feedback with grace and composure.

I have written a book on UNLOCK YOUR RESEARCH POTENTIAL THROUGH YOGA: A RESEARCH SCHOLAR’S COMPANION for the benefit of researchers.

I also suggest you to read one more book The Art Of Saying NO by Damon Zahariades . This will help you to learn how to respond and say things you want without being argumentative.

Provide a Clear and Concise Cover Letter

It’s crucial to be precise and succinct when summarising your response to the reviewers’ concerns in the cover letter. This means that you need to give a brief explanation of the key changes you’ve made to the revised manuscript and how they respond to the reviewers’ comments.

The most significant adjustments and how they improved the paper should be highlighted in the summary. It’s crucial to be detailed and to provide instances wherever you can. You may, for instance, point out a particular area of the manuscript that you have edited and explain how it responds to a reviewer’s issue.

Include any restrictions or unresolved problems you still see with the manuscript, as well as your plans for resolving them in the future.

In the event that the reviewers haven’t seen the work in a while, it’s also critical to clearly explain the context of the modification. You may, for instance, remind the reviewers of the paper’s core research question, main conclusions, and main contributions.

The summary should be succinct—generally, one or two paragraphs will do—and simple to comprehend. Additionally, it’s crucial to check your cover letter for spelling and grammar issues, since these could give the reviewers the wrong impression.

Overall, the reviewers can better comprehend the modifications you have made and how they have enhanced the paper if you provide a brief and clear explanation of your response in the cover letter.

It also helps to demonstrate your understanding of the reviewers’ feedback and your commitment to improving the quality of your research.

It’s crucial to thank the reviewers for their time and suggestions before submitting your updated work and response to the journal. You can either mention this in the cover letter or in a separate note that is sent with the application.

It’s critical to keep in mind that the reviewers are subject matter experts who have given up time from their hectic schedules to read and comment on your article. They have offered insightful advice that will assist you to increase the quality of your research.

If your paper is accepted for publication and you need to work with the reviewers again in the future,  having a good relationship with them now will benefit you in the future.

Saying something like, “Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript,” or “We appreciate the insightful criticism supplied by the reviewers, which allowed us to improve the quality of our paper,” might be used to show your appreciation.

Additionally, it’s critical to keep in mind that the reviewing process is a two-way street and that input is intended for both authors and reviewers. 

Thus, expressing gratitude will demonstrate that you appreciate their criticism and that you are aware of the significance of the reviewing process.

In summary, expressing gratitude to the reviewers in a professional and sincere way can help to establish a positive relationship with them and demonstrate your appreciation for the time and effort they have invested in your research.

It is crucial to make sure your updated work and response are thorough and adhere to the journal’s submission requirements when submitting them to the journal. This entails delivering all necessary files, such as the updated manuscript, the reviewers’ comments, the cover letter, and any supplementary files like figures or tables.

It’s also crucial to make sure the work is formatted correctly and adheres to the length, style, and formatting standards established by the journal. This can entail checking that the document is double-spaced, contains proper citations, and has excellent figures and tables.

The title of the paper, the names of the authors and their connections, and any potential conflicts of interest should all be included in the cover letter.

Additionally, it’s crucial to adhere to the journal’s submission requirements and deadlines. This entails submitting the paper on schedule and using the correct procedures. If you don’t, your paper might get rejected or postponed.

A copy of the initial submission, the reviews, and your response should all be kept for your records. This can come in handy if there are any problems with the submission or if you ever need to refer back to the reviews.

The reviewing process can take some time, and it’s not unusual for amendments to be asked several times before an article is accepted for publication. As a result, it’s crucial to have patience.

Overall, you may raise the likelihood that your work will be approved for publication by sending a full and well-organized package, adhering to the journal’s standards, and remaining patient and professional throughout the process.

Handling Contradictory Suggestions

Contradictory recommendations from reviewers are a regular occurrence for researchers during the publication process. Reviewers’ differing viewpoints and assessments of a research article may result in contradictory suggestions for modifications. However, researchers can successfully negotiate these competing ideas and enhance their article for publication by taking a thorough and methodical approach to the situation.

In this discussion, we’ll look at the approaches researchers can use to deal with conflicting reviewer recommendations, including carefully reading and comprehending the comments, identifying the main issues, assessing the recommendations, coming to a decision and clearly communicating it, addressing any unresolved issues, remaining open to further discussion, and seeking advice from the editor or other subject-matter experts.

The following points need to be considered while dealing with contradictory observations made by the reviewers.

• Read and understand the comments: Carefully read and understand the comments and suggestions made by both reviewers.
• Identify the key issues: Identify the key issues or concerns raised by both reviewers and try to understand their different perspectives.
• Evaluate the suggestions: Evaluate the suggestions made by both reviewers and consider their validity and potential impact on your research.
• Make a decision: Based on your evaluation, make a decision on which suggestions to incorporate into your paper.
• Communicate your decision: Clearly communicate your decision to the reviewers and provide evidence or reasoning for your choice.
• Address any remaining concerns: Address any remaining concerns or issues raised by the reviewers in your response.
• Be open to further discussion: Be open to further discussion and willing to consider any additional feedback or suggestions provided by the reviewers.
• Seek guidance: If you are unable to make a decision, seek guidance from the editor or other experts in the field.

Here’s an example response that addresses both reviews while remaining respectful to both reviewers:

If a single reviewer makes contradictory views, it can be confusing and difficult to address. Here is an example response that addresses contradictory feedback from a single reviewer:

It’s critical to remember that the goal is to strengthen the manuscript and make it more publishable. Ensure that you have enough evidence to back up your choice, and be prepared to continue the conversation if necessary.

Few Conferences and Journals expect you to submit the final copy with corrections as suggested by reviewers in the form of a Camera Ready Copy(CRC). I have written an article on The Ultimate Guide to Preparing a Perfect Camera-Ready Copy (CRC) . Please refer the article to get further insights on preparing Camera Ready Copy(CRC).

In conclusion, it is critical to the publication process that you address the critiques received on your research work. You can effectively address the reviewers’ observations and enhance your paper by carefully reading and interpreting the comments, responding to each one individually, providing support, and adopting a professional tone. The likelihood of publishing can also be increased by adding adjustments based on reviewers’ comments and showing appreciation for their time and effort. You may successfully traverse the review process by using these tips and techniques, which will ultimately result in the success of your research work. Consider the reviewers’ comments as an opportunity to enhance your work and increase its effect. Consider it an opportunity to improve your paper so that it is stronger and publication-worthy.

