Questions Answered: ‘How to Respond to Reviewer Comments’ webinar
On September 18th we hosted a webinar in our How to Do Research and Get Published series. Hosted by Sage’s Jessica Hill, James Baldwin, and Sean Scarisbrick; and featuring Dr Mary Beth Genter, Editor-in-chief of International Journal of Toxicology, and Dr Adam Gordon, Elvert F. and Marie Christensen Endowed Research Professor at the University of Utah School of Medicine.
The focus of the webinar was ‘How to respond to reviewer comments’, and gave attendees valuable advice on how to deal with delicate situations that authors find themselves in when responding to peer review comments.
Attendees were guided through the nuances of crafting thoughtful, strategic, and constructive responses to peer reviewer feedback. They learned best practices for interpreting comments, addressing critiques, and effectively communicating revisions to enhance the quality and impact of their research. They also gained insights into the mindset of peer reviewers to understand how to navigate conflicting suggestions with finesse.
Below are some of the questions we received from attendees on the topic, with answers from our panelists.
If you’re interested in watching the recording of this webinar or exploring one of our previous webinars, complete the form at this link and receive immediate access to our full library of webinar recordings.
Peer Review: Responding to Comments
How should I handle a reviewer’s comment requesting the addition of specific references (by the same author) to my manuscript and reference list?
If a reviewer requests the addition of specific references, first evaluate whether the suggested sources are relevant and enhance your manuscript. If they do, include them in your revisions and explain this in your response to the reviewer. If the references don’t seem necessary or relevant, you can politely explain in your response why you believe they are not essential for your study. Keep the tone respectful and professional, ensuring that your reasoning is clear. Editors appreciate thoughtful responses to reviewer comments. If you have any concerns, it’s important to raise these with the Editor.
What does an author do when a reviewer suggests articles that have little or no bearing on the focus of the paper? What if it’s outside of the scope of the research question?
When a reviewer suggests articles that don’t align with the focus or scope of your research, it’s important to address the comment respectfully. In your response, you can acknowledge the suggestion and politely explain why the articles aren’t directly relevant to your research question or objectives. Be specific about how the scope of your study differs and why the suggested references may not contribute meaningfully to your analysis. This shows you’ve considered the feedback while maintaining the integrity of your work.
How should an author respond to harsh reviewers?
When responding to harsh reviewers, it's crucial to stay professional and focused on the content of their feedback, rather than the tone. First, consider your own perception—sometimes we may read a tone that isn’t there or feel a comment is harsher than intended, especially when we are deeply invested in our work. Take a step back, re-read the feedback with a neutral mindset, and try to separate emotional reactions from constructive criticism.
Next, address valid points: Even if the feedback feels harsh, identify any constructive elements and respond thoughtfully. Explain the changes you’ve made based on the feedback, or if you disagree, politely clarify why you haven’t incorporated certain suggestions. Always maintain a respectful tone in your response, regardless of the reviewer's tone. If any comments are unclear, feel free to ask the Editor for clarification.
Lastly, if there’s any positive feedback from the reviewer, acknowledge it to create a balanced and professional response. By staying calm, objective, and focused on improving the manuscript, you’ll demonstrate respect for the review process while maintaining the integrity of your work.
What’s the best way to clarify a reviewer’s comment, especially if you believe the reviewer misunderstood your work?
The best way to clarify a reviewer’s comment, particularly if you believe they misunderstood your work, is to respond with respect and clarity. Here's how to approach it:
Acknowledge the Comment: Begin by thanking the reviewer for their feedback. This shows professionalism and appreciation for their effort.
Clarify the Misunderstanding: Politely explain that you believe there may have been a misunderstanding. Reference the specific section of your manuscript where the issue arises and provide a clear explanation of what you intended.
Consider Revisions: Even if you believe the reviewer misunderstood, it might be helpful to revise your manuscript for clarity. Mention in your response that you’ve revised the relevant section to make your argument or data clearer.
Be Objective: Keep your tone neutral and avoid sounding defensive. Frame the clarification as a way to improve the manuscript, not as a rebuttal.
Example response: "Thank you for your comment. I believe there may have been some confusion regarding [specific aspect], which I did not communicate as clearly as I could have. To address this, I have revised [specific section] to clarify [specific point], and I hope this now better reflects my intention."
