Strategies For Responding To Peer Review Comments

𝑴𝒂𝒏𝒂𝒈𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝑹𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒐 𝑹𝒆𝒗𝒊𝒆𝒘𝒆𝒓 𝑪𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕𝒔 The revision process and responding to reviewer comments are crucial for getting your manuscript published. Here are best practices to guide you through this critical stage of academic publishing: 1️⃣ Understand the Feedback ☞ Read Thoroughly Carefully read the decision letter and reviewer comments. Ensure you fully understand the feedback before starting revisions. Categorize Comments ➣ Organize comments into categories (e.g., major revisions, minor revisions, suggestions) 2️⃣ Stay Organized ➣Create a Response Document Draft a separate document to address each reviewer's comment systematically. ➣ Track Changes Use the track changes feature in your word processor to clearly show your edits in response to the feedback. 3️⃣ Address All Comments ➣ Direct Responses Respond to each comment directly and clearly. If a comment is unclear, seek clarification from the editor. ➣ Detailed Explanations Provide detailed explanations for the changes you made. If you disagree with a comment, respectfully explain your reasoning. 4️⃣ Revise the Manuscript ➣Incorporate Changes Make the necessary changes in your manuscript based on the feedback. Focus on clarity, consistency, and accuracy. ➣Improve Overall Quality Use this opportunity to improve the overall quality of your manuscript. 5️⃣ Maintain Professionalism ➣Respectful Tone Maintain a professional and respectful tone in your responses, even if you disagree with the feedback. ➣Positive Attitude Approach the revision process with a positive attitude. 6️⃣ Clarify and Justify ➣Clear Justifications When changes are made, clearly justify why they were necessary. Provide evidence or references to support your modifications. ➣Address Contradictory Feedback If reviewers provide contradictory comments, address each individually and explain how you resolved the differences. 7️⃣ Be Timely ➣Meet Deadlines Adhere to the timeline provided by the journal for submitting your revised manuscript. If you need more time, communicate with the editor in advance. 8️⃣ Final Check ➣Proofread Carefully proofread your revised manuscript to ensure it is free of errors and inconsistencies. ➣Consistency Ensure that all changes are consistent throughout the manuscript. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀❓ 🔄 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗳𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀❗ #AcademicWriting #ManuscriptRevisions #PeerReview #PublishingTips

On Learning How to Manage Reviewers (Or: You Can’t Please Everyone and Stay True to Your Story) Sometimes a review package lands on your desk and it feels like the reviewers are asking for three completely different papers. One wants more relevance. One wants more theory. One wants another study altogether. If you try to satisfy every single request, your manuscript can lose its identity—morphing into something far removed from your original vision. So what to do? 1. Selectively respond to comments. Start by categorizing feedback into: Must address (essential to the integrity or clarity of the paper) Good to address (strengthens the paper but not mission-critical) Not feasible or appropriate (doesn’t fit your data, theory, or scope) 2. Accommodate the best suggestions. Look for feedback that genuinely improves your contribution, tightens your argument, or enhances clarity. Sometimes these suggestions challenge you in ways that make the paper far better than you imagined. 3. Explain clearly why you can’t address other points. If you can’t run a new study, expand your dataset, or add a theory outside your domain, explain why in factual, logical terms. Editors and reviewers are far more receptive to a reasoned rationale than to vague statements like, “We didn’t have time.” 4. Keep your paper a coherent whole. Even if you adopt ideas from multiple reviewers, integrate them into your narrative rather than bolting them on. A cohesive story will carry more weight than a checklist of responses. 5. Stay true to your theory and data. Don’t HARK. Don’t bend the work to match someone else’s preferences if it breaks the integrity of your research. Your goal is to tell a faithful, evidence-based story. Resubmit with a rich, thoughtful explanation of your decisions. Most of the time, that combination of responsiveness and coherence will get you across the finish line. Best of luck! #AcademicWriting #Revisions #Publication #PeerReview

Don't agree with a journal reviewer's comment? Here's how I recommend proceeding: ✅ Take Time To Process The Feedback ➡ As a PhD student, I struggled with emotionally reacting to feedback. Over time, I learned that I need a number of days to process reviewer comments before deciding on my course of action. ✅ Ask Why There Is A Disagreement ➡ Whenever I encounter a comment that I don't agree with, I ask myself, ‘Why do I disagree?’ Do I disagree because it would be a hassle to make the revision? Is my ego getting in the way, making me unwilling to admit that my thinking is flawed? Does my disagreement stem from the reviewer not fully grasping the issue they’re raising? ✅ Get External Guidance ➡ If I'm struggling to determine whether my disagreement is rational, I find it helpful to ask trusted mentors for their advice on how to best proceed with a comment. Senior researchers have likely encountered difficult reviewers in the past, so they'll have useful guidance based on their experiences. ✅ Provide A Rationale For Disagreeing ➡ If I disagree with a comment, I have found it helpful to: (a) thank the reviewer for their feedback; (b) acknowledge that I have thought critically about their comment; and (c) provide a strong rationale with supporting references for why I disagree. ✅ Determine If There Is Middle Ground ➡ Where possible, I like to determine whether there’s a middle ground where I can note their feedback in the manuscript without making substantive changes to my study. For instance, can I incorporate their comment as a footnote or in the limitations section? 💡 Key Takeaway As an early career researcher, I felt that I had to make every single change noted by reviewers to publish my manuscript. What I’ve learned since then is that it’s okay to disagree with a reviewer’s comment. At the end of the day, this is your paper, so you should feel comfortable with what you are putting out into the literature. When you do disagree, make sure to be respectful in your response by thanking the reviewer for their comment, acknowledging that you thought deeply about their feedback, and providing a strong rationale for why you disagree. P.S. What did I miss? How would you recommend disagreeing with a reviewer's comment? ➖ ➖ ➖ ➖ I'm Joseph Rios, the founder of Grad Student Academy. Follow me if you enjoyed this content. I write about graduate school and professional development issues for PhD students. My mission is to unveil the hidden PhD curriculum to all, not just the privileged few. Learn the strategies I used to go from being rejected by nearly every PhD program to: ✅ obtaining a top-notch industry job ✅ landing a tenure-track faculty position ✅ becoming an award-winning researcher