reviewer comments on phd thesis

PhDLife Blog

Sharing PhD experiences across the University of Warwick and beyond

How to Respond to Reviewer Comments

As PhD students, you can hear a lot about a key activity of your research: publishing in journals. Writing up your research into succinct pieces that can be read and viewed by the wider academic world is key to building your profile and giving you experience of writing academically long before your thesis is due. But there are many little intricacies of the journal publishing process that you need to navigate in order to get your work published. One element is writing the response letter to your reviewers. Today, blog editor Ellie King gives us the how to…

We often talk about the process of submitting to an academic journal. But what happens after that submission? Well, your work will usually go to the journal administrator, who will do a broad check to see that your work actually fits in with the journal. Then, it goes off to reviewers – usually two or three – who go through your work and pick it apart. They’ll be judging it on a set of criteria: is the research relevant and of enough interest to warrant publication? Are the methods of research and the conclusions drawn sound? Are there any elements missing that the authors need to expand on?

After judging your paper against these criteria, reviewers will write up their comments, some general and some more specific (i.e., there’s a typo on page 15) and will make a recommendation to the editor. This recommendation can be one of a number of outcomes:

Accept for publication
Requires minor revisions (usually grammatical errors)
Requires major revisions
Suggest major editing and a resubmission

Now, I don’t want to give you too many stats on what papers get accepted, rejected, and everything in between, because it can very much be a case-by-case basis. But for me, the two papers that I’ve submitted to journals both returned with major revisions.

These ‘outcomes’ scared me when I first heard them, but in reality, you’ll get your paper back with a load of comments. Sometimes these can be nit-pickety but in my experience they’ve always been really constructive and have helped me improve my work massively.

Anyway, fast forward to having gone through the comments and made edits on your paper. These can be as small as correcting the typos that you could have sworn weren’t there and only popped up once you’d hit submit, to rewriting whole sections of your work and adding new ones. You’re ready to resubmit. With one extra task ahead of you: writing a response letter to the reviewer comments you’ve got.

You’ll have usually highlighted in your manuscript where changes have been made. But another requirement is to write a document going through each reviewer comment and detailing how you’ve responded to it. I’ve found there’s an art to this, as guided by my supervisors, so here is my advice.

Write a general letter

The document will start in letter format which should detail your thanks for the comments and the opportunity to build on your work. You can also cover the overall changes you’ve made in this general letter in response to the general tone of the reviewer comments. You also need to note where you’ve highlighted changes in the text.

For example, my last paper received the comments that I was overselling the use of my method I had researched and devised. In response I said that overall things had been toned down and tightened up to reflect the key elements of the research.

“ I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded to them individually, indicating exactly how we have addressed each of the reviewers’ points and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have coordinated this as the corresponding author. The changes have been highlighted in the paper as you requested. “ “ Reviewer comments have been closely considered, which we feel has improved the paper greatly in clarifying its benefit to museum practice at this theoretical stage. These have been clarified in the main text at several points and a summary of these clarifications are provided below. “

Address Specific Issues

There may have been an issue with the supplementary issue you provided or how you have done your referencing. Again, the general letter is a good place to acknowledge that you’ve made these changes.

“ Concerns were raised about the lack of supplementary information submitted with the manuscript. This has now been rectified and the supplementary information includes the staff survey questions (note, these are not formatted as the survey was produced online); the visitor survey; and the staff interview questions. References to appendices have also been removed. “

Reply to Each Comment in Turn

After your general letter, copy each reviewer comment into the document and reply to it specifically. I usually put the reviewer comments in bold and then my answers underneath. You don’t have to respond to every single comment, especially if they are of the ‘typo on page 15’ type. These responses will be a mixture of providing further clarity on your research approach and highlighting what changes you’ve made in the text. If you’re making direct defences of your research, make sure what you say is also said in the text.

Reviewer #2: The use of only one museum for the visitor survey is questionable. Responses from natural history museums would be different than for art galleries, for example. “ This has been addressed with the focus shifting to the visitor survey being an exploratory example of how the model and this method of visitor profiling can be applied in a museum setting. It is explicitly acknowledged that different results would be produced for different types of institutions. “

Get the Tone Right

It’s important to strike a good balance between thanking the reviewers for their comments which have improved your work and looking like you have no idea what you’re doing without their help. Be sincere with thanking them for their insightful comments, but don’t go overboard. Equally, do not feel the need to rectify everything they criticise. If you have good enough reasons for your research methods and conclusions, don’t bend over to pleasing the reviewers, and it’s perfectly okay to stand up to your point. They may be criticising it because it wasn’t explained as clearly, so an edit in this direction is really helpful. I’ve found the phrase ‘we apologise for the lack of clarity over this point’ followed by a defence of your approach is particularly useful in appeasing reviewers whilst politely saying ‘no, you’re wrong.’

Acknowledge their praise

It’s important not to just focus on the criticisms they make. Reviewers will usually have to make general comments on how the paper is written and its subject matter, and this will often include elements of praise. Make sure you acknowledge this: it’ll get them more on your side.

With this letter, you’ll submit your revised manuscript back to the reviewers. They’ll consider your responses and edits and come back to you hopefully with a decision. It may be an acceptance, it may require some other minor revisions (those pesky typos!)

But I’ve found it to be the case that if you’ve been asked for major revisions, the reviewers see the potential in your work. It obviously needs tweaking and some edits here and there, but they are clearly in a position where they want to publish you. It’s unlikely that after major revisions you’ll then get a rejection, unless you’ve majorly ignored everything they’ve said. Reviewers are busy academics who are unpaid for their time spent reviewing: they will not put the energy and effort in writing constructive comments if they didn’t think your research had the potential to be published. You may have to go through another round of revisions, and you may have the unfortunate situation of a particularly harsh reviewer who never seems to be pleased, but generally it’s going in the right direction.

If you’re currently working with research journals, take a look at our post on how to review a paper , or check out the art of writing successful book proposals.

What are your experiences with publishing in journals? Do you have any top tips to help fellow researchers? Let us know in the comments below, tweet us @ ResearchEx or email us at [email protected]

How to respond to reviewer comments: The Drafts Review Matrix

As I have been sharing my academic workflow with my blog readers, I realized that much of what I have been writing may be of help not only to PhD and Masters’ students, or early career scholars (postdoctoral fellows and assistant professors) but also to my own undergraduate students. I have decided that I will be creating a series of webinars to showcase many of the techniques I use, and I will also be writing an integrative blog post that goes all the way from having a research question and deciding what to search for in Google Scholar to integrating the literature review to drafting the research paper .

Linking my Draft Revisions Matrix (TM) to my paper draft sidebar comments. Notice I write response by hand ☺️ pic.twitter.com/mW25kzMKwl — Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) June 21, 2016

In the mean time, and given that I’m also doing revisions to a book chapter as I’m travelling in Copenhagen and Aarhus (in Denmark) for the Public Management Research Conference 2016, I decided that I would write a post on how to respond to reviewer comments . This chapter I’m revising is in Spanish, so you will have to forgive that the tables and commentary are in the Spanish language. I couldn’t find one of my revisions’ tables for my papers in English (my Dropbox crashed a few months ago so I moved a lot of files to other media), but these should do.

Basically, I follow a similar model to that espoused by Tanya Golash-Boza (University of California, Merced) and Theresa MacPhail (Stevens Institute of Technology). I also got the idea from the emails I have received through time asking me to respond to specific queries from the university press or the specific journal where I submitted my paper. The table below is an example from my 2015 article published in the Review of Policy Research on transnational environmental activism in North America .

I adapted this table and the models proposed by Tanya and Theresa so that I could make it work for my own workflow. For me, it is important to give myself the intellectual and physical space to make the changes and respond to criticisms and comments. Thus, the last column is empty until I fill it up with notes. I usually write the specific response to feedback by hand, and link it to the physical section of the paper (I often do this either with a highlighter or a Post-It adhesive note).

Here is how I revise my manuscripts, be it responding to comments and criticisms from readers or reviewers, or my own commentary after giving it a first read. I create a matrix of responses (what I call the Drafts Review Matrix ) using the comments from my reviewers and writing my responses in the box with “Response/Action”. Please note that I also include text from the paragraphs where the specific comment was provided so that I can quickly find where exactly is the comment from the reviewer that needs to be addressed.

My Drafts Review Matrix has four columns:

Comment location: Where the reviewer inserted a comment asking for a clarification or a response. I usually make sure that my first column clarifies exactly where the coment is exactly located e.g. “first paragraph, line 3, page 44.”
Original text: I always make sure to include text that the reviewer highlighted when inserting their commentary or feedback, so that I can look it up and quickly understand what they meant with their comment.
Observations: This is the exact wording of the reviewer’s comments. It usually also appears on the margins of the Word document, so I physically connect the content of the cell with the comment on the margins with highlighter of the same color.
Actions: These are the actions I took to address the reviewers’ comments. Often times, I include the exact wording of what I am going to insert as text into the section that was highlighted. Note that I cross it off with red ink once I have addressed it, both in the physical copy of the paper, and on the Draft Revisions Matrix cell corresponding to the actions that were required. I also delete the comment box from the Word document once I’ve addressed the issues.