Frequently Asked Questions

It’s important to address the reviewer’s comment and provide evidence or reasoning for why you disagree. Maintain a professional and respectful tone, and consider the comment as an opportunity to improve your work.

Respond to each comment individually and clearly, and make sure to address all the concerns raised by the reviewer. If the comments are related, you can group them together and respond accordingly.

What is the best way to present revisions in response to reviewers’ comments?

Clearly indicate the revisions you have made in response to the reviewers’ comments, and provide a summary of the changes made in the manuscript. It is helpful to use “Track Changes” feature in word processor to indicate the changes made.

Is it appropriate to ask for clarification on a reviewer’s comment?

Yes, it is appropriate to ask for clarification if you are unsure about the meaning of a reviewer’s comment. Maintain a polite and professional tone when asking for clarification.

It’s important to maintain a professional and respectful tone when responding to negative or critical comments. Avoid getting defensive or argumentative. Instead, focus on addressing the concerns raised by the reviewer and providing evidence or reasoning for your responses. Express gratitude for the reviewers’ time and effort in reviewing your paper.

Upcoming Events

• Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
• Visit for  Research Internships Worldwide

Recent Posts

• Best 5 Journals for Quick Review and High Impact in August 2024
• 05 Quick Review, High Impact, Best Research Journals for Submissions for July 2024
• Top Mistakes to Avoid When Writing a Research Paper
• Average Stipend for Research/Academic Internships
• These Institutes Offer Remote Research/Academic Internships
• All Blog Posts
• Research Career
• Research Conference
• Research Internship
• Research Journal
• Research Tools
• Uncategorized
• Research Conferences
• Research Journals
• Research Grants
• Internships
• Research Internships
• Email Templates
• Conferences
• Blog Partners
• Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2024 Research Voyage

Design by ThemesDNA.com

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• J Clin Exp Hepatol
• v.12(4); Jul-Aug 2022

How to be a Good Reviewer for a Scientific Journal

∗ Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust, Truro, UK

† Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Anand V. Kulkarni

‡ Department of Hepatology, AIG Hospitals, Hyderabad, India

Emad El-Omar

§ UNSW Microbiome Research Centre, St George & Sutherland Clinical Campuses, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Australia

In academia, peer-review refers to a fundamental quality control process whereby external experts (reviewers) are invited to provide unbiased critique of a paper (or other submitted material) and advise on suitability for publication. The process must be robust and conducted with honor and integrity and to the highest professional standards. It is not only the responsibility of the authors but also the reviewers to assess the manuscript appropriately and help in improving the quality of the finished article. A good reviewer not only assists the editors and the journal but can also benefit the authors, the wider scientific community and the general readership. In this article, we discuss the salient features of the peer-review process and tips for undertaking peer-review on scientific papers in an effective and professional manner, including opportunities to develop reviewer skills.

Peer-review is a quality control process whereby external experts (reviewers) are invited to objectively critique a paper (or other submitted material) and advise on suitability for publication. Peer-review is fundamental to the integrity of academia and is central to the selection of high-quality papers in academic journals. The success of peer-review hinges on reviewers, many of whom serve in a voluntary capacity to provide expertise and unbiased critique to safeguard the validity and integrity of research. Reviewers are entrusted to provide an overview of submitted work which may have been many years in the making, to comment on the quality and significance of the work and recommend the outcome of the paper. Being a reviewer therefore is a privileged role that should be conducted with honour. In this article, we share our tips for undertaking peer-review on scientific papers in an effective and professional manner, including ways to develop reviewer skills.

The peer review process

To merit publication, a paper must fit the scope of the journal and bring novelty, educational value, or impact on future practice. Most journal submissions will have undergone internal screening by the editorial team to determine suitability for peer-review. As the initiating step, papers are handled by editors who send out invitations for reviews. Responses should be confirmed at the earliest convenience to avoid delays. Reviewers can access the manuscript and are usually asked to (a) provide comments to authors, (b) provide comments to editors, (c) provide an overall recommendation or rating. Once completed, reports are amalgamated by the editorial board to reach a ‘first decision’. If revisions are required, the original reviewers (and occasionally new ones) may be invited back to review the revised manuscript and a ‘response to reviewers’ letter to determine suitability for acceptance.

The key journal metrics influenced by reviewers include:

• (a) Direct: Time to first decision
• (i) Impact factor (or equivalent), i.e., citation potential.
• (ii) Number of downloads.
• (iii) Social media metrics (e.g., Altmetrics/PlumX scores).

Deciding the outcome of a paper

The primary objective of a review is to provide a summative outcome on the manuscript to assist the editorial board with making a decision. Peer-review outcomes may include: (a) accept (rare), (b) minor revisions, (c) major revisions, or (d) reject. This should include a full appraisal of the submitted materials (text, figures and tables, supplementary files, references). The reasons for supporting the decision should be clearly outlined. Comments may be: (a) shared with the authors or (b) confidentially shared with the Editor in Chief. These should be prioritized in order of importance succinctly, e.g., in bullet point form, and courteously.

Deciding factors:

• 1. Novelty—does this paper address knowledge gap or add to the existing body of evidence?
• 2. Is this the right fit for the journal? Although peer-review should be consistent, the summative outcome of peer-review should be personalized according to the journal's standing and impact. Journals with higher impact factors are typically more competitive and incur higher rejection rates.
• 3. Will this inspire or lead to better clinical practice or understanding?
• 4. Fatal limitations—are there critical flaws, e.g. with validity, integrity or impact, that cannot be overcome?

