Editor’s Corner: How should a manuscript be revised to respond to reviewer feedback?
In my previous posts, “What are journals looking for in a manuscript submission?” and “What happens to a paper after submission to a journal?”, I discussed what journals look for when receiving submissions and the journey a manuscript takes once it’s been submitted. But how should authors respond when a manuscript is returned for revision? In this post, I’ll explore how to approach the revision process and respond to reviewer feedback effectively.
Read, assess and action the reviewer feedback
After your manuscript has undergone peer review, it’s time to carefully evaluate the feedback you’ve received. Most journals, particularly for article types like original research or systematic reviews, provide comments from at least two external peer reviewers, and it’s important to read these comments thoroughly to guide your revisions.
When reviewing feedback, consider creating a plan for how you will incorporate the suggested changes to help you stay organized and focused as you revise your manuscript. Keep in mind that some reviewers may request additional analysis or experimental work; if this happens, assess how much time this will take and whether you might need to request an extension from the editor to meet the revised deadline. It’s also important to consider your availability – if you or your co-authors have upcoming commitments such as vacations or conference travel, this may impact your ability to meet the requested deadline, and this should be discussed as soon as possible with the editor to help their planning.
It may not be appropriate to incorporate all feedback into the final manuscript; sometimes you may receive requests that go beyond the scope of your study or are not feasible due to limitations such as data constraints, time or budget. In these cases, it’s important to evaluate whether the issue can be addressed in the manuscript’s ‘Limitations’ section, and to make sure you provide a clear explanation to the editor of why the requested revisions could not be made.
As you work through your revisions, it’s important to keep careful track of the changes you make and the reasoning behind them. It can be useful to maintain a revision log or table summarizing the modifications, especially if your paper goes through multiple rounds of review. Having a clear record of manuscript versions will make it easier to respond to feedback over time and ensure that all requested changes have been addressed.
Has the editor provided any additional comments?
In addition to reviewer comments, editors may provide their own additional feedback on the manuscript. This could relate to the content, but also to editorial aspects such as reference formatting, missing sections, or additional information that was not included in the original submission. It’s crucial to treat these editorial comments the same way as the peer review feedback, addressing them thoroughly in your revisions.
If there is anything unclear or if you have any concerns about the feedback you’ve, again it’s best to discuss this with the editor as soon as possible. This helps ensure that there are no misunderstandings about how to respond, and it provides an opportunity to clarify any points that may not have been fully addressed in the comments.
A note on conflicting reviewer comments
The peer review process involves independent evaluations, often from diverse reviewers with different perspectives. As a result, feedback will differ between reviewers and may even conflict. When this happens, carefully consider each reviewer’s comments and how you can address them in a balanced way. If the feedback is particularly conflicting, and if the editor hasn’t already commented on this, it can also be useful to discuss this with them and agree a suitable way forward before re-submitting your paper.
The author response letter
An essential part of the revision process is the author response letter, which gives you the opportunity to explain how you have addressed the reviewer and editor feedback. This letter is your opportunity to communicate directly with the editor and reviewers about the changes you’ve made.
In your response letter, you should address each point raised by the reviewers, explaining how the feedback has been incorporated into the manuscript or, if applicable, why certain suggestions were not followed. For feedback you cannot incorporate, provide a clear explanation for why it wasn’t feasible to make the requested changes. For instance, if a reviewer asks for more data that isn’t available or requests an additional analysis that you cannot perform, you can explain this in the response and outline why these limitations exist. Where appropriate, this should also be incorporated into the manuscript itself, perhaps in the ‘Limitations’ section or when discussing future research needed in the area.
When drafting the response letter, it’s important to be clear, polite and professional. A detailed response demonstrates that you value the reviewers’ feedback and are committed to improving your work.
What to re-submit
When resubmitting your manuscript, ensure that all requested materials are provided in the format specified by the journal. This generally includes:
- A clean version of the revised manuscript
- A version of the revised manuscript with the changes highlighted (e.g., using the ‘track changes’ tool)
- An author response letter
- Any additional files, such as revised figures, tables, or supplementary materials
Submitting these materials clearly and in the correct format will help expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, and allow the editor to assess your revisions more quickly and easily.
What happens next?
Once the manuscript has been resubmitted, the editor and editorial office will review the revisions to see whether the manuscript is suitable for acceptance, if there are any queries for the author, or if further revisions are necessary. Depending on the manuscript and the journal’s policies, the paper may be sent for additional rounds of external review.
Additional rounds of revisions may be requested if the feedback has not been fully addressed, or if new issues arise during the second round of review. Once all the necessary revisions are made and reviewers have provided feedback, the editor will make the final decision on whether the manuscript will be accepted for publication.
Final takeaways
When responding to reviewer feedback, it’s critical to address all the comments, even if you don’t agree with them. Acknowledge each point and, if necessary, explain why you chose not to incorporate certain suggestions – the author response letter is your opportunity to do this.
Always ensure you submit all the required materials in the requested format – clear communication and thorough revisions will streamline the process and help editors make decisions as quickly as possible.
Remember, the revision and peer review process can take time, and additional queries or further rounds of review may arise before a final decision is made. Patience and diligence during this phase are key to ensuring your manuscript’s quality and increasing the likelihood of acceptance.
