Q: How to respond to questions by reviewers?
After reading through the reviewers comments, I found myself a little bit confused about how to address certain comments. When a reviewer asks me a question, should I only respond to the question or should I revise the manuscript according to the question too? For example: What is the scale used in the microscopic observations? From where did you get the pathogens used in this study? Does the expression "....." mean this or that? Should I respond to these comments in the response letter only or is this another way of asking me to add or clarify this information?
Thank you for writing to us. Responding to peer reviewer comments requesting for revisions (major or minor) is indeed a daunting task sometimes. Although this requires some effort, it contributes to improving your paper, making it worthwhile!
Whether a response should acknowledge the comment alone or warrant changes in the manuscript would solely depend on the nature of the reviewer comment. In case it is a general comment, you may proceed with simply acknowledging it. For the questions shared by you, we’d suggest that you provide and explanation and also ask whether the relevant text needs to be included in the manuscript for added clarity. Once you receive a clarification, you may include the text in the manuscript, if required.
We would also suggest that you go through the following resources for added insights in this regard:
- VIDEO: How to respond to peer reviewer comments
- How to respond to comments by peer reviewers
- How To Respond To Peer Review Comments?
Please feel free to get back to us in case you need added clarity in any regard.
Answer: You should both respond to the reviewer in the response letter and revise the manuscript to include the requested information or clarification. These questions are usually prompts to improve clarity in the paper itself, not just in your reply.
Answer: In most cases, I would treat the reviewer’s questions as requests for clarification, not just questions that need to be answered in the response letter. If the information is relevant to the manuscript, it is usually better to add or clarify it in the manuscript as well. For example, for the question about the scale used in microscopic observations, I would add the scale information to the Methods or figure legend if it is currently missing. For the source of the pathogens, I would clarify that in the Methods section. If a reviewer asks whether a particular expression means one thing or another, I would make the wording clearer in the manuscript so that other readers will not have the same confusion. Then, in the response letter, explain exactly what you changed and where. Something like: “Thank you for pointing this out. We have clarified the scale information in the Methods section (Page X, Lines X–X).” Of course, if the reviewer is simply asking for an explanation that does not require a manuscript change, answering in the response letter may be enough. The key is to distinguish between a question that reveals missing information and a question that simply asks you to explain your existing text.