Attributes of a good peer reviewer

The positive qualities of a good peer-reviewer include the following:

• 1. Expertise
• 2. Timeliness
• 3. Good written communication—with authors and editors
• 4. Professionalism
• 5. Empathy and kindness
• 6. Thoroughness
• 7. Intuition and judgement
• 8. Ability to maximize potential of a paper
• 9. Be open to novel and unique ideas

Approach to reviewing a paper

• 1. Responding to the invitation —Consider whether you should take it on. Is the paper within your expertise, and do you have time and the enthusiasm to do this? If you are unfamiliar with the journal, look up the journal and its standing in the field, and scout the quality of similar papers. Avoid reviewing for predatory journals which are often open access and not PubMed indexed. Even if you are unable to review, you should respond promptly to minimize delays and consider recommending alternative reviewers which will assist the editor.
• 2. Preparation – This depends on the type of submission. A full review for original research papers requires approximately 3–4 h on average, whereas case reports or letters will be more straightforward. Reviewing a ‘review article’ requires more attention to the flow of the article, citation of recent articles, and is generally dependent on the presentation of the article and figures/tables. This can be mentally intensive. Allocate time for when you are at your sharpest, ideally with coffee in hand. Reviews can either be printed out (and annotated) or done online. This can be completed all at once or in a staggered manner (go away and think about it). Comments should be typed on to a Word document (with Autosave function), ideally with your review paper side-by-side to make comments as you read. Perform a literature search to ensure you are up-to-date with the latest on the topic of the paper. Look for the duplication of data/papers through a Google/PubMed search.

High Impact Areas During Peer-Review.

• a. Overall —Consider readability: flow (does the story make sense), language (spelling, grammar, and syntax), word count, and overall feel and quality of the manuscript.
• b. Title —Does this capture the essence of the study? Could this be improved to capture keywords, including the study type? This is important for search engine optimization to maximize the paper's visibility on Internet search engines.
• c. Abstract —Has this been optimized to contain accurate facts, headline results? Does it answer the question ‘so what?’. Does the conclusion of the abstract and title match?
• d. Introduction —Does this give a true, up to date and balanced background and set out the need for the study? Are the aims and objectives appropriate?
• e. Methods —Is the study ethical? Are methods (+/− materials) adequately described to enable reproducibility? Is the study design, outcomes, timelines, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and statistical analyses clear to infer validity and generalizability? What are the sources of bias and what steps have been taken to minimize these? Is the study powered to detect a true difference? If there is a registered study protocol, check if this aligns. Have the authors followed standardized reporting guidelines for their type of study? Is an ethics statement included?
• f. Results —Do these flow logically? Are they structured in a readable form? Are they represented in major Figures (and Tables) and do they stand out? Are the statistical tests appropriate? Look in the supplementary files (if available).
• g. Discussion —Do they contain a summary of their key findings? Have they performed an up-to-date literature review and discussed how it adds to the existing literature? Is there any scope for future areas which is appropriately addressed in Discussion? Are the limitations sufficiently presented?
• h. References —Are they recent and relevant? Are there any notable omissions? Are the references presented uniformly?
• 5. Providing feedback —Reflect on the paper, with focus on the high-impact areas. Read and re-read these areas, especially the Title, to ensure this is the best version it can be. Look in the Cover Letter and Supplementary Files in case there are high impact points that have been missed, e.g., important results or figures, what the study adds or how the study changes practice. These are important for dissemination, especially on social media, which can enhance the impact of the work and increase citations. 1 Also consider the flow and ease of comprehension of the article, particularly to non-native English speakers. Consider the merits of the paper and the limitations, in order to deliberate on the paper's outcome. Feedback should be structured below.

Structure of a good peer review

A good peer-reviewer can give added value to the authors, the editors, the journal, and the general readership ( Figure 1 ). There are 3 components to the review process ( Table 2 ):

• (a) Writing comments to the authors
• (b) Writing confidential comments to the editors
• (c) Overall recommendation

How to be a good reviewer.

Suggested Template for a Reviewer Report.

For the comments to authors, consider the following tips:

• • First and foremost, you should write something! There is nothing more useless to editors and to the external peer review process, than a reviewer simply stating that this is an outstanding piece of work and that you have no comments. Nothing is perfect, and we should all strive to make things better by our critique.
• • Always be fair, balanced, polite, and civil. Even if you are going to trash the work, use language that is professional, non-accusatory, does not belittle the authors, and is not sarcastic or cynical. Essentially, be tough but nice. Equally, do not gush too much in your praise of the work even if you think it is the best thing since sliced bread!
• • Treat the paper with respect and review it in a manner that you wish for your paper to be reviewed.
• • Start with the summary of the study and its major findings (without judgement at this stage).
• • Give a comment on the novelty (or lack of) and what it brings to the field. Point out if similar findings have previously been published. You do this to back up your conclusion that the work is perhaps not as novel as the authors claim but express this politely by stating that ‘similar work has recently been reported by X et al, so the novelty of this work is perhaps modest.’
• • Outline your comments as MAJOR and MINOR. These should also be structured and prioritized, so that authors can provide point-by-point responses.
• • MAJOR means either fatal or requiring substantive effort to upgrade to an acceptable scientific level. This includes flawed design, wrong or inadequate controls, wrong statistics leading to wrong interpretation of results, etc.
• • MINOR means things that must be fixed but are not fatal, e.g., confusing charts/tables/figures, language, wrong/old references, data that is missing and could/should be included, organization of sections.
• • If the paper is clearly flawed, you should outline the major flaws and deliver a clear outline of the issues.
• • Do not give away your overall recommendation.
• • Do not spend hours picking out minutiae, such as spelling and grammar mistakes. If these are widespread, simply state that the manuscript would benefit from thorough proofreading or editing.
• • If the paper is clearly suitable for publication, give advice that will improve the impact of the paper. Figures are especially helpful for social media dissemination. Graphical abstracts can also be high-yield and increase the paper's citation potential. 2

There is usually a separate section for comments to the editors—this is confidential and should include a brief rationale for your decision or significant concerns. At all costs, please avoid simply copying and pasting your comments to the authors. This is a very important part of the review process, and you must communicate to the editors your confidential views about the work. This may include major concerns, so go for the fatal issues and justify your recommendation. Equally, if you think this work is outstanding, you should explain why. Include any professional concerns with the paper, e.g., ethics, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, etc. Any editorial considerations should be included here, e.g. need for formal statistical review, special issue, value of an accompanying editorial, graphical abstract, 2 social media promotion, 3 controversies that may damage the reputation of the journal, or any unintended consequences in publishing the paper.

According to the editors of one journal, the three factors that determine a high-quality peer-review include 4 :

• • Completeness of the review and the accuracy of assessment of the strengths and limitations
• • Constructiveness of comments
• • Timeliness

Reviewing the revised manuscript

The majority of original articles will either be rejected outright or require revisions. If you are invited to review a revised manuscript, you should accept this opportunity as you will be familiar with the manuscript. Start by studying the point-by-point responses and ensure that these have been addressed satisfactorily. Review the tracked changes to the manuscript to ensure that the reviewers’ comments have been addressed. At this point, avoid subjecting the authors to excessive rounds of revisions as this can not only be frustrating but can also lead to delays with publication, and potential loss of novelty.