This approach helps maintain a constructive dialogue and ensures your manuscript becomes clearer for future readers as well.
Do you have any tips to tactfully tell a reviewer that you disagree with their comments?
Yes, here are some tips for tactfully expressing disagreement with a reviewer’s comments:
Acknowledge their feedback: Always begin by thanking the reviewer for their time and thoughtful input, even if you disagree with their suggestions.
Provide a reasoned explanation: Clearly and respectfully explain why you disagree, using evidence from your study or the literature. Keep the focus on the content and avoid personalizing the response.
Be polite and professional: Use a neutral tone, avoiding any language that could be perceived as confrontational or defensive. Keep the discussion objective and focused on the science or logic behind your decision.
Suggest alternatives: If possible, offer an alternative way to address the reviewer’s concern, such as rewording a section or adding a clarification, without compromising your position.
Acknowledge potential value: Even if you disagree, acknowledge that the reviewer’s perspective is valid but explain why your approach is more appropriate for the specific context of your study.
Example: "Thank you for your insightful comment. After careful consideration, I believe that [specific point] aligns more closely with the goals and data of this study. However, I appreciate your suggestion and have revised [another section] to clarify this aspect further."
By maintaining a respectful and reasoned approach, you ensure that the dialogue remains constructive and focused on improving the manuscript.
Formatting
Is there a standard format to use when responding to reviewer comments and writing a reviewer letter?
Yes, there is a common structure that authors follow when responding to reviewer comments and writing a response letter. Here’s a general format that is widely accepted:
Salutation: Start by addressing the Editor and reviewers.
Example: "Dear Editor and Reviewers,"
2. Introduction: Briefly thank the Editor and reviewers for their time, feedback, and opportunity to revise your manuscript.
Example: "We would like to thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered all feedback and made the following revisions to improve the manuscript."
3. Point-by-Point Response: Address each reviewer comment individually. Here’s a clear format for this section:
Restate the Reviewer’s Comment: Use bold or italic text to make the reviewer’s comment stand out.
Your Response: Provide a clear, detailed response to the comment.
Changes Made: Indicate any changes made in the manuscript, referring to specific sections or page numbers.
Example Format:
Reviewer Comment #1: "The introduction lacks a clear statement of the research gap."
Response: "Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the introduction to clearly state the research gap, particularly in the context of [specific area], on page 2, paragraph 3."
Changes in Manuscript: "We have added the following sentence in the introduction: 'Despite several studies on [topic], the gap in understanding [specific issue] remains.'"
4. Unaddressed Suggestions: If you disagree with a suggestion, acknowledge the reviewer’s perspective and explain your reasoning respectfully.
Example: "While we understand the suggestion, we believe that the original approach aligns better with our study’s objectives because [insert reason]."
5. Conclusion: End by thanking the reviewers again and express your willingness to make further revisions if necessary.
Example: "We appreciate your valuable feedback and are happy to make any additional revisions needed. Thank you again for your consideration of our manuscript."
6. Formatting Tips: Use bullet points or numbering to organize responses by reviewer.
Reference specific sections, paragraphs, and page numbers when indicating changes.
Keep responses clear, concise, and professional.
This structured format helps ensure that your responses are easy to follow, professional, and thorough. Be sure to include line numbers which reference the PDF version reviewers used to assess your submission. If you do not have a copy of the PDF, you can email the journal’s Editorial office.
When writing your response, be sure to follow the journal’s peer review process (single anonymized, double anonymized, or open peer review). Depending on the peer review process for the journal, you may need to remove your name and other identifying attributes within your response letter.
Is it advisable to keep tracked changes in the manuscript when submitting revisions based on reviewer feedback, even if the changes have already been addressed in my response to reviewers?
This largely depends on the journal. However, it is advisable to submit a version of your manuscript with tracked changes when revising based on reviewer feedback. Tracked changes make it easier for Editors and reviewers to see exactly what modifications were made in response to their comments, providing a clear and efficient way to assess the revisions without needing to compare the revised manuscript to the original. Along with your response letter, a tracked changes version helps ensure that all adjustments are transparent. Most journals prefer that you submit both a tracked changes version and a clean version, with all changes accepted, ready for publication review. Be sure to follow any specific guidelines the journal may have regarding this process. Lastly, it may be helpful for you to have a tracked changes version of your paper for your own records.