As you can see, I actually physically write the actions I take, or the text I am going to insert in the post, and then use a marker to cross the text across within the Actions cell so that I know I have addressed that specific commentary. If I were a bit more organized, I probably would include a column with the Date or Deadline for Actions (e.g. when will I deal with a specific comment), but to be perfectly honest, I prefer to finish editing the manuscript ONCE AND FOR ALL. So, if you do enjoy using your #AcWri writing time (which I do in the mornings) to edit then you may want to just specify the dates (and budget time for when you will work on, and by which date you will finish each specific editing task )

The beauty of integrating the Literature Review Excel Dump with the Drafts Review Matrix is that you can use the Excel dump cells’ content to write the specific changes you will make for a specific section. I also often write them in Post-It notes and stick them to the physical page with the number of revision or reviewer comment that I need to address. I almost always revise a manuscript in one sitting, but you do not need to do so if you prefer to do parts of the editing as single, discrete, achievable units of work (as I have often recommended before)

EDIT: I have updated (February 3rd, 2018) my Drafts Review Matrix. You can find the new format in this blog post .

You can share this blog post on the following social networks by clicking on their icon.

Posted in academia , writing .

Tagged with academic writing , AcWri , editing , workflow , writing .

No comments

By Raul Pacheco-Vega – June 23, 2016

0 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post .

About Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD

Find me online.

My Research Output

Google Scholar Profile
Academia.Edu
ResearchGate

My Social Networks

Polycentricity Network

Follow me on Twitter:

Proudly powered by WordPress and Carrington .

Carrington Theme by Crowd Favorite

Addressing Reviewer Comments: Refining Your Dissertation

Embrace the Feedback Process

The dissertation journey is a rigorous and demanding one, and as you near the finish line, you encounter a critical phase: addressing reviewer comments. These comments, whether from your dissertation committee or peer reviewers, are a fundamental part of the academic process. They can feel like a mix of praise and criticism, and how you approach them can significantly impact the final quality of your work.

First and foremost, it's essential to embrace the feedback process with an open and growth-oriented mindset. Understand that reviewer comments are not a personal attack on your abilities or the worth of your research. Instead, they are a mechanism designed to elevate your work to the highest academic standards. Here's how to effectively embrace the feedback process:

1. Shift Your Perspective: Instead of viewing reviewer comments as hurdles to overcome, consider them as stepping stones toward improvement. Each comment, no matter how critical, presents an opportunity to refine and strengthen your dissertation.

2. Recognize the Value: Reviewer comments are a form of professional guidance that many researchers pay for through conferences or workshops. In this context, receiving feedback for free is a valuable privilege. It means that experts are invested in your work and are willing to help you succeed.

3. Separate Your Ego: It's natural to feel a personal connection to your dissertation. However, during the feedback process, it's crucial to separate your ego from your work. Remember that constructive criticism is aimed at enhancing the quality of your research, not diminishing your worth.

4. Focus on Improvement: Approach each comment as a specific area for improvement. Consider how addressing this feedback will enhance the overall rigor and credibility of your dissertation. Embracing feedback is an act of dedication to producing your best work.

5. Seek Clarification: If you find a comment unclear or ambiguous, don't hesitate to seek clarification from the reviewer or committee member. A better understanding of their perspective can guide your revisions effectively.

6. Trust the Process: The feedback process is a well-established part of academia. Trust that it has helped countless researchers refine their work and contribute valuable insights to their respective fields. By embracing this process, you align yourself with a tradition of scholarly excellence.

7. Collaborate and Learn: Engaging with feedback is an opportunity to collaborate with experienced scholars. It's also a chance to learn and grow as a researcher. The insights gained from addressing reviewer comments can shape your future work and improve your academic writing skills.

Receive Free Grammar and Publishing Tips via Email

Organize and analyze.

Once you've received reviewer comments on your dissertation, the next crucial step is to organize and analyze this feedback. This phase is essential for making sense of the various suggestions, critiques, and recommendations you've received. Here's a detailed look at how to effectively organize and analyze reviewer comments.

1. Create a Systematic Framework: Start by creating a systematic framework for organizing the comments. This framework should help you categorize and prioritize the feedback. Common categories include methodology, literature review, data analysis, and presentation. Having a clear structure will prevent you from feeling overwhelmed by the volume of comments.

2. Catalog Comments: Begin by cataloging all the comments you've received. This involves creating a comprehensive list of each comment, specifying who provided it (e.g., committee member, peer reviewer), and noting the page or section of your dissertation it pertains to. This catalog serves as a reference point for your revisions.

3. Identify Common Themes: As you review the comments, you'll likely notice common themes or recurring issues. These may include suggestions related to clarity, methodology, or the organization of your work. Identifying these overarching themes will help you address multiple comments at once and streamline your revision process.

4. Prioritize Comments: Not all comments are of equal importance, and some may conflict with others. Prioritize comments based on their significance to the overall quality and validity of your dissertation. Focus on addressing comments that have the most substantial impact first.

5. Understand the Reviewer's Perspective: Put yourself in the shoes of the reviewer or committee member. Try to understand their perspective and the rationale behind their comments. Consider their expertise and the academic standards they are applying. This empathetic approach can help you appreciate the value of their feedback.

6. Seek Clarification: If a comment is unclear or you require additional information to address it effectively, don't hesitate to seek clarification from the reviewer. Engaging in a dialogue can provide insights into their expectations and help you craft more precise revisions.

7. Align with Your Research Goals: While addressing comments, keep your research goals and objectives in mind. Ensure that revisions align with the core purpose of your dissertation. Avoid making changes that deviate from your research agenda.

8. Maintain Consistency: As you revise your dissertation, aim for consistency in your approach. Ensure that changes made to one section do not create inconsistencies or conflicts with other parts of your work. Maintaining a cohesive narrative is crucial.

9. Document Changes: Keep meticulous records of the revisions you make in response to reviewer comments. Documenting changes ensures transparency and accountability in the revision process. It also helps when you need to justify your decisions during the defense.

10. Stay Organized: Throughout the organization and analysis process, stay organized. Use digital tools, spreadsheets, or project management software to track your progress and manage your revisions efficiently. A well-organized approach saves time and reduces stress.

Organizing and analyzing reviewer comments is a pivotal step in refining your dissertation. It empowers you to make informed decisions about which revisions to prioritize and ensures that your final work aligns with academic standards and your research goals. By systematically addressing feedback, you set the stage for a successful defense and the completion of a high-quality dissertation.

Prioritize Revisions

Once you've organized and analyzed the feedback on your dissertation, the next critical phase is prioritizing revisions. Not all comments carry the same weight, and your time and effort are valuable resources. Prioritizing revisions strategically ensures that you focus on the most significant and impactful changes. Here's how to effectively prioritize revisions based on reviewer comments:

1. Distinguish between Major and Minor Comments: Reviewer comments can vary widely in their impact on your dissertation. Some may point to fundamental flaws in your research, while others may be minor suggestions for improvement. Begin by distinguishing between major and minor comments. Major comments typically relate to issues that affect the overall validity, clarity, or methodology of your work.

2. Address Critical Flaws First: Start by addressing critical flaws or comments that could undermine the integrity of your dissertation. These may include errors in research methodology, gaps in the literature review, or issues with data analysis. By resolving these foundational problems, you ensure the core quality of your work.

3. Focus on Coherence and Flow: After addressing critical flaws, pay attention to comments related to the overall coherence and flow of your dissertation. Reviewers often comment on the logical progression of your arguments, transitions between sections, and the clarity of your writing. Improving these aspects enhances the readability and impact of your work.

4. Address Fundamental Methodological Issues: If reviewer comments highlight methodological concerns, prioritize these revisions. Methodology is the backbone of any research, and addressing issues in this area is essential for the validity of your findings. Ensure that your research design, data collection, and analysis methods meet rigorous standards.

5. Enhance Clarity and Precision: Comments related to clarity, precision, and language should also be prioritized. Clear and concise writing is vital in academic writing. Address suggestions for improving sentence structure, eliminating jargon, and enhancing the readability of your work. Clarity in communication is key to conveying your research effectively.

6. Consider Consistency and Formatting: While formatting and consistency comments may seem minor, they contribute to the overall professionalism of your dissertation. Ensure that your citations, references, headings, and formatting adhere to the required style guide. Consistency in these elements reflects attention to detail.

7. Seek Feedback on Revisions: As you make revisions based on reviewer comments, seek feedback from mentors, advisors, or colleagues. External input can help you validate the effectiveness of your revisions and identify areas that may still require improvement.

8. Keep the Big Picture in Mind: Throughout the prioritization process, keep the big picture of your dissertation in mind. Ensure that revisions align with your research objectives and do not compromise the core message of your work. Balancing the need for changes with the preservation of your research integrity is essential.

9. Maintain a Transparent Record: Document the revisions you make in response to reviewer comments. Maintain a transparent record of changes, including the rationale behind each revision. This documentation not only serves as a reference for your defense but also demonstrates your commitment to addressing feedback.