Common mistakes in peer-review

Avoid the following mistakes in peer-review:

• • Excessive delays with responses or completion
• • Not being thorough
• • Demanding recommendations that are impossible to remedy
• • Not maintaining confidentiality
• • Duplicating what has been included under limitations
• • Use of discourteous or overly negative language
• • Not providing added value
• • Focus on language versus content
• • Low threshold to accept submissions
• • Failing to justify their decision
• • Lacking professionalism, e.g., self-citations, not declaring conflicts of interest, not respecting intellectual property.
• • Not considering the unintended consequences of a paper
• • Biased by the author's name or institution

Improving your reviewer skills

Good peer-review can be gained through the following:

• (a) Self-reflection : Consider creating a free-to-use Publons ( http://www.publons.com ) account to maintain an electronic portfolio of reviews over time. These are stored confidentially and can be browsed to aid reflection and development. Users can access their peer-review metrics (e.g. reviews per month; average word count, Altmetrics activity, contributions to different journals) and can also inform you if rejected papers are published in another journal. Reviewer metrics help to quantify your reviewer contributions and can give indicators on your work-life balance. Formal feedback on the quality of your reviews can also be requested from editors enrolled on Publons.
• (b) Other reviewers' feedback : On average, each review is undertaken by 2.2 reviewers. 5 After submitting your review, you will usually receive the outcome letter containing all reviewers' comments. Compare and contrast your comments to learn from other reviewers. This can be hugely rewarding and eye-opening. Inspiration can also be gained by observing the format, writing style, and tone of others.
• (c) Formal mentorship : For those within their formative phase of being a reviewer, there is ample opportunity to engage in peer review under expert supervision or mentorship. Many reviews are turned down due to lack of time but offer an ideal opportunity for fellows to take part. This can be done locally or through distant mentorship.

Being a reviewer for a scientific journal is an honor and a privilege. The role not only serves the editors and the journal but also benefits the authors, the wider scientific community, and the general readership. In order to be a good reviewer, one must focus on timeliness, completeness, and constructiveness of reviews, whilst maintaining integrity and empathy with their approach. This can be gained with experience, reflective practice by maintaining an electronic portfolio, and with mentorship.

Credit authorship contribution statement

KS, AVK, and EEO made the study concept and design. Compilation and initial drafting by KS. Final editing and critical revision by KS, AVK and EEO. All members approved the final draft.

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Siau, Dr Kulkarni and Prof El-Omar have nothing to disclose.

None applicable.

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Understanding reviewers comments on research paper

I sent my Review Paper to a journal and it took almost 4 months to respond to me. In the first decision, the reviewers suggested some revisions. Their comments on the first decision were:

Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author The present manuscript refers to the review on TVC studies using many previous existing results. If the authors want to publish the present manuscript in a journal, the reviewer like to recommend some professional review journals. In case, the authors are advised to consider more aspects on the TVC effectivess and performance, based on the input energy or power for the control. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author The manuscript addresses a timely and important topic relating to the Fluidic thrust vectoring techniques. Various fluidic thrust vectoring techniques with its characteristics, design, classification, and different operational criteria were introduced and compared. The summary is completed and detailed. It is recommended for publication in PPR after a minor revision. Reviewer: 3 Comments to the Author The manuscript reviewed various fluidic thrust vectoring control techniques for application in jet engine nozzles. It includes the research summary which are being performed in past couple of decades. The effects of many parameter (flows and geometric) on thrust vectoring are described. The content of the manuscript is worthy for aerospace community dealing with thrust control and aircraft maneuverability. However, the following issues need to be addresses to make it more attractive to the readers: The authors are recommended to enrich their review article by incorporating the above issues. Reviewer: 4 Comments to the Author Review of “Analysis of Fluidic Thrust Vectoring Techniques in Jet Engine Nozzles” This manuscript performs a detailed review for the Fluidic Thrust Vectoring Controls (FTVC). In addition, authors discuss the effects, advantages, and disadvantages of each technique. For each technique, the reviews are very profound. Many tables are designed to summary the research of each technique. In particular, a table (labeled 12) is used to compare all the FTVC systems. Therefore, I would like to recommend this paper for publication in PPR. In addition, I have two suggestions.

After submitting the revised manuscript, they responded back with some futher suggestions

Reviewer: 1 Comments to the Author For the first round of review, the reviewer has pointed out some important issue to be resolved in the present manuscript. If the authors want to publish the present manuscript as a form of review journal, then they should not simply enumerate the results obtained from many previous papers, but give meaningful data of TVC based on accurate comparative analyses. As we know, the control performance of TVC would be proportional to the power or the energy amount applied. Thus, it does not make sense for the authors to show the results of many different control methods only. The authors should not argue that there are no data for the input power or energy and they can get the control effectiveness, the total pressure loss, or energy loss, etc. Otherwise. the present manuscript may be subject to a duplication issue or a plagiarism to the published papers. Reviewer: 2 Comments to the Author According to my comments on the last manuscript, the four modifications are all OK. I recommend the revised manuscript for publication in PPR. I have two other suggestions, but it is not mandatory.

What should I do if I don't understand the suggestion of Reviewer 1. This is a review paper and I have added every data based on previous research papers. It doesn't make sense to me when the reviewer said "Thus, it does not make sense for the authors to show the results of many different control methods only."

What should I do now? should I contact the editor and ask for further clarification about reviewer 1 comments. Does the reviewer want me to apply each technique and compare my results with the data available in the literature?

• publications
• peer-review

• 5 What does your advisor think? This site can't help you with the content of your research. –  Bryan Krause ♦ Commented Nov 3, 2021 at 5:13
• 5 1 is asking for not merely listing reported data, but doing a meaningful comparison. I don't know of course if ref is right. But more or less this is what 1 is asking for. –  Alchimista Commented Nov 3, 2021 at 9:01
• 2 Almost 4 months is a decent time, I would even dare to say on the quick side of the first review time. –  EarlGrey Commented Nov 4, 2021 at 8:26
• 2 I think the problem is that you haven't 'digested' the literature. You simply regurgitated prior results and concepts without analysis. The reviewer is asking you to provide a unique (novel) perspective on the state-of-the-art. –  Prof. Santa Claus Commented Nov 4, 2021 at 8:53

3 Answers 3

If you don't know what a reviewer is saying, contact the editor. They can either tell you what the comments is supposed to mean, or they can write to the reviewer for clarification.