What’s the best format to display that you’ve accounted for reviewer suggestions? Can you overwrite the original file, or should you create a table/new document with responses to each suggestion.
The best format to show that you've addressed reviewer suggestions is to create a separate response document, typically a point-by-point table. This response document should include each reviewer’s comment and your corresponding response, along with a reference to the changes made in the revised manuscript. Be sure to include line numbers which reference the PDF version reviewers used to assess your submission. If you do not have a copy of the PDF, you can email the journal’s Editorial office.
Peer Review: Process
How long does the peer review process take?
The peer review process typically takes anywhere from a few weeks to several months, depending on various factors. On average, it may take 4 to 8 weeks for the initial round of peer review, but this can vary based on the journal's review timelines, the availability of reviewers, and the complexity of the manuscript. If revisions are required, the overall process can extend further, especially if multiple rounds of revisions are needed. Journals with heavy workloads or specialized topics may take longer, so it’s always a good idea to check the journal’s average peer review duration or follow up with the Editor for updates if there are delays. You can contact the journal’s Editorial office for peer review turnaround times.
How long does an author typically have to address reviewer comments?
Authors typically have 2 to 4 weeks to address reviewer comments, though this can vary depending on the journal. Some journals may allow more time for major revisions, while others might expect a quicker turnaround for minor revisions. If you need additional time, it’s usually acceptable to request an extension from the Editor, provided you communicate early and explain the reason. Always check the journal’s specific guidelines for revision timelines.
My recent submission was rejected due to alleged similarities with prior work, but I did not use any sentences from previous work. What could be the reason for this?
The rejection could be due to similarities in ideas, structure, or content rather than exact sentences. Even if you didn’t copy text, the manuscript might overlap with previous work in terms of methodology, results, or overall argument, which could raise concerns about originality. For example, many Editors choose not to publish topics that have already been covered extensively. Some journals also use plagiarism detection software that flags repeated phrases, common technical language, or similarities in the presentation of research. To address this, you may need to clarify how your current work differs from the prior work and highlight the novel contributions of your study. Consider revising your manuscript to emphasize these distinctions more clearly.
After you address reviewer comments, does the updated manuscript go back to the same reviewers?
In most cases, after you address reviewer comments, the updated manuscript is sent back to the same reviewers who initially evaluated it. This allows them to assess whether their concerns and suggestions were adequately addressed. However, it is ultimately up to the Editor. Sometimes, the Editor may decide to send the revised manuscript to new reviewers if they feel a fresh perspective is needed, especially if the original reviewers are unavailable or if the revisions significantly changed the manuscript. Generally, Editors prefer to send the revised manuscript to the same reviewers and when they don’t, it’s because the previous reviewers are unavailable.
I addressed every reviewer comment, but my manuscript was still rejected. Why?
Even if you address every reviewer comment, a manuscript can still be rejected for several reasons. Some possibilities include:
Overall Quality or Novelty: The Editor may feel that, despite revisions, the manuscript doesn't meet the journal’s standards for originality, significance, or contribution to the field.
Scope Mismatch: The paper might be outside the journal’s scope or priorities, even after revisions.
Unresolved Issues: While you addressed individual comments, there could be broader concerns about the manuscript, such as the methodology, data analysis, or conclusions that weren’t sufficiently improved.
Editor’s Decision: Ultimately, the Editor makes the final decision, and even if you addressed the reviewers’ comments, the Editor might feel the manuscript doesn’t fit the journal’s current needs.
It’s helpful to request detailed feedback from the Editor to understand the specific reasons for rejection.
Is there an appeal process for a rejected manuscript?
Yes, many journals offer an appeal process for rejected manuscripts, but it should be used carefully and under certain circumstances. If you believe your manuscript was unfairly rejected—such as due to a misunderstanding of the content, errors in the review, or if new information can be provided—you should first contact the Editor for further details.
You can view Sage’s complaints and appeals procedure by clicking here.
Can you have your research peer reviewed without then being published?
