How to Respond to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Practical Guide

Authors, especially early-career researchers, commonly enter the queries “How to respond to reviewer comments” or “How to politely disagree with a reviewer” in search bars. Responding to reviewer comments is a crucial part of the learning process for early-stage PhD researchers, particularly those working diligently on their first manuscript revision. Mastering this essential communication skill is indeed crucial for all researchers. Today’s blog shares practical tips and a few examples on how to respond to comments from journal reviewers.

Why is Peer Review Essential?

Peer review plays a crucial role in the publication of manuscripts. It provides researchers with a valuable opportunity to reflect on and address key issues related to their research (and/or its communication via the manuscript). It is an extremely important quality control measure mandated by publishers of peer-reviewed journals worldwide. Most journals send out manuscripts for peer review to at least two or three independent and qualified researchers who understand the topic under consideration. Some journals may rope in more than three reviewers to cross-check the research submitted by prospective authors.

Responding to Reviewer Comments: The Basics

Diligent researchers carefully analyze reviewer comments (also known as “referee comments”) and strive to understand what other experts in their respective fields are trying to communicate to them. The idea here is not to get defensive but to open your mind and listen to what your peers are saying. For instance, you may have inadvertently missed a key point, failed to run some crucial control experiments, or misinterpreted your experimental data. A reviewer’s job is to identify all such shortcomings and suggest standard remedies. This, in turn, increases the accuracy of your research findings, ensures that only relevant studies are published, and contributes to the improvement of the scientific record.

It is important to note that even journal reviewers follow the same protocol when someone else reviews their submitted manuscripts. In the world of research and publishing, nobody is worshipped or iconized. The same standards apply to early-career researchers, tenured faculty members, and even Nobel Laureates. This makes the process consistent and uniformly rigorous for all researchers, thus ensuring compliance with the widely accepted standards in research and publishing.

How to Draft Your Response to Reviewers

Before drafting their responses to manuscript reviewers, prospective authors must make it a point to go through the checklist below:

Make sure you thank the journal referees and journal editor(s) for their time and insightful feedback.
Quote each reviewer comment and draft a point-by-point response, leaving no room for error or accidental omission.
Insert an additional section at the top that briefly summarizes all major changes made to the manuscript.
Furnish all appropriate references wherever required.
Make sure you direct the reviewers to the appropriate page(s) and line number(s).
Use color-coding to differentiate between referee comments, your responses, and the changes made in the revised manuscript.
Mention the manuscript version (e.g., “Revised Manuscript V2”) in your response.

How to Respond When Authors Disagree with Peer Reviewers

If the journal reviewers suggest experiments that are way outside the scope of your research expertise, highlight this limitation clearly but politely.
In case you come across logically flawed or inaccurate suggestions, discuss them with your peers first. If they also agree with you, then explain your stance politely in your response letter and support it with the required scientific evidence.

Note: Prospective authors should maintain professional and respectful language in all communications with journal referees and editors.

Examples for Reference

Referee comment: “We suggest conducting a comprehensive set of additional experiments to support your hypothesis.”

Note: Choose Author Response #1 if the suggested experiments fall outside the scope of your current work or expertise. If you believe that the additional experiments are necessary to strengthen your study and can be completed without significant difficulty, please choose Author Response #2.

Author Response #1: Thank you for the suggestion. However, we would like to mention that the suggested study is outside the scope of the current manuscript and our research expertise. Our work primarily focuses on [briefly state your focus area]. Conducting these additional experiments would require substantial resources, efforts, and time beyond the objectives of this study. Instead, we have strengthened our argument by [mention what you actually did (e.g., added a detailed analysis, cited new literature, or highlighted study limitations)]. We hope this addresses your concern. However, the authors remain open to further suggestions.

Author Response #2: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that these additional experiments would indeed strengthen the manuscript. Accordingly, we have conducted [briefly describe the experiments (e.g., “conducted a series of X tests under Y conditions”)] and incorporated the results into the revised manuscript. The new data are presented in [mention section(s), figure(s), and/or table number(s)], and incorporated throughout the relevant sections of the manuscript to ensure consistency and clarity. We appreciate your input, which has significantly improved the quality of our work. We trust these additions meet your expectations.

Referee Comment: “Some aspects of the conclusion section may need revision because… We recommend clarifying these points for accuracy.”

Note: Use Author Response #1 if you agree to revise the conclusions, and Author Response #2 if you maintain your interpretation but can clarify and strengthen it with supporting evidence.

Author Response #1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully reviewed the conclusions and agree with your observation. Accordingly, we have revised the conclusion section to ensure accuracy and alignment with the presented data. The updated text can be found in [mention the section(s)]. We appreciate your valuable feedback, which has improved the clarity of our manuscript.

Author Response #2: Thank you for your comment. However, based on the evidence presented, we believe the original interpretation remains valid. We have clarified the reasoning and added supporting references to strengthen our argument. These changes are reflected in [mention the section(s)]. We hope this addresses your concern. However, we remain open to additional input.

Summary

Early-career researchers often need clear guidance on how to address reviewer comments effectively. This practical guide offers actionable insights and real-world examples to support that goal. Prospective authors should read reviewer comments carefully to understand them, avoid replying in haste, and follow best practices for responding to reviewers (as outlined above).

Key Highlights

Peer review gives researchers a golden opportunity to introspect and address key issues related to their research.
The peer review process is consistent and uniformly rigorous for all researchers, regardless of their academic status.
Prospective authors must go through referee comments and diligently address each query using professional and respectful language.

Quiz for the Curious

Dr. Morninga is drafting his response to the following reviewer query: “Key details are missing from the Materials and Methods section of your manuscript.” What should he do?

(A) Politely declare that he is busy and therefore unable to find time to add key details to the Materials and Methods section.

(B) Justify the current version of the manuscript without reviewing the Materials and Methods section once again.

(C) Add the required key details to the Materials and Methods section to ensure that other researchers can reproduce and build upon the published work.

(D) Draft a rebuttal letter to the journal editor questioning the statement made by the reviewers, although key details are indeed missing from the Materials and Methods section.

Answer: (C)