As an editor for the last 15 years, I've been contacted by authors with this kind of question numerous times and I've always thought that that is entirely appropriate.

• 1 I have never heard of anyone doing this. It sounds like a logical approach but have you ever done this yourself? –  user9482 Commented Nov 3, 2021 at 7:13
• 3 @Roland Yes. And as an editor for the past 15 years, I've been contacted numerous times by authors who wanted to know what to do. –  Wolfgang Bangerth Commented Nov 3, 2021 at 17:44
• 2 @WolfgangBangerth I think that information is useful for readers trying to evaluate the wisdom your answer,, especially if they are considering following it! Any chance you could edit it into your actual answer? –  user96809 Commented Nov 3, 2021 at 23:23

The reviews you received are borderline nonsensical, and might have been written by an unqualified person or even a robot. It looks like you submitted to a scam journal.

You should withdraw your submission as soon as possible and look for a reasonable venue for publishing it.

• 3 You may be right, or it may be we are talking about a local journal with local flavour of english and the copy&paste is not complete... –  EarlGrey Commented Nov 4, 2021 at 8:35
• I wrote another comment saying what I think ref 1 asks for. However, my first impression reading the reports was "I hope this is not a good journal". Indeed astonishingly poor reports. –  Alchimista Commented Nov 4, 2021 at 12:24

Well, the reviewer 1 is asking you not to present only the data from different study, but to compare them in a quantitative manner ("accurate comparative analyses").

However, you can always refute the reviewers' comments, they are comments , you can argue if they are reasonable or doable. In this case, I would reply that the additional analyses required by the reviewer 1 are beyond the scope of the review you performed. In my field I have seen (and found useful) both review papers providing kind of a large catalogs of data (like yours seems to be) and review papers providing an in-depth and complex comparative analysis of already published data (like reviewer 1 seems to request).

Contact the editor, then decide what to do, but keep in mind it is called peer review because you are a peer discussing among peers.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged publications peer-review ..

• Featured on Meta
• Site maintenance - Mon, Sept 16 2024, 21:00 UTC to Tue, Sept 17 2024, 2:00...
• User activation: Learnings and opportunities
• Join Stack Overflow’s CEO and me for the first Stack IRL Community Event in...

Hot Network Questions

• Strange behavior of Polygon with a hole
• "There is a bra for every ket, but there is not a ket for every bra"
• What would a planet need for rain drops to trigger explosions upon making contact with the ground?
• how to smooth a road while holding max and min z points constant?
• Definition of annuity
• Movie where a young director's student film gets made (badly) by a major studio
• O(nloglogn) Sorting Algorithm?
• Are there something like standard documents for 8.3 filename which explicitly mention about the folder names?
• Custom PCB with Esp32-S3 isn't recognised by Device Manager for every board ordered
• How do elected politicians get away with not giving straight answers?
• Why does counterattacking lead to a more drawish and less dynamic position than defending？
• Whom did Jesus' followers accompany -- a soldier or a layman?
• Is it possible to copy the configuration of the Fruity Parametric EQ 2 from one project to another?
• Can landlords require HVAC maintenance in New Mexico?
• Keyboard shortcuts for running last command with changes?
• Is a thing just a class with only one member?
• Is it defamatory to publish nonsense under somebody else's name?
• Why does Sfas Emes start his commentary on Parshat Noach by saying he doesn't know it? Is the translation faulty?
• Is downsampling a valid approach to compare regression results across groups with different sample sizes? If so, how?
• How to avoid bringing paper silverfish home from a vacation place?
• C++ std::function-like queue
• What prevents indoor climbing gyms from making a v18 boulder even if one hasn't been found outside?
• How should I email HR after an unpleasant / annoying interview?
• Why would the absence of Chalmers' 'consciousness' make p-zombie world 'inconceivable'?

• Discoveries
• Right Journal
• Journal Metrics
• Journal Fit
• Abbreviation
• In-Text Citations
• Bibliographies
• Writing an Article
• Peer Review Types
• Acknowledgements
• Withdrawing a Paper
• Form Letter
• ISO, ANSI, CFR
• Google Scholar
• Journal Manuscript Editing
• Research Manuscript Editing

Book Editing

• Manuscript Editing Services

Medical Editing

• Bioscience Editing
• Physical Science Editing
• PhD Thesis Editing Services
• PhD Editing
• Master’s Proofreading
• Bachelor’s Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading Services
• Best Dissertation Proofreaders
• Masters Dissertation Proofreading
• PhD Proofreaders
• Proofreading PhD Thesis Price
• Journal Article Editing
• Book Editing Service
• Editing and Proofreading Services
• Research Paper Editing
• Medical Manuscript Editing
• Academic Editing
• Social Sciences Editing
• Academic Proofreading
• PhD Theses Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading
• Proofreading Rates UK
• Medical Proofreading
• PhD Proofreading Services UK
• Academic Proofreading Services UK

Medical Editing Services

• Life Science Editing
• Biomedical Editing
• Environmental Science Editing
• Pharmaceutical Science Editing
• Economics Editing
• Psychology Editing
• Sociology Editing
• Archaeology Editing
• History Paper Editing
• Anthropology Editing
• Law Paper Editing
• Engineering Paper Editing
• Technical Paper Editing
• Philosophy Editing
• PhD Dissertation Proofreading
• Lektorat Englisch
• Akademisches Lektorat
• Lektorat Englisch Preise
• Wissenschaftliches Lektorat
• Lektorat Doktorarbeit

PhD Thesis Editing

• Thesis Proofreading Services
• PhD Thesis Proofreading
• Proofreading Thesis Cost
• Proofreading Thesis
• Thesis Editing Services
• Professional Thesis Editing
• Thesis Editing Cost
• Proofreading Dissertation
• Dissertation Proofreading Cost
• Dissertation Proofreader
• Correção de Artigos Científicos
• Correção de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Correção de Inglês
• Correção de Dissertação
• Correção de Textos Precos
• 定額 ネイティブチェック
• Copy Editing
• FREE Courses
• Revision en Ingles
• Revision de Textos en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis
• Revision Medica en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis Precio
• Revisão de Artigos Científicos
• Revisão de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Revisão de Inglês
• Revisão de Dissertação
• Revisão de Textos Precos
• Corrección de Textos en Ingles
• Corrección de Tesis
• Corrección de Tesis Precio
• Corrección Medica en Ingles
• Corrector ingles