Engage in Dialogue

As you embark on the journey of refining your dissertation in response to reviewer comments, one of the most effective strategies is to engage in a constructive dialogue. This dialogue extends beyond mere revisions and involves active communication with your dissertation committee, peer reviewers, or advisors. Here's why engaging in dialogue is crucial and how to make the most of it:

1. Clarify Ambiguities: Reviewer comments may occasionally be vague or open to interpretation. Engaging in dialogue allows you to seek clarification on these comments. By understanding the reviewers' perspectives better, you can tailor your revisions more precisely to meet their expectations.

2. Demonstrate Commitment: Actively engaging with reviewer comments demonstrates your commitment to producing high-quality research. It shows that you value the input of experts in your field and are dedicated to addressing their concerns and suggestions.

3. Show Willingness to Collaborate: Engaging in dialogue fosters a sense of collaboration between you and the reviewers. It communicates your openness to working together to improve the dissertation. This collaborative spirit can lead to more productive exchanges and a more supportive review process.

4. Defend Thoughtfully: In some cases, you may disagree with certain comments or suggestions. Engaging in dialogue allows you to defend your choices thoughtfully and academically. Be prepared to provide well-reasoned justifications for your decisions, which can demonstrate your research expertise.

5. Seek Additional Guidance: Beyond clarification, engaging with your dissertation committee or reviewers can be an opportunity to seek additional guidance. You can ask for recommendations on specific literature, methodologies, or approaches to address the comments effectively.

6. Maintain Regular Communication: Keep the lines of communication open and maintain regular contact with your dissertation committee or reviewers. Provide updates on your progress, share draft revisions, and seek feedback at various stages of the revision process. This proactive approach can help prevent surprises during your defense.

7. Manage Expectations: Engaging in dialogue allows you to manage expectations effectively. If there are comments that you cannot address due to limitations or time constraints, communicate this transparently. Managing expectations can lead to more realistic and feasible revisions.

8. Showcase a Growth Mindset: Demonstrating a growth mindset is an essential aspect of engaging in dialogue. Embrace feedback as an opportunity for growth and improvement rather than as criticism. This mindset shift can positively influence how reviewers perceive your responsiveness to their comments.

9. Seek Alignment: Ensure that your revisions align with the expectations of your dissertation committee or reviewers. Use the dialogue to confirm that your changes accurately address their concerns and suggestions. Alignment with their expectations contributes to a smoother review process.

10. Leverage Professionalism: Approach all interactions with professionalism and respect. Remember that your reviewers are experts in their fields, and maintaining a respectful and collegial tone in your dialogue is essential.

Engaging in a constructive dialogue with your dissertation committee or reviewers is a valuable component of the revision process. It allows you to clarify comments, demonstrate commitment, and seek collaborative solutions. By maintaining open and respectful communication, you enhance the quality of your dissertation and navigate the review process more effectively.

Revise and Improve

After you've organized, prioritized, and engaged in a constructive dialogue with your dissertation committee or reviewers, the next crucial step is to embark on the revision journey. This phase, characterized by thorough and systematic revisions, is where you transform feedback into tangible improvements. Here's a detailed guide on how to effectively revise and improve your dissertation:

1. Start with the Most Critical Feedback: Begin by addressing the most critical feedback—the comments that go to the heart of your dissertation's quality and validity. This may include revising your research methodology, refining your argument structure, or improving data analysis.

2. Maintain Clarity and Consistency: Pay close attention to comments related to clarity, coherence, and consistency. Ensure that your dissertation flows logically and that there are smooth transitions between sections. Review your writing style to eliminate jargon and ambiguity.

3. Strengthen Your Argument: Evaluate comments that pertain to the strength of your argument. Reviewers often provide insights into areas where your argument may be weak or where additional evidence is needed. Strengthen your claims with robust evidence and persuasive reasoning.

4. Address Methodological Concerns: If there are methodological concerns or suggestions for improvement, implement these changes diligently. Methodology is the backbone of your research, and addressing these comments is crucial for the validity of your findings.

5. Proofread and Edit: Conduct a comprehensive proofreading and editing pass. Eliminate grammatical errors, typos, and punctuation issues. Ensure that your writing is polished and conforms to the required style guide (e.g., APA, MLA).

6. Be Concise and Precise: Review your writing for conciseness and precision. Avoid unnecessary wordiness and ensure that every sentence serves a clear purpose. Precision in language enhances the readability and impact of your dissertation.

7. Incorporate Visuals: If reviewers suggested the inclusion of visuals (e.g., graphs, charts, tables), incorporate them thoughtfully. Visuals can help convey complex information more effectively and enhance the overall presentation of your research.

8. Cross-Check Citations and References: Verify the accuracy of all citations and references. Ensure that every source cited in your dissertation is correctly formatted and included in the reference list. Inaccurate or missing citations can undermine your work's credibility.

9. Seek External Feedback: Beyond the feedback from your dissertation committee or reviewers, seek external feedback from peers, mentors, or colleagues. Fresh perspectives can uncover areas for improvement that you may have overlooked.

10. Maintain a Transparent Record: Document all revisions and changes made in response to reviewer comments. This transparent record serves as evidence of your diligence and commitment to addressing feedback.

11. Stay Aligned with Your Research Goals: Throughout the revision process, keep your research goals and objectives in mind. Ensure that revisions align with the core purpose of your dissertation. Avoid making changes that deviate from your research agenda.

12. Review with a Critical Eye: Approach your revised dissertation with a critical eye. Re-read your work as if you were a reviewer, and evaluate the effectiveness of your revisions. Make additional improvements as needed.

13. Proof of Progress: As you work through the revisions, share progress updates with your dissertation committee or reviewers. This demonstrates your commitment to addressing their feedback and allows them to monitor your progress.

Seek Additional Input

In the journey of refining your dissertation based on reviewer comments, seeking additional input is a valuable step to ensure the comprehensiveness and excellence of your revisions. While the feedback from your dissertation committee or peer reviewers is instrumental, widening the circle of input can provide fresh perspectives and insights. Here's how to effectively seek additional input:

1. Collaborate with Peers: Collaborating with peers who are also working on dissertations or research projects can be mutually beneficial. They can offer a peer's perspective and share their experiences in addressing feedback. Peer input can uncover areas for improvement that may not have been evident initially.

2. Consult Subject Matter Experts: Depending on the specific comments and areas of your dissertation, consider consulting subject matter experts in relevant fields. Their specialized knowledge can help you address complex or technical feedback effectively. Engaging with experts can also lead to valuable discussions and suggestions.

3. Connect with Writing Centers: Many academic institutions have writing centers staffed with experienced writing tutors. These centers offer support in improving writing style, grammar, and overall dissertation structure. Seeking guidance from writing center professionals can enhance the clarity and readability of your work.

4. Engage with Research Advisors: Your research advisor, if different from your dissertation committee chair, can provide guidance and input on revisions. They are familiar with your research journey and can offer valuable insights into aligning revisions with your research goals.

5. Attend Workshops and Seminars: Universities and academic organizations often host workshops and seminars on dissertation writing and revision. Participating in such events can expose you to diverse perspectives and strategies for addressing reviewer comments effectively. It also provides an opportunity to network with fellow researchers.

6. Utilize Online Communities: Online academic communities and forums can be valuable resources for seeking additional input. Platforms like academic subreddits, LinkedIn groups, or specialized research forums allow you to share your challenges, seek advice, and benefit from the collective wisdom of the academic community.

7. Solicit Feedback from Trusted Colleagues: Trusted colleagues, mentors, or advisors who may not be directly involved in your dissertation committee can offer valuable insights. Their distance from your work can provide an objective viewpoint and identify areas that require improvement.

8. Leverage Professional Editing Services: Professional dissertation editing services can provide comprehensive feedback on your revisions. These services often employ experts in various fields who can review your work for clarity, coherence, and adherence to academic standards. While they may not replace the input of your committee, they can provide an additional layer of feedback.

9. Conduct Peer Reviews: Consider conducting peer reviews of your revised dissertation chapters. Exchange chapters with fellow graduate students or colleagues and provide constructive feedback to each other. Peer reviews can help identify issues and inconsistencies that may have been overlooked.

10. Stay Open to Diverse Perspectives: When seeking additional input, stay open to diverse perspectives and opinions. Different reviewers may have varying suggestions for improvement. Embrace the opportunity to consider multiple viewpoints and choose revisions that align with your research goals.

Seeking additional input beyond your dissertation committee or peer reviewers can enhance the quality and comprehensiveness of your revisions. Collaboration with peers, consultation with experts, engagement with writing centers, and participation in academic communities all contribute to a more robust and refined dissertation. This collective input ensures that your work reflects the highest standards of academic rigor and excellence.

Addressing reviewer comments is an integral part of the dissertation process. Embrace feedback as an opportunity for growth and improvement. By organizing, prioritizing, and implementing revisions effectively, you can refine your dissertation and increase your chances of a successful defense. Remember that the feedback you receive is a valuable resource that contributes to your development as a scholar and researcher.

Connect With Us

Dissertation Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

May 3, 2017.

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our professional dissertation editing se...

Thesis Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

For March through May 2018 ONLY, our thesis editing service is discounted...

Neurology includes Falcon Scientific Editing in Professional Editing Help List

March 14, 2017.

Neurology Journal now includes Falcon Scientific Editing in its Professio...

