{"id":37115,"date":"2025-08-09T10:30:51","date_gmt":"2025-08-09T05:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/?p=37115"},"modified":"2025-08-08T19:47:34","modified_gmt":"2025-08-08T14:17:34","slug":"editors-corner-how-should-a-manuscript-be-revised-to-respond-to-reviewer-feedback","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/editors-corner-how-should-a-manuscript-be-revised-to-respond-to-reviewer-feedback","title":{"rendered":"Editor\u2019s Corner: How should a manuscript be revised to respond to reviewer feedback?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In my previous posts, \u201cWhat are journals looking for in a manuscript submission?<\/a>\u201d and \u201cWhat happens to a paper after submission to a journal?<\/a>\u201d, 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\u2019ll explore how to approach the revision process and respond to reviewer feedback effectively.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Read, assess and action the reviewer feedback<\/strong><\/p>\n

After your manuscript has undergone peer review, it\u2019s time to carefully evaluate the feedback you\u2019ve 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s also important to consider your availability \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s important to evaluate whether the issue can be addressed in the manuscript\u2019s \u2018Limitations\u2019 section, and to make sure you provide a clear explanation to the editor of why the requested revisions could not be made.<\/p>\n

As you work through your revisions, it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Has the editor provided any additional comments?<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019s crucial to treat these editorial comments the same way as the peer review feedback, addressing them thoroughly in your revisions.<\/p>\n

If there is anything unclear or if you have any concerns about the feedback you\u2019ve, again it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A note on conflicting reviewer comments<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019s comments and how you can address them in a balanced way. If the feedback is particularly conflicting, and if the editor hasn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The author response letter<\/strong><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019t feasible to make the requested changes. For instance, if a reviewer asks for more data that isn\u2019t 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 \u2018Limitations\u2019 section or when discussing future research needed in the area.<\/p>\n

When drafting the response letter, it\u2019s important to be clear, polite and professional. A detailed response demonstrates that you value the reviewers\u2019 feedback and are committed to improving your work.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What to re-submit<\/strong><\/p>\n

When resubmitting your manuscript, ensure that all requested materials are provided in the format specified by the journal. This generally includes:<\/p>\n