Select Page

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments

Posted by Rene Tetzner | Sep 11, 2021 | Help with Peer Review | 0 |

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Free Example Letter Responding to the comments peer reviewers offer when they assess your research paper can be as challenging as writing the original manuscript, especially when the necessity of revising your paper to resolve problems is considered as well. How you respond to the criticism you receive can have a significant impact on whether your paper will ultimately be published or not, so getting your letter right is imperative. Although the process of responding, revising and perhaps responding and revising yet again can be frustrating and time consuming, it is important to remember that you, the journal editor with whom you are communicating and the peer reviewers who are assessing your writing and research are all working toward the same goal – the timely publication of an excellent research paper. A professional collegial approach that adopts a courteous and objective tone to deal clearly and thoroughly with every detail and issue will make the work of the editor and reviewers more efficient and the publication cycle as a whole smoother and more successful. Your prose should, of course, be formal and correct in every way, so do read and polish your response until every sentence is as clear, accurate and precise as you can make it.

Since each response letter to reviewer comments is unique, the letter below can only serve as a constructive example as you craft your own response. The names, titles, contact information and publishing situation used in this letter are entirely fictional, but the principles and procedures are realistic and sound. The complete date and full mailing addresses are used in the style of a traditional business letter despite the assumption of an email format. You may or may not want to adopt this approach, but do be sure to provide your current contact information and the name of the editor you are addressing (normally the editor who sent you the decision letter), his or her title and the title of the journal. The subject line above the salutation is not strictly necessary unless requested in the editor’s or journal’s instructions, but if the journal has given your manuscript a number or another form of reference, do include it. The way in which changes should be made and the revised manuscript submitted vary among journals and editors. This letter assumes that the authors have been asked to mark changes by using red font and resubmit their revised manuscript with their response via email, but do check guidelines and the decision letter you received for the requirements for your responses and revised manuscript, including any information on deadlines.

Keep in mind as you write that not just the editor but all of the reviewers may end up seeing everything you have written. Editors may cut and paste and share your responses as they see fit to achieve the results they envision for your paper, so be prepared for this possibility. You should definitely address each of the reviewers individually as you respond to his or her comments, aiming for a layout that makes it absolutely clear which comment you are responding to at any given moment and exactly what you have changed in your manuscript. Some authors use different fonts and colours to distinguish reviewer comments from author responses and changes, but do be aware that these features can be lost in online formats, so a Word document or pdf file would be a more reliable choice for such formatting. Do not hesitate to repeat information as necessary, incorporating small adjustments geared at the person you are addressing in each case (the discussion of Table 1 in the letter below is an example of this), but remember not to write anything to one reviewer that you would not want another one to read. If there are matters of a particularly sensitive nature that you wish to communicate to the editor only, be sure to discuss them in a separate document that is clearly not intended for reviewer eyes.

Finally, do not neglect to thank the editor and reviewers for their observations and comments. Their time is precious and many comments on your manuscript mean that they have dedicated a significant portion of it to help you improve your work. Be careful not to overstate your gratitude, however, and risk the impression of hollow flattery. Thoughtful attention to each of the observations and suggestions your reviewers offer will repay their efforts far more effectively.

A Sample Response to the Comments of Peer Reviewers

Edward Researcher Palaeography Institute 1717 Writer’s Lane South River, MI, USA, 484848 734-734-7344 [email protected]

Dr Helen Wordsmith Assistant Editor Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society 717 Reader’s Row London, UK, SW6 9DE [email protected]

November 14, 2017

Subject: Revision and resubmission of manuscript JSMS 17-N6688

Dear Dr Wordsmith,

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper on ‘Hidden Treasure: Scribal Hands in the Notorious Brigantine Manuscript.’ The suggestions offered by the reviewers have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your insightful comments on revising the abstract and other aspects of the paper.

I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded to them individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The changes are marked in red in the paper as you requested, and the revised manuscript is attached to this email message.

Most of the revisions prompted by the reviewers’ comments are minor and require no further explanation than what appears in my responses below, but I did want to bring Table 1 to your attention. This table lists, locates and briefly describes each of the hands we have separated from the many found in the Brigantine Manuscript, dated at least approximately and, in the case of the   Pantofola di Seta ’s first mate, identified with certainty. It does not list hands and scripts about which we remain uncertain, and for this reason Reviewer 1 suggests that it be removed and the descriptions of hands that it contains used to lengthen the descriptions in the main text of the paper. Reviewer 2, on the other hand, would like to see the table longer, with all possible hands and scripts included and tentative dates provided wherever possible. We considered both solutions and finally decided on a longer table as a tool that sets the information out clearly and comparatively. Our assumption is that readers will more readily return to a table when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. This allowed us to shorten and simplify the discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text of the paper, but it has resulted in a larger table, so we are eager to know your perspective on the matter. Although comments from both reviewers suggest that our original approach was not as successful as we would have liked, the table could easily be removed as per Reviewer 1’s advice and the text lengthened instead if that would be preferable. In fact, we tried the revisions that way at first and would be happy to send that version along as well if it might be helpful.

In response to your comments on the abstract, we have toned down the codicological and palaeographical terminology aimed at manuscript specialists and played up the new certainty that this book belonged to real pirates and was treated as the   Pantofola di Seta ’s log by a first mate who was very proud of the crew’s achievements. Those opening sentences you mentioned now read: ‘Like the pirates whose barbaric activities it celebrates, the Brigantine Manuscript slipped off into the fog in the early fourteenth century, finally emerging in 2015. It had been miraculously preserved for 700 years in a hidden chamber carved into the keelson of a recently excavated Mediterranean brigantine named   Pantofola di Seta   (the   Silk Slipper ). Extensive examination of the book’s contents and scripts has now lifted more of that fog, revealing at least five distinct hands writing over a period of more than 80 years and one of them a rather gifted first mate – Benutto Nero – who logged daily entries in passable Latin for almost six years from 1282 to 1288.’ We hope you agree that this opening is much more engaging, particularly for non-specialist readers, but we are certainly happy to make further changes to the abstract.