Useful Links

Academic Editing | Thesis Editing | Editing Certificate | Resources

The Savvy Scientist

Experiences of a London PhD student and beyond

My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions

Once you’ve submitted your paper to an academic journal you’re in the nerve-racking position of waiting to hear back about the fate of your work. In this post we’ll cover everything from potential responses you could receive from the editor and example peer review comments through to how to submit revisions.

My first first-author paper was reviewed by five (yes 5!) reviewers and since then I’ve published several others papers, so now I want to share the insights I’ve gained which will hopefully help you out!

This post is part of my series to help with writing and publishing your first academic journal paper. You can find the whole series here: Writing an academic journal paper .

The Peer Review Process

An overview of the academic journal peer review process.

When you submit a paper to a journal, the first thing that will happen is one of the editorial team will do an initial assessment of whether or not the article is of interest. They may decide for a number of reasons that the article isn’t suitable for the journal and may reject the submission before even sending it out to reviewers.

If this happens hopefully they’ll have let you know quickly so that you can move on and make a start targeting a different journal instead.

Handy way to check the status – Sign in to the journal’s submission website and have a look at the status of your journal article online. If you can see that the article is under review then you’ve passed that first hurdle!

When your paper is under peer review, the journal will have set out a framework to help the reviewers assess your work. Generally they’ll be deciding whether the work is to a high enough standard.

Interested in reading about what reviewers are looking for? Check out my post on being a reviewer for the first time. Peer-Reviewing Journal Articles: Should You Do It? Sharing What I Learned From My First Experiences .

Once the reviewers have made their assessments, they’ll return their comments and suggestions to the editor who will then decide how the article should proceed.

How Many People Review Each Paper?

The editor ideally wants a clear decision from the reviewers as to whether the paper should be accepted or rejected. If there is no consensus among the reviewers then the editor may send your paper out to more reviewers to better judge whether or not to accept the paper.

If you’ve got a lot of reviewers on your paper it isn’t necessarily that the reviewers disagreed about accepting your paper.

You can also end up with lots of reviewers in the following circumstance:

The editor asks a certain academic to review the paper but doesn’t get a response from them
The editor asks another academic to step in
The initial reviewer then responds

Next thing you know your work is being scrutinised by extra pairs of eyes!

As mentioned in the intro, my first paper ended up with five reviewers!

Potential Journal Responses

Assuming that the paper passes the editor’s initial evaluation and is sent out for peer-review, here are the potential decisions you may receive:

Reject the paper. Sadly the editor and reviewers decided against publishing your work. Hopefully they’ll have included feedback which you can incorporate into your submission to another journal. I’ve had some rejections and the reviewer comments were genuinely useful.
Accept the paper with major revisions . Good news: with some more work your paper could get published. If you make all the changes that the reviewers suggest, and they’re happy with your responses, then it should get accepted. Some people see major revisions as a disappointment but it doesn’t have to be.
Accept the paper with minor revisions. This is like getting a major revisions response but better! Generally minor revisions can be addressed quickly and often come down to clarifying things for the reviewers: rewording, addressing minor concerns etc and don’t require any more experiments or analysis. You stand a really good chance of getting the paper published if you’ve been given a minor revisions result.
Accept the paper with no revisions . I’m not sure that this ever really happens, but it is potentially possible if the reviewers are already completely happy with your paper!

Keen to know more about academic publishing? My series on publishing is now available as a free eBook. It includes my experiences being a peer reviewer. Click the image below for access.

Example Peer Review Comments & Addressing Reviewer Feedback

If your paper has been accepted but requires revisions, the editor will forward to you the comments and concerns that the reviewers raised. You’ll have to address these points so that the reviewers are satisfied your work is of a publishable standard.

It is extremely important to take this stage seriously. If you don’t do a thorough job then the reviewers won’t recommend that your paper is accepted for publication!

You’ll have to put together a resubmission with your co-authors and there are two crucial things you must do:

Make revisions to your manuscript based off reviewer comments
Reply to the reviewers, telling them the changes you’ve made and potentially changes you’ve not made in instances where you disagree with them. Read on to see some example peer review comments and how I replied!

Before making any changes to your actual paper, I suggest having a thorough read through the reviewer comments.

Once you’ve read through the comments you might be keen to dive straight in and make the changes in your paper. Instead, I actually suggest firstly drafting your reply to the reviewers.

Why start with the reply to reviewers? Well in a way it is actually potentially more important than the changes you’re making in the manuscript.

Imagine when a reviewer receives your response to their comments: you want them to be able to read your reply document and be satisfied that their queries have largely been addressed without even having to open the updated draft of your manuscript. If you do a good job with the replies, the reviewers will be better placed to recommend the paper be accepted!

By starting with your reply to the reviewers you’ll also clarify for yourself what changes actually have to be made to the paper.

So let’s now cover how to reply to the reviewers.

1. Replying to Journal Reviewers

It is so important to make sure you do a solid job addressing your reviewers’ feedback in your reply document. If you leave anything unanswered you’re asking for trouble, which in this case means either a rejection or another round of revisions: though some journals only give you one shot! Therefore make sure you’re thorough, not just with making the changes but demonstrating the changes in your replies.

It’s no good putting in the work to revise your paper but not evidence it in your reply to the reviewers!

There may be points that reviewers raise which don’t appear to necessitate making changes to your manuscript, but this is rarely the case. Even for comments or concerns they raise which are already addressed in the paper, clearly those areas could be clarified or highlighted to ensure that future readers don’t get confused.

How to Reply to Journal Reviewers

Some journals will request a certain format for how you should structure a reply to the reviewers. If so this should be included in the email you receive from the journal’s editor. If there are no certain requirements here is what I do:

Copy and paste all replies into a document.
Separate out each point they raise onto a separate line. Often they’ll already be nicely numbered but sometimes they actually still raise separate issues in one block of text. I suggest separating it all out so that each query is addressed separately.
Form your reply for each point that they raise. I start by just jotting down notes for roughly how I’ll respond. Once I’m happy with the key message I’ll write it up into a scripted reply.
Finally, go through and format it nicely and include line number references for the changes you’ve made in the manuscript.

By the end you’ll have a document that looks something like:

Reviewer 1 Point 1: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer’s comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you’ve made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!

What To Actually Include In Your Reply To Reviewers

For every single point raised by the reviewers, you should do the following:

Address their concern: Do you agree or disagree with the reviewer’s comment? Either way, make your position clear and justify any differences of opinion. If the reviewer wants more clarity on an issue, provide it. It is really important that you actually address their concerns in your reply. Don’t just say “Thanks, we’ve changed the text”. Actually include everything they want to know in your reply. Yes this means you’ll be repeating things between your reply and the revisions to the paper but that’s fine.
Reference changes to your manuscript in your reply. Once you’ve answered the reviewer’s question, you must show that you’re actually using this feedback to revise the manuscript. The best way to do this is to refer to where the changes have been made throughout the text. I personally do this by include line references. Make sure you save this right until the end once you’ve finished making changes!

Example Peer Review Comments & Author Replies

In order to understand how this works in practice I’d suggest reading through a few real-life example peer review comments and replies.

The good news is that published papers often now include peer-review records, including the reviewer comments and authors’ replies. So here are two feedback examples from my own papers:

Example Peer Review: Paper 1

Quantifying 3D Strain in Scaffold Implants for Regenerative Medicine, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by two academics and was given major revisions. The journal gave us only 10 days to get them done, which was a bit stressful!

Reviewer Comments
My reply to Reviewer 1
My reply to Reviewer 2

One round of reviews wasn’t enough for Reviewer 2…

My reply to Reviewer 2 – ROUND 2

Thankfully it was accepted after the second round of review, and actually ended up being selected for this accolade, whatever most notable means?!

Nice to see our recent paper highlighted as one of the most notable articles, great start to the week! Thanks @Materials_mdpi 😀 #openaccess & available here: https://t.co/AKWLcyUtpC @ICBiomechanics @julianrjones @saman_tavana pic.twitter.com/ciOX2vftVL — Jeff Clark (@savvy_scientist) December 7, 2020

Example Peer Review: Paper 2

Exploratory Full-Field Mechanical Analysis across the Osteochondral Tissue—Biomaterial Interface in an Ovine Model, J. Clark et al. 2020 – Available here

This paper was reviewed by three academics and was given minor revisions.

My reply to Reviewer 3

I’m pleased to say it was accepted after the first round of revisions 🙂

Things To Be Aware Of When Replying To Peer Review Comments

Generally, try to make a revision to your paper for every comment. No matter what the reviewer’s comment is, you can probably make a change to the paper which will improve your manuscript. For example, if the reviewer seems confused about something, improve the clarity in your paper. If you disagree with the reviewer, include better justification for your choices in the paper. It is far more favourable to take on board the reviewer’s feedback and act on it with actual changes to your draft.
Organise your responses. Sometimes journals will request the reply to each reviewer is sent in a separate document. Unless they ask for it this way I stick them all together in one document with subheadings eg “Reviewer 1” etc.
Make sure you address each and every question. If you dodge anything then the reviewer will have a valid reason to reject your resubmission. You don’t need to agree with them on every point but you do need to justify your position.
Be courteous. No need to go overboard with compliments but stay polite as reviewers are providing constructive feedback. I like to add in “We thank the reviewer for their suggestion” every so often where it genuinely warrants it. Remember that written language doesn’t always carry tone very well, so rather than risk coming off as abrasive if I don’t agree with the reviewer’s suggestion I’d rather be generous with friendliness throughout the reply.