Yes, it is possible to have your research peer-reviewed without aiming for immediate publication. One option is submitting your manuscript to a preprint server, which may offer community-driven peer review or allow others to provide informal feedback before formal submission to a journal. Additionally, platforms like Publons or Review Commons offer independent peer review services, enabling you to get expert feedback without committing to publication in a specific journal. You can also seek informal peer review by sharing your manuscript with colleagues, mentors, or research networks. These approaches allow you to refine your manuscript through peer feedback without the pressure of publishing right away.
Paper Publication: Process
If a manuscript’s status is "waiting for reviewers", does it mean that it has definitely passed the initial desk review?
Yes, if a manuscript's status is "waiting for reviewers," it generally means that it has passed the initial desk review. The Editor has likely determined that the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and meets basic submission requirements. The next step is finding suitable peer reviewers to evaluate the manuscript in detail. Additionally, passing the desk review doesn’t guarantee eventual acceptance; it simply means the paper is now moving forward to peer review.
However, some journals have a two-step process for desk review: the first step is with the Editor and the second is with the Associate Editor. With this process, the Associate Editor reads the paper and then assigns peer reviewers. If they determine the paper is not suitable for peer review, they may recommend to the Editor to desk reject the paper. This may explain why a paper was in “waiting for reviewers” and then desk rejected.
If I have been waiting for months for a journal to find reviewers for my submission, when is it appropriate to withdraw my manuscript and submit it to a different journal?
If you have been waiting for several months for a journal to find reviewers, it may be appropriate to withdraw your manuscript and submit it elsewhere. Before doing so, it’s best to first follow up with the Editor, politely inquiring about the status and asking for an estimated timeline. If the Editor cannot provide a clear update or you’ve waited 6 to 9 months without progress or communication, it may be time to consider withdrawing. Be sure to check the journal’s withdrawal policy and formally notify the Editor in writing before submitting your manuscript to another journal. Keep in mind that another journal may invite the same reviewers, who could be confused as to why they’re receiving a request to review the same paper for a different journal. Additionally, many journals are currently facing a shortage of peer reviewers, which can lead to delays in the review process. This widespread issue is due to the increasing volume of submissions and the limited availability of qualified reviewers, making it harder for journals to secure timely evaluations.
Ethics
What is an ethical consideration, and how should I feature that in my research article?
An ethical consideration refers to ensuring that your research adheres to moral principles and professional standards, such as obtaining informed consent, maintaining participant confidentiality, avoiding harm, and ensuring data integrity. In your research article, you should feature ethical considerations by including a section, often titled "Ethical Approval" or "Ethical Considerations," where you describe how you addressed ethical issues in your study. This may involve stating that you received approval from an ethics review board or institutional review board (IRB), detailing how you protected participants’ rights, and clarifying how you managed conflicts of interest. Transparency in this section demonstrates that your research followed ethical guidelines. Check the journal’s submission guidelines for more information.
How do conflicts of interest impact peer review?
Conflicts of interest (COIs) can impact the objectivity and fairness of the peer review process. If a reviewer has a personal, financial, or professional relationship with the author, or stands to benefit from the research outcomes, it may bias their evaluation. This could lead to overly favorable reviews or unjust criticism. To maintain the integrity of peer review, journals require reviewers and authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. If a COI is identified, the reviewer should recuse themselves, or the Editor should assign the manuscript to an impartial reviewer. Ensuring transparency helps protect the fairness and credibility of the review process. Editors and reviewers work hard to ensure there are no COIs. However, if you are concerned about a potential COI, it is important to raise this with the Editor.
Sample Author Response Table:
This template serves as a structured guide to ensure you address every piece of feedback thoroughly and clearly.
Using this structured approach not only helps you organize your revisions but also presents a clear and professional response to the reviewers and editors, which can significantly enhance your manuscript’s chances of acceptance.
Sage AI Resources:
Artificial Intelligence Policy - https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/artificial-intelligence-policy
Assistive and Generative AI Guidelines for Authors - https://group.sagepub.com/assistive-and-generative-ai-guidelines-for-authors
To watch the recording of this webinar or explore one of our previous webinars, complete the form at this link and receive immediate access to our full library of webinar recordings.