Regarding more minor matters, we have now changed our spelling and phrasing patterns from American to British English. I apologise for neglecting that requirement in the author instructions when we originally submitted the manuscript. We have also made good use of the two articles you mentioned. Susan Goodorder’s paper did indeed help us refine the subsections and their headings in the discussion section of our manuscript, and General Saltydog’s glossary of nautical terms enabled us to use more appropriate language when discussing ships and seamanship – ‘ropes,’ for instance, are now ‘lines’ throughout and we are much clearer on terms such as ‘leeboard,’ ‘starboard’ and ‘sheet.’

We hope the revised manuscript will better suit the   Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society   but are happy to consider further revisions, and we thank you for your continued interest in our research.

Edward Researcher

Edward Researcher Professor of Medieval Latin Palaeography Institute

Reviewer Comments, Author Responses and Manuscript Changes

Comment 1: ‘Hidden Treasure: Scribal Hands in the Notorious Brigantine Manuscript’ was an engaging and informative read and the authors’ assessment of hands and scripts clear and accurate. The paper is perfect for the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society. I am uncertain that Table 1 is necessary and I have discovered one grammatical error which unfortunately appears throughout the manuscript and must be repaired, but beyond that I have very little helpful commentary to offer.

Response: Thank you! We found your comments extremely helpful and have revised accordingly.

Comment 2: Table 1 does not contain all the scripts and hands discussed in the paper, so it seems incomplete. I preferred the lengthier descriptions in the main text and would recommend that the table be removed and the descriptions of the more certain hands it contains be used to lengthen those descriptions in the main text.

Response: Both you and the other reviewer commented on this table, so we are grateful to know that our current approach requires some rethinking. Unfortunately, your suggestions differ, with the second reviewer asking that Table 1 be lengthened to include all hands and scripts in the manuscript. We have considered both solutions and decided to keep Table 1, but we have also asked the assistant editor, Dr Wordsmith, for her feedback on this issue and are certainly willing to remove the table as you suggested if that proves best for the paper and the journal.

Changes: We lengthened the table by adding the rest of the hands and scripts we have detected in the manuscript, describing each briefly and offering an approximate date. We believe this sets the information out clearly and comparatively and is a format that readers will readily return to when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. We have not removed the descriptions of hands and scripts that you found useful in the main text, but lengthening the table has allowed us to shorten and simplify the overall discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text of the paper. The changes in both table and text appear in red type in the revised paper.

Comment 3: Grammar and sentence structure is adequate for the most part, but dangling modifiers are a problem throughout the paper and at times obscure the authors’ meaning. For example, this sentence appears on p.6: ‘With his entrails already tumbling out on the deck, the oarsman gave his victim a last kick and lopped his head off.’ I’m almost certain that the intention here is to suggest that the victim, not the attacking oarsman, is suffering loss of entrails, but that is not what the sentence says. Here and elsewhere corrections are required.

Response: Thank you so much for catching these glaring and confusing errors, which we have now corrected.

Changes: We have gone through the entire manuscript carefully and adjusted every relevant sentence to avoid dangling modifiers and clarify our meaning. For example, the sentence you noted now reads: ‘The oarsman waited until his victim’s entrails were tumbling out on the deck before he gave him one last kick and lopped his head off.’ This and other revised sentences are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 1: It is clear that the authors know a good deal more about medieval manuscripts than about seamanship, but the manuscript is worthy of publication provided the following matters are addressed.

Response: Thank you for your assessment. We are indeed manuscript specialists who are learning more about ships and the sea via our studies of the Brigantine Manuscript.

Comment 2: There seems to be some confusion in the paper about the meaning of ‘leeboard’ and ‘starboard’ and more generally I’d like to see more accurate nautical terminology used. I wouldn’t recommend the more obscure vocabulary of vessels and seamanship which the authors are unlikely to need in any case, but the most common applicable terms should certainly be used. ‘Ropes’ should be ‘lines,’ ‘back’ of the boat should be ‘stern’ and so on.

Response: We agree that better use of nautical terminology would be more accurate and precise and have taken your advice.

Changes: We consulted the nautical glossary compiled by General Saltydog that was recommended by the assistant editor, Dr Wordsmith, and improved or corrected every ambiguous or inaccurate term we detected. Each changed word is marked in red in the revised paper, and we would be happy to make further alterations.

Comment 3: Table 1 seems too selective. It is obviously easier to include only those hands that the authors are certain about, but I would like to see a complete list of hands and scripts along with the authors’ best guesses at possible dates. I suspect many of the journal’s readers, especially those who are not manuscript specialists, would prefer this information in an effective tabular format.

Response: Thank you for reminding us how important it is to present complex material like details of hands and scripts in a concise and readily accessible way. We agree that the table would be better if it included all hands in the manuscript and have made the following changes.

Changes: We lengthened the table by adding the remaining hands and scripts, describing each briefly and offering an approximate date. We believe this sets the information out clearly and comparatively and is a format that readers will return to when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. We have not entirely removed the descriptions of hands and scripts from the main text of the paper, but lengthening the table has allowed us to shorten and simplify the overall discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text. The changes in both table and text appear in red type in the revised paper.

Comment 4: The formatting of the discussion section seems inconsistent with the preceding sections of the manuscript and the journal’s guidelines. The discussion itself follows a logical line of reasoning for the most part and presents persuasive interpretations and conclusions, but it is a little complex at times, so more divisions and a more defined system of organisation would be helpful.

Response: Thank you for this excellent observation. The discussion section is a little dense at times and could use more structure and clear guidance for the reader.

Changes: We have added a number of subsections with informative headings that summarise key points in the discussion. We used as a model an article published by the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society and recommended by Dr Wordsmith, and we believe that the argument is clearer as a result, but we would welcome comments on particular sections and headings if you have further concerns. The new material is marked in red in the revised paper.

You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service.com

Journal editing.

Journal article editing services

PhD thesis editing services

Scientific Editing

Manuscript editing.