2. How to Make Revisions To Your Paper

Once you’ve drafted your replies to the reviewers, you’ve actually done a lot of the ground work for making changes to the paper. Remember, you are making changes to the paper based off the reviewer comments so you should regularly be referring back to the comments to ensure you’re not getting sidetracked.

Reviewers could request modifications to any part of your paper. You may need to collect more data, do more analysis, reformat some figures, add in more references or discussion or any number of other revisions! So I can’t really help with everything, even so here is some general advice:

Use tracked-changes. This is so important. The editor and reviewers need to be able to see every single change you’ve made compared to your first submission. Sometimes the journal will want a clean copy too but always start with tracked-changes enabled then just save a clean copy afterwards.
Be thorough . Try to not leave any opportunity for the reviewers to not recommend your paper to be published. Any chance you have to satisfy their concerns, take it. For example if the reviewers are concerned about sample size and you have the means to include other experiments, consider doing so. If they want to see more justification or references, be thorough. To be clear again, this doesn’t necessarily mean making changes you don’t believe in. If you don’t want to make a change, you can justify your position to the reviewers. Either way, be thorough.
Use your reply to the reviewers as a guide. In your draft reply to the reviewers you should have already included a lot of details which can be incorporated into the text. If they raised a concern, you should be able to go and find references which address the concern. This reference should appear both in your reply and in the manuscript. As mentioned above I always suggest starting with the reply, then simply adding these details to your manuscript once you know what needs doing.

Putting Together Your Paper Revision Submission

Once you’ve drafted your reply to the reviewers and revised manuscript, make sure to give sufficient time for your co-authors to give feedback. Also give yourself time afterwards to make changes based off of their feedback. I ideally give a week for the feedback and another few days to make the changes.
When you’re satisfied that you’ve addressed the reviewer comments, you can think about submitting it. The journal may ask for another letter to the editor, if not I simply add to the top of the reply to reviewers something like:

“Dear [Editor], We are grateful to the reviewer for their positive and constructive comments that have led to an improved manuscript. Here, we address their concerns/suggestions and have tracked changes throughout the revised manuscript.”

Once you’re ready to submit:

Double check that you’ve done everything that the editor requested in their email
Double check that the file names and formats are as required
Triple check you’ve addressed the reviewer comments adequately
Click submit and bask in relief!

You won’t always get the paper accepted, but if you’re thorough and present your revisions clearly then you’ll put yourself in a really good position. Remember to try as hard as possible to satisfy the reviewers’ concerns to minimise any opportunity for them to not accept your revisions!

Best of luck!

I really hope that this post has been useful to you and that the example peer review section has given you some ideas for how to respond. I know how daunting it can be to reply to reviewers, and it is really important to try to do a good job and give yourself the best chances of success. If you’d like to read other posts in my academic publishing series you can find them here:

Blog post series: Writing an academic journal paper

Subscribe below to stay up to date with new posts in the academic publishing series and other PhD content.

How to Plan a Research Visit

13th September 2024 13th September 2024

Self portrait photo of me thinking about the key lessons from my PhD

The Five Most Powerful Lessons I Learned During My PhD

8th August 2024 8th August 2024

Image with a title showing 'How to make PhD thesis corrections' with a cartoon image of a man writing on a piece of paper, while holding a test tube, with a stack of books on the desk beside him

Minor Corrections: How To Make Them and Succeed With Your PhD Thesis

2nd June 2024 2nd June 2024

2 Comments on “My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions”

Excellent article! Thank you for the inspiration!

No worries at all, thanks for your kind comment!

Privacy Overview

Research Voyage

Research Tips and Infromation

Expert Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments on Your Research Paper

Introduction

Read the Reviewers' Comments Carefully

Keep your Response Concise

Avoid being defensive or argumentative, thank the reviewers, submit your revised paper, what should i do if a reviewer makes a comment that i disagree with, how should i address multiple comments from the same reviewer.

What is the best way to present revisions in response to reviewers' comments?
Is it appropriate to ask for clarification on a reviewer's comment?

How do I maintain a professional and respectful tone when responding to negative or critical comments from reviewers?

Although completing a research paper is a noteworthy achievement, the process doesn’t finish after the research paper is written. Reviewers will provide criticism of your work, and it’s crucial to effectively address it if you want to enhance it and raise the likelihood that it will be published.

In this post, we’ll examine pro advice and tactics for addressing critiques of your research paper. We’ll talk about how critical it is to read and comprehend the comments, how to respond to each one specifically, how to back up your claims, and how to keep a professional demeanor. Responding to reviewers’ comments in the form of a letter requires good professional email writing skills .

Here are some steps you can take while responding to the reviewer’s comments.

Read the Reviewers’ Comments Carefully

It is crucial to take your time reading the reviewers’ remarks and comprehending the criticism they have made. This can entail going over the comments several times, going over the pertinent passages in your article again, and, if required, discussing the remarks with your co-authors or supervisor.

The context of the manuscript and the general objectives of the research should be taken into account while evaluating the reviewers’ comments. Consider whether a change is required for the article to accomplish its objectives, for instance, if a reviewer suggests one that would affect the focus of the paper.

It’s also critical to take the reliability of the input into account. Despite their good intentions, some remarks might not be well-informed. You may decide not to make the suggested adjustment in such circumstances or to ask the reviewer for clarification.

Even if the reviewers’ recommendations are challenging to put into practice or differ from how you originally envisioned the article, it is crucial to retain an open mind and be prepared to take them into account. Keep in mind that the reviewers are professionals in their fields, and their comments might help your research become more impactful and of higher quality.

Address each Comment Individually

It is crucial to be precise about how you have addressed the input in your edits when responding to each comment separately. This entails responding to each criticism in a straightforward manner, documenting the changes you have made, and describing how these changes resolve the reviewer’s issues.

Consistency in your responses to the reviewers is also crucial. Make sure the section has been updated if you indicate that a certain point has been covered in a particular section.

To structure your responses to the reviewers’ remarks, use a table or bullet points. You should also number your responses to match the particular comment you are addressing. This makes it simple for the reviewers to see your revisions and how you responded to their comments.

Additionally, bear in mind that the reviewer will read both the original manuscript and your response side by side. Therefore, whether it is a single page, line, or paragraph, it is crucial to be precise about where in the manuscript the modifications have been made.

You must keep in mind that the reviewers may have varying levels of knowledge and viewpoints, so you may need to modify your response accordingly.

Additionally, I suggest you to use, some professional grammar-checking software tool to correct any grammatical errors so that you should lose the impression of the reviewer.

I hope these examples provide some guidance on how to address each comment from a reviewer separately. Remember to thank the reviewer for their feedback and show that you are taking their suggestions into consideration as you make revisions to your paper.

Be Specific About Revisions

Be specific and succinct when addressing any objections you may have to the reviewers’ comments.

If you disagree with a comment or believe that a suggested modification might have a negative effect on the paper, it is crucial to respectfully and clearly explain why.

For instance, if a reviewer offers a modification that you feel will materially shift the paper’s focus or take away from the primary conclusions, you might wish to explain why you think the change is unnecessary or why it would lower the paper’s overall quality.

It’s critical to back up your concerns with evidence. This may entail citing more research from the literature or offering information.

Furthermore, it is critical to be open and honest about any study limitations, including any related to sample size or study design. These limits may occasionally be brought up by reviewers, but there are instances when it is preferable to address them proactively.

It’s also crucial to respond diplomatically and refrain from arguing or defending yourself. Keep in mind that the reviewers’ suggestions are meant to enhance the calibre of your work, and that an open debate can result in a stronger finished paper.

Here are some examples of how to respectfully and clearly explain why you disagree with a comment or believe that a suggested modification might have a negative effect on the paper:

I hope these examples provide some guidance on how to respectfully and clearly explain why you disagree with a comment or believe that a suggested modification might have a negative effect on the paper. Remember to explain your reasoning clearly and acknowledge the reviewer’s feedback while still maintaining the integrity of your research.

Explain any Concerns

It’s crucial to be succinct and clear when outlining your response to the reviewers’ comments in the cover letter. This entails summarising the key adjustments you have made to the revised article, emphasizing the key ideas, and describing how the modifications answer the reviewers’ feedback.

In the event that the reviewers haven’t seen the work in a while, it’s also critical to clearly explain the context of the modification. You may, for instance, remind the reviewers of the paper’s core research question, main findings, and main contributions.

It’s also important to mention any unresolved issues you still have with the manuscript or any part of the study that you believe needs further research, it’s an opportunity to convey your understanding and plans for the future.

It’s also a good idea to thank the reviewers for their time and work and to say that you hope the changes have enhanced the article.

Making a solid first impression is crucial because the cover letter is frequently the first thing the reviewers will read. A strong cover letter can improve communication with the reviewers and raise the likelihood that the manuscript will be approved for publication.

It is crucial to make sure that your amended manuscript adheres to the journal’s formatting requirements when you submit it along with your answer.

Making sure the paper complies with the journal’s requirements for length, format, and style is part of this. Additionally, it entails making sure the paper is error-free and that all of the figures and tables are of good quality.

Additionally, it’s crucial to confirm that the work is finished, suitable for publishing, and that all necessary adjustments have been completed. This indicates that every modification has been recorded, and every reviewer’s opinion and recommendation have been taken into consideration.

In order for the reviewers to quickly access your response while reading the revised manuscript, it is crucial to submit both your response and the amended manuscript as separate documents.

A copy of the initial submission, the reviews, and your response should all be kept for your records.

Last but not least, it’s critical to adhere to the journal’s submission requirements and deadlines. If you don’t, your paper might get rejected or postponed.

To maximize the likelihood that your paper will be approved for publication, the key is to be systematic, accurate, and professional.

It’s crucial to refrain from being defensive or argumentative in your responses to reviewers’ comments. This entails holding back from attacking someone personally or reacting unduly emotionally.

It’s critical to keep in mind that the reviewers are subject matter experts who are offering criticism to help your research become better. They are not your adversaries, and their remarks are not directed at you specifically.

Consider their viewpoint and the remarks as helpful criticism that can help you better your paper rather than getting defensive.

Additionally, it’s crucial to refrain from saying anything that could be interpreted as condescending or dismissive. Use of terms like “that’s not a problem” or “that’s not significant,” for instance, can come out as dismissive and may irritate the reviewers.

Additionally, it’s critical to refrain from blaming the original paper’s mistakes or omissions for your study’s limitations or other flaws. Instead, in the amended work, admit the shortcomings and describe the efforts you have done to resolve them.

You may keep a good rapport with the reviewers and raise the likelihood that your work will be accepted for publication by responding in a respectful and professional manner.

When responding to the reviewer’s comments, it can be helpful to incorporate some of the principles of yoga to help maintain a sense of equanimity and avoid becoming overly reactive or defensive.

One way to do this is to take a few deep breaths and focus on the present moment before beginning to read the comments. This can help to quiet the mind and promote a sense of calmness, which can make it easier to approach the feedback with an open mind and a willingness to learn and grow.

Additionally, it can be helpful to view the feedback as an opportunity for growth and improvement, rather than as a criticism of your work. This mindset shift can help to cultivate a sense of curiosity and openness, which can make it easier to receive feedback with grace and composure.

I have written a book on UNLOCK YOUR RESEARCH POTENTIAL THROUGH YOGA: A RESEARCH SCHOLAR’S COMPANION for the benefit of researchers.

I also suggest you to read one more book The Art Of Saying NO by Damon Zahariades . This will help you to learn how to respond and say things you want without being argumentative.

Provide a Clear and Concise Cover Letter

It’s crucial to be precise and succinct when summarising your response to the reviewers’ concerns in the cover letter. This means that you need to give a brief explanation of the key changes you’ve made to the revised manuscript and how they respond to the reviewers’ comments.

The most significant adjustments and how they improved the paper should be highlighted in the summary. It’s crucial to be detailed and to provide instances wherever you can. You may, for instance, point out a particular area of the manuscript that you have edited and explain how it responds to a reviewer’s issue.

Include any restrictions or unresolved problems you still see with the manuscript, as well as your plans for resolving them in the future.

The summary should be succinct—generally, one or two paragraphs will do—and simple to comprehend. Additionally, it’s crucial to check your cover letter for spelling and grammar issues, since these could give the reviewers the wrong impression.

Overall, the reviewers can better comprehend the modifications you have made and how they have enhanced the paper if you provide a brief and clear explanation of your response in the cover letter.

It also helps to demonstrate your understanding of the reviewers’ feedback and your commitment to improving the quality of your research.

It’s crucial to thank the reviewers for their time and suggestions before submitting your updated work and response to the journal. You can either mention this in the cover letter or in a separate note that is sent with the application.

It’s critical to keep in mind that the reviewers are subject matter experts who have given up time from their hectic schedules to read and comment on your article. They have offered insightful advice that will assist you to increase the quality of your research.

If your paper is accepted for publication and you need to work with the reviewers again in the future, having a good relationship with them now will benefit you in the future.

Saying something like, “Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript,” or “We appreciate the insightful criticism supplied by the reviewers, which allowed us to improve the quality of our paper,” might be used to show your appreciation.

Additionally, it’s critical to keep in mind that the reviewing process is a two-way street and that input is intended for both authors and reviewers.

Thus, expressing gratitude will demonstrate that you appreciate their criticism and that you are aware of the significance of the reviewing process.

In summary, expressing gratitude to the reviewers in a professional and sincere way can help to establish a positive relationship with them and demonstrate your appreciation for the time and effort they have invested in your research.

It is crucial to make sure your updated work and response are thorough and adhere to the journal’s submission requirements when submitting them to the journal. This entails delivering all necessary files, such as the updated manuscript, the reviewers’ comments, the cover letter, and any supplementary files like figures or tables.

It’s also crucial to make sure the work is formatted correctly and adheres to the length, style, and formatting standards established by the journal. This can entail checking that the document is double-spaced, contains proper citations, and has excellent figures and tables.

The title of the paper, the names of the authors and their connections, and any potential conflicts of interest should all be included in the cover letter.

Additionally, it’s crucial to adhere to the journal’s submission requirements and deadlines. This entails submitting the paper on schedule and using the correct procedures. If you don’t, your paper might get rejected or postponed.

A copy of the initial submission, the reviews, and your response should all be kept for your records. This can come in handy if there are any problems with the submission or if you ever need to refer back to the reviews.

The reviewing process can take some time, and it’s not unusual for amendments to be asked several times before an article is accepted for publication. As a result, it’s crucial to have patience.

Overall, you may raise the likelihood that your work will be approved for publication by sending a full and well-organized package, adhering to the journal’s standards, and remaining patient and professional throughout the process.

Handling Contradictory Suggestions

Contradictory recommendations from reviewers are a regular occurrence for researchers during the publication process. Reviewers’ differing viewpoints and assessments of a research article may result in contradictory suggestions for modifications. However, researchers can successfully negotiate these competing ideas and enhance their article for publication by taking a thorough and methodical approach to the situation.

In this discussion, we’ll look at the approaches researchers can use to deal with conflicting reviewer recommendations, including carefully reading and comprehending the comments, identifying the main issues, assessing the recommendations, coming to a decision and clearly communicating it, addressing any unresolved issues, remaining open to further discussion, and seeking advice from the editor or other subject-matter experts.

The following points need to be considered while dealing with contradictory observations made by the reviewers.

Read and understand the comments: Carefully read and understand the comments and suggestions made by both reviewers.
Identify the key issues: Identify the key issues or concerns raised by both reviewers and try to understand their different perspectives.
Evaluate the suggestions: Evaluate the suggestions made by both reviewers and consider their validity and potential impact on your research.
Make a decision: Based on your evaluation, make a decision on which suggestions to incorporate into your paper.
Communicate your decision: Clearly communicate your decision to the reviewers and provide evidence or reasoning for your choice.
Address any remaining concerns: Address any remaining concerns or issues raised by the reviewers in your response.
Be open to further discussion: Be open to further discussion and willing to consider any additional feedback or suggestions provided by the reviewers.
Seek guidance: If you are unable to make a decision, seek guidance from the editor or other experts in the field.

Here’s an example response that addresses both reviews while remaining respectful to both reviewers:

If a single reviewer makes contradictory views, it can be confusing and difficult to address. Here is an example response that addresses contradictory feedback from a single reviewer:

It’s critical to remember that the goal is to strengthen the manuscript and make it more publishable. Ensure that you have enough evidence to back up your choice, and be prepared to continue the conversation if necessary.

Few Conferences and Journals expect you to submit the final copy with corrections as suggested by reviewers in the form of a Camera Ready Copy(CRC). I have written an article on The Ultimate Guide to Preparing a Perfect Camera-Ready Copy (CRC) . Please refer the article to get further insights on preparing Camera Ready Copy(CRC).

In conclusion, it is critical to the publication process that you address the critiques received on your research work. You can effectively address the reviewers’ observations and enhance your paper by carefully reading and interpreting the comments, responding to each one individually, providing support, and adopting a professional tone. The likelihood of publishing can also be increased by adding adjustments based on reviewers’ comments and showing appreciation for their time and effort. You may successfully traverse the review process by using these tips and techniques, which will ultimately result in the success of your research work. Consider the reviewers’ comments as an opportunity to enhance your work and increase its effect. Consider it an opportunity to improve your paper so that it is stronger and publication-worthy.

Frequently Asked Questions

It’s important to address the reviewer’s comment and provide evidence or reasoning for why you disagree. Maintain a professional and respectful tone, and consider the comment as an opportunity to improve your work.

Respond to each comment individually and clearly, and make sure to address all the concerns raised by the reviewer. If the comments are related, you can group them together and respond accordingly.

What is the best way to present revisions in response to reviewers’ comments?

Clearly indicate the revisions you have made in response to the reviewers’ comments, and provide a summary of the changes made in the manuscript. It is helpful to use “Track Changes” feature in word processor to indicate the changes made.

Is it appropriate to ask for clarification on a reviewer’s comment?

Yes, it is appropriate to ask for clarification if you are unsure about the meaning of a reviewer’s comment. Maintain a polite and professional tone when asking for clarification.