Manuscript editing services

Expert Editing

Expert editing for all papers

Research Editing

Research paper editing services

Professional book editing services

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments on Submitted Articles

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments on Submitted Articles This Free Example address Comments of Peer Reviewers

Related Posts

Understanding the Types of Peer Review

September 5, 2021

Helpful Tips for Becoming an Excellent Peer Reviewer

August 21, 2021

How To Identify a Doctor No Peer Review

July 30, 2021

The Benefits of Peer Reviewing

July 22, 2021

Our Recent Posts

Our review ratings

• Examples of Research Paper Topics in Different Study Areas Score: 98%
• Dealing with Language Problems – Journal Editor’s Feedback Score: 95%
• Making Good Use of a Professional Proofreader Score: 92%
• How To Format Your Journal Paper Using Published Articles Score: 95%
• Journal Rejection as Inspiration for a New Perspective Score: 95%

Explore our Categories

• Abbreviation in Academic Writing (4)
• Career Advice for Academics (5)
• Dealing with Paper Rejection (11)
• Grammar in Academic Writing (5)
• Help with Peer Review (7)
• How To Get Published (146)
• Paper Writing Advice (17)
• Referencing & Bibliographies (16)

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

• ACS Publications
• ACS Researcher Resources
• Peer Reviews

Peer Review

Learn about peer review.

Peer review is an essential component of scientific research and a crucial step in the publishing process. Browse the sections below to learn how you can become a reviewer for ACS journals, along with essential information for both authors and reviewers.

Becoming a Peer Reviewer

While there is no defined path to becoming a reviewer, there are several things you can do to increase your chances of being invited to review future manuscripts:

• Enroll in ACS Reviewer Lab , a free online course that teaches the basics and expectations of the peer review process. Designed by ACS editors, leading scientific researchers, and ACS Publications staff, this course provides real-life guidance on how to navigate tricky ethical situations, identify core criteria for evaluating manuscripts, and write a first-rate review. Upon completion of the course, you will be added to our database of qualified reviewers for your area of scientific expertise.*
• Chemistry of Materials
• ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering
• ACS Sustainable Resource Management
• ES&T Letters
• ACS Synthetic Biology
• Build your network by connecting with subject matter experts at professional conferences.
• Ask a colleague who is an experienced reviewer to recommend you to the journal editors.
• Become an active ACS Member and join your local chapter to further expand your scientific network.
• Use the ACS Reviewer Toolkit a step-by-step guide that will take you through key points to consider before accepting, assessing, and writing a review.

*Completion of ACS Reviewer Lab is NOT required to review for an ACS journal.

What Reviewers Need to Know

• Identifying conflicts of interest : If you think the subject, conclusions, or authorship of a manuscript may prevent you from giving an objective review, it must be disclosed to the journal editors.
• Being prepared : Get to know the journal you are reviewing for and the current state of the field, and give the manuscript an initial read before you dive into the review. Certain ACS journals provide additional guidance for reviewers. Be sure to read the journal-specific “Information for Reviewers” pages before you begin the review process.
• Understand the impact : Does the manuscript provide novel contributions to the field? Is it a good fit for the journal? These are key factors to consider when writing a review.
• Evaluating the manuscript : As a reviewer, it’s your job to gauge if the manuscript is scientifically sound, clearly written, contains strong graphics and data, and contains enough detail to be replicated.
• Building your case : Compile your review in an organized manner, and be specific, professional, and accurate. It’s important to be as thorough as possible when completing the reviewer form.
• Use of AI for Reviews : Artificial intelligence (AI), text preparation, or other outsourcing tools or services should not be used in the generation of peer review reports. As stated in the Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research: "A reviewer should treat both the manuscript and data received from the journal, their review report, and related correspondence, as confidential. Such documents and their contents should neither be disclosed to nor discussed with any individual or organization." As such, any use of such services in the peer review process would be a violation of the ACS Ethical Guidelines .

All manuscript referees must submit their reviews via ACS Paragon Plus , which provides complete access to all publishable parts of the manuscript and will save a copy of your comments in case a second round of reviews is needed.

For the convenience of our authors, ACS offers a Manuscript Transfer Service. If the author accepts an offer to refer the manuscript to a different ACS journal, your review of the manuscript will also be transferred. Please be assured that ACS will handle your review with the same confidentiality in the next ACS journal as in the original journal. Note that your review may also be shared by the authors independently.

What Authors Need to Know

How it works : ACS journals engage in single-anonymized review. Authors will not know who is reviewing their manuscript, but reviewers will know who has authored the manuscript.

Each journal does things a little differently * , but when you send in a manuscript for publication, it undergoes an initial screening to make sure it’s ready for review. Next, the journal editor evaluates whether your manuscript is a good fit for the journal in terms of scope, target audience, and overall scientific quality and impact. If your manuscript meets these criteria, it enters the formal peer review process.

*See below for more information regarding Transparent Peer Review

• Conflicts of interest : Know what constitutes a conflict of interest and how this may affect the review of your manuscript. A conflict of interest occurs when a reviewer has a personal or financial interest in the outcome of the review process—due to their connection to the authors, their funding organization, or their research—of which the editor may not be aware.
• What reviewers look for : Your submission will be assessed on its scientific impact, methodological approach, scope, and more. Keep these things in mind as you write.
• Making it look good : Make sure your manuscript is properly organized, easy to read, and that all visuals are clear and properly referenced. ACS journals have different formatting requirements, so be sure to read the journal-specific guidelines carefully ahead of submission.
• How to respond to feedback : When responding to reviewers, it’s important to be professional, make sure you understand all comments made, and provide updates to your manuscript in a timely manner.

For further reviewer education, we encourage all researchers to enroll in ACS Reviewer Lab . You can also attend peer review sessions at most ACS on Campus events .

Transparent Peer Review

ACS Publications is exploring a new way of conducting peer review to better serve our community and demonstrate our commitment to open science. To provide more transparency into the overall peer review process, we have launched a transparent peer review pilot with two journals, ACS Central Science and The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters .

What is transparent peer review?

Transparent peer review means that the reader can see the exchange between authors and reviewers. If the author chooses to participate in transparent peer review, the anonymous reviews and the author's response to the reviewers’ comments will be published as supporting information, freely available alongside the article at the time of publication. Note that transparent peer review maintains the anonymity of the reviewer, unless otherwise requested by the reviewer. Learn more about transparent peer review .

1155 Sixteenth Street N.W. Washington, DC 20036

京ICP备13047075

Copyright © 2017 American Chemical Society

• Journals A–Z
• C&EN Archives
• ACS Legacy Archives

User Resources

• ACS Members
• Authors & Reviewers
• Website Demos
• Privacy Policy
• Mobile Site
• For Advertisers
• Institutional Sales
• Connect with ACS Publications