It’s important to maintain a professional and respectful tone when responding to negative or critical comments. Avoid getting defensive or argumentative. Instead, focus on addressing the concerns raised by the reviewer and providing evidence or reasoning for your responses. Express gratitude for the reviewers’ time and effort in reviewing your paper.

Upcoming Events

Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
Visit for Research Internships Worldwide

How to write a PhD in a hundred steps (or more)

A workingmumscholar's journey through her phd and beyond, responding to examiners’ feedback.

I finally got my three examiners’ reports on my thesis this week, after just over 3 long months of waiting. I have been joking that I have been through something like the 5 stages of grief waiting an extra 5 weeks because examiner 3 was late with her report. At first there was a kind of denial (this can’t actually be happening – the report can’t really be taking so long. Maybe this is all some sort of weird email mix-up). Then there was anger (how could she do this to me? Doesn’t she know how hard I have worked?). After a couple of weeks of being really cross, I moved quite quickly through bargaining (if it comes this week, I will do all my corrections, I won’t procrastinate, I’ll be nice to everyone and walk the dog every day), to depression (I’m not going to graduate. The report will not come in time), and finally to acceptance (well, it will come in time for me to graduate or it won’t, but ranting won’t make it happen faster).

I think, in hindsight, that the additional few weeks of waiting for the last report was a good thing although it drove me crazy at the time. I think it was a good thing because of the way it influenced my attitude towards my 3 reports when they did finally arrive. I was just so grateful to get them and to finally know, good or bad, what the examiners thought of my work and what additional work I needed to do in order to graduate that I think I took the critique better than I might otherwise have done.

Kate Chanock has these 7 stages of resentment about getting feedback on your work from reviewers, which can be adapted for how a PhD student might respond to examiners, whether the reports are written or oral in the form of a Viva (although I am aware that an oral exam in quite different to receiving written reports).

From: http://www.slideshare.net/ingermewburn/write-that-journal-article-in-7-days-12742195

I think I can revise this list, personally, thus:

1. Relief – thank god the feedback is here

2. Anxiety and nerves – but what do the examiners say? What if it’s bad news?

3. Suck it up and read – you’ve been waiting for ages!

4. Wow – what lovely comments 🙂

5. What!? That’s not fair – I covered that in my discussion! I explained why I did that/left that out/showed that data and not the rest. Didn’t they read it carefully?

6. Hm, okay, fair point. I could probably make that a bit clearer. I suppose. Maybe.

7. Well, these are really good reports. I think they mostly got what I was trying to do. Phew! And actually, the corrections they want could make the thesis much better. Time to get going on them!

At first I read the reports, and called my husband and read bits to him, and told my mum, and my best friends and my Facebook people – they were all thrilled, as was my uber-supervisor – and I just basked in all of that for a day. Then I had a conversation with my supervisor about the corrections I will need to make (the final recommendation was that I make corrections to my supervisor’s satisfaction), and the reality started to set in. It’s not quite finished yet, and the corrections are not just typos. They require rethinking, reflection, rewriting, adding, clarifying, refining. It’s more than an afternoon with the ‘Find’ and ‘Replace’ functions, or fiddling with formatting. I wandered back into post-submission blues territory, and I’m still there, being a bit petulant and procrastinating because I just don’t really want to rethink and rewrite and revise. I just want to be finished now.

But, and there is always a but isn’t there, I really do have to engage with these reports and the comments and suggestions for changes precisely because they are not small, take-or-leave-them changes. In beginning with examiner 1’s report, I can see that a lot of what she is commenting on is vagueness in some of my definitions, explanations and discussion – partly because the literature itself is vague, and partly because I did not make my writing and thinking as clear as I could have. Examiner 2 has concerns about my analysis – he thinks I have made things a little to easy for myself – is he right? If so, what do I do to respond to his thoughtful and also probably somewhat accurate critique? Examiner 3 doesn’t think I need to make any changes, but she poses a couple of questions about my methodology I think I should respond to.

I do not have to do all of the corrections and follow-up on all the suggestions. I can decide which changes need to be made now to improve on my thesis, and which comments and suggestions need rather to be taken into account later, when I am writing up parts of my argument for publication. Examiners should and do go beyond the thesis to comment on other things you can think about and do post-PhD; they comment on the theory and how your have used it, on methodology more generally and on how you have realised yours, on the strength of your analysis and on things you could have done differently, and might want to do differently in future studies. A student’s work, then, in reading or taking in their critique is to work out what is for now and what can be for later (although not all students have a choice).

Hopefully, examiners will judge your thesis on its own merits, whether they agree with you or not, and will not make suggestions that have you writing their thesis into your corrections and revisions rather than your own. If you do have a choice, think very carefully about what they have said – they are experts in your field, and if you can open yourself up to the critique as well as the praise, I think you will find much food for thought. I certainly have. Of course, now I just have to work out what to do with all of it…

How to Respond to Reviewer Comments and Revise a Research Manuscript

Complete this form to receive your peer reviewer comments table

As academic researchers, one of the most critical steps in the publication process is revising our research manuscripts based on the feedback and comments provided by peer reviewers. While this stage can be demanding and time-consuming, it is an essential part of ensuring the quality and integrity of our work. In this blog post, we will delve into the challenges associated with manuscript revision and offer a practical approach for efficiently responding to peer reviewer comments.

The Challenges of Manuscript Revision

Emotional attachment: As researchers, we invest substantial time, effort, and intellectual energy into our work. Receiving critiques and suggestions from peer reviewers can sometimes be disheartening, challenging our emotional attachment to our research. It is crucial to approach the revision process with an open mind and recognize that reviewer comments are meant to improve the manuscript’s clarity, rigor, and contribution to the field.
Multiple perspectives: Peer reviewers often come from diverse backgrounds and expertise. Consequently, their comments may vary and sometimes even conflict with each other. It can be challenging to address these varied perspectives and strike the right balance between accommodating suggestions and maintaining the integrity of our research.
Time management: Manuscript revision requires meticulous attention to detail, from addressing specific comments to ensuring all revisions are appropriately incorporated into the manuscript. Balancing these tasks alongside other academic responsibilities can be overwhelming, making time management a crucial factor in successfully completing the revision process.

Efficiently Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments

As I demonstrate in the video at the top of this page, consider implementing the following strategies to streamline the process of responding to peer reviewer comments:

Read and understand the comments thoroughly. Begin by carefully reading all the feedback provided by the reviewers. Take note of their major concerns, suggestions for improvement, and any potential misunderstandings they may have had regarding your work. By gaining a clear understanding of the comments, you can develop a comprehensive plan for addressing them.

Copy and paste the comments into a table (like the one I use in the video): A table provides a visually organized format that allows you to view the reviewer comments at a glance. It presents the comments in a structured manner, making it easier to navigate and track the revisions required.

Categorize the comments to streamline your approach to revising the manuscript: As demonstrated in the video demonstration, you can categorize each comment according to (1) organization/structure; (2) content; and (3) editing or formatting.

Organization and structure: Comments related to organization and structure often require writers to assess the flow of the writing, misplaced information, poor transitions, and overlapping or redundant content.
Content: Content-related comments often require writers to clarify ambiguities, strengthen the argument, expand on an idea, address inconsistent or contradictory findings, and add missing literature.
Editing or formatting: Once the above comments have been addressed, move on to editing-related aspects. These comments often require writers to correct errors in grammar, syntax, style, formatting, and other language-related issues.

Document your response. When responding to peer reviewer comments, it is essential to be thorough and clear in your explanations. Acknowledge the reviewer’s feedback, explain any changes made, and provide a robust justification for any disagreements or decisions not to incorporate specific suggestions. This demonstrates your engagement with the reviewers and the thoughtfulness behind your revisions.

By following this systematic process for responding to reviewer comments, you can efficiently tackle the revisions required for your research manuscript. Remember to approach the process with patience, an open mind, and a commitment to improving the quality of your work.

Author: Jessica Parker, EdD

Book Editing

Manuscript Editing Services

Medical Editing

Bioscience Editing
Physical Science Editing
PhD Thesis Editing Services
PhD Editing
Master’s Proofreading
Bachelor’s Editing
Dissertation Proofreading Services
Best Dissertation Proofreaders
Masters Dissertation Proofreading
PhD Proofreaders
Proofreading PhD Thesis Price
Journal Article Editing
Book Editing Service
Editing and Proofreading Services
Research Paper Editing
Medical Manuscript Editing
Academic Editing
Social Sciences Editing
Academic Proofreading
PhD Theses Editing
Dissertation Proofreading
Proofreading Rates UK
Medical Proofreading
PhD Proofreading Services UK
Academic Proofreading Services UK

Medical Editing Services

Life Science Editing
Biomedical Editing
Environmental Science Editing
Pharmaceutical Science Editing
Economics Editing
Psychology Editing
Sociology Editing
Archaeology Editing
History Paper Editing
Anthropology Editing
Law Paper Editing
Engineering Paper Editing
Technical Paper Editing
Philosophy Editing
PhD Dissertation Proofreading
Lektorat Englisch
Akademisches Lektorat
Lektorat Englisch Preise
Wissenschaftliches Lektorat
Lektorat Doktorarbeit

PhD Thesis Editing

Thesis Proofreading Services
PhD Thesis Proofreading
Proofreading Thesis Cost
Proofreading Thesis
Thesis Editing Services
Professional Thesis Editing
Thesis Editing Cost
Proofreading Dissertation
Dissertation Proofreading Cost
Dissertation Proofreader
Correção de Artigos Científicos
Correção de Trabalhos Academicos
Serviços de Correção de Inglês
Correção de Dissertação
Correção de Textos Precos
定額ネイティブチェック
Copy Editing
FREE Courses
Revision en Ingles
Revision de Textos en Ingles
Revision de Tesis
Revision Medica en Ingles
Revision de Tesis Precio
Revisão de Artigos Científicos
Revisão de Trabalhos Academicos
Serviços de Revisão de Inglês
Revisão de Dissertação
Revisão de Textos Precos
Corrección de Textos en Ingles
Corrección de Tesis
Corrección de Tesis Precio
Corrección Medica en Ingles
Corrector ingles

Select Page

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments

Posted by Rene Tetzner | Sep 11, 2021 | Help with Peer Review | 0 |

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Free Example Letter Responding to the comments peer reviewers offer when they assess your research paper can be as challenging as writing the original manuscript, especially when the necessity of revising your paper to resolve problems is considered as well. How you respond to the criticism you receive can have a significant impact on whether your paper will ultimately be published or not, so getting your letter right is imperative. Although the process of responding, revising and perhaps responding and revising yet again can be frustrating and time consuming, it is important to remember that you, the journal editor with whom you are communicating and the peer reviewers who are assessing your writing and research are all working toward the same goal – the timely publication of an excellent research paper. A professional collegial approach that adopts a courteous and objective tone to deal clearly and thoroughly with every detail and issue will make the work of the editor and reviewers more efficient and the publication cycle as a whole smoother and more successful. Your prose should, of course, be formal and correct in every way, so do read and polish your response until every sentence is as clear, accurate and precise as you can make it.

Since each response letter to reviewer comments is unique, the letter below can only serve as a constructive example as you craft your own response. The names, titles, contact information and publishing situation used in this letter are entirely fictional, but the principles and procedures are realistic and sound. The complete date and full mailing addresses are used in the style of a traditional business letter despite the assumption of an email format. You may or may not want to adopt this approach, but do be sure to provide your current contact information and the name of the editor you are addressing (normally the editor who sent you the decision letter), his or her title and the title of the journal. The subject line above the salutation is not strictly necessary unless requested in the editor’s or journal’s instructions, but if the journal has given your manuscript a number or another form of reference, do include it. The way in which changes should be made and the revised manuscript submitted vary among journals and editors. This letter assumes that the authors have been asked to mark changes by using red font and resubmit their revised manuscript with their response via email, but do check guidelines and the decision letter you received for the requirements for your responses and revised manuscript, including any information on deadlines.

Keep in mind as you write that not just the editor but all of the reviewers may end up seeing everything you have written. Editors may cut and paste and share your responses as they see fit to achieve the results they envision for your paper, so be prepared for this possibility. You should definitely address each of the reviewers individually as you respond to his or her comments, aiming for a layout that makes it absolutely clear which comment you are responding to at any given moment and exactly what you have changed in your manuscript. Some authors use different fonts and colours to distinguish reviewer comments from author responses and changes, but do be aware that these features can be lost in online formats, so a Word document or pdf file would be a more reliable choice for such formatting. Do not hesitate to repeat information as necessary, incorporating small adjustments geared at the person you are addressing in each case (the discussion of Table 1 in the letter below is an example of this), but remember not to write anything to one reviewer that you would not want another one to read. If there are matters of a particularly sensitive nature that you wish to communicate to the editor only, be sure to discuss them in a separate document that is clearly not intended for reviewer eyes.

Finally, do not neglect to thank the editor and reviewers for their observations and comments. Their time is precious and many comments on your manuscript mean that they have dedicated a significant portion of it to help you improve your work. Be careful not to overstate your gratitude, however, and risk the impression of hollow flattery. Thoughtful attention to each of the observations and suggestions your reviewers offer will repay their efforts far more effectively.

A Sample Response to the Comments of Peer Reviewers

Edward Researcher Palaeography Institute 1717 Writer’s Lane South River, MI, USA, 484848 734-734-7344 [email protected]

Dr Helen Wordsmith Assistant Editor Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society 717 Reader’s Row London, UK, SW6 9DE [email protected]

November 14, 2017

Subject: Revision and resubmission of manuscript JSMS 17-N6688

Dear Dr Wordsmith,

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper on ‘Hidden Treasure: Scribal Hands in the Notorious Brigantine Manuscript.’ The suggestions offered by the reviewers have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your insightful comments on revising the abstract and other aspects of the paper.

I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded to them individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The changes are marked in red in the paper as you requested, and the revised manuscript is attached to this email message.

Most of the revisions prompted by the reviewers’ comments are minor and require no further explanation than what appears in my responses below, but I did want to bring Table 1 to your attention. This table lists, locates and briefly describes each of the hands we have separated from the many found in the Brigantine Manuscript, dated at least approximately and, in the case of the Pantofola di Seta ’s first mate, identified with certainty. It does not list hands and scripts about which we remain uncertain, and for this reason Reviewer 1 suggests that it be removed and the descriptions of hands that it contains used to lengthen the descriptions in the main text of the paper. Reviewer 2, on the other hand, would like to see the table longer, with all possible hands and scripts included and tentative dates provided wherever possible. We considered both solutions and finally decided on a longer table as a tool that sets the information out clearly and comparatively. Our assumption is that readers will more readily return to a table when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. This allowed us to shorten and simplify the discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text of the paper, but it has resulted in a larger table, so we are eager to know your perspective on the matter. Although comments from both reviewers suggest that our original approach was not as successful as we would have liked, the table could easily be removed as per Reviewer 1’s advice and the text lengthened instead if that would be preferable. In fact, we tried the revisions that way at first and would be happy to send that version along as well if it might be helpful.

In response to your comments on the abstract, we have toned down the codicological and palaeographical terminology aimed at manuscript specialists and played up the new certainty that this book belonged to real pirates and was treated as the Pantofola di Seta ’s log by a first mate who was very proud of the crew’s achievements. Those opening sentences you mentioned now read: ‘Like the pirates whose barbaric activities it celebrates, the Brigantine Manuscript slipped off into the fog in the early fourteenth century, finally emerging in 2015. It had been miraculously preserved for 700 years in a hidden chamber carved into the keelson of a recently excavated Mediterranean brigantine named Pantofola di Seta (the Silk Slipper ). Extensive examination of the book’s contents and scripts has now lifted more of that fog, revealing at least five distinct hands writing over a period of more than 80 years and one of them a rather gifted first mate – Benutto Nero – who logged daily entries in passable Latin for almost six years from 1282 to 1288.’ We hope you agree that this opening is much more engaging, particularly for non-specialist readers, but we are certainly happy to make further changes to the abstract.

Regarding more minor matters, we have now changed our spelling and phrasing patterns from American to British English. I apologise for neglecting that requirement in the author instructions when we originally submitted the manuscript. We have also made good use of the two articles you mentioned. Susan Goodorder’s paper did indeed help us refine the subsections and their headings in the discussion section of our manuscript, and General Saltydog’s glossary of nautical terms enabled us to use more appropriate language when discussing ships and seamanship – ‘ropes,’ for instance, are now ‘lines’ throughout and we are much clearer on terms such as ‘leeboard,’ ‘starboard’ and ‘sheet.’

We hope the revised manuscript will better suit the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society but are happy to consider further revisions, and we thank you for your continued interest in our research.

Edward Researcher

Edward Researcher Professor of Medieval Latin Palaeography Institute

Reviewer Comments, Author Responses and Manuscript Changes

Comment 1: ‘Hidden Treasure: Scribal Hands in the Notorious Brigantine Manuscript’ was an engaging and informative read and the authors’ assessment of hands and scripts clear and accurate. The paper is perfect for the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society. I am uncertain that Table 1 is necessary and I have discovered one grammatical error which unfortunately appears throughout the manuscript and must be repaired, but beyond that I have very little helpful commentary to offer.

Response: Thank you! We found your comments extremely helpful and have revised accordingly.

Comment 2: Table 1 does not contain all the scripts and hands discussed in the paper, so it seems incomplete. I preferred the lengthier descriptions in the main text and would recommend that the table be removed and the descriptions of the more certain hands it contains be used to lengthen those descriptions in the main text.

Response: Both you and the other reviewer commented on this table, so we are grateful to know that our current approach requires some rethinking. Unfortunately, your suggestions differ, with the second reviewer asking that Table 1 be lengthened to include all hands and scripts in the manuscript. We have considered both solutions and decided to keep Table 1, but we have also asked the assistant editor, Dr Wordsmith, for her feedback on this issue and are certainly willing to remove the table as you suggested if that proves best for the paper and the journal.

Changes: We lengthened the table by adding the rest of the hands and scripts we have detected in the manuscript, describing each briefly and offering an approximate date. We believe this sets the information out clearly and comparatively and is a format that readers will readily return to when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. We have not removed the descriptions of hands and scripts that you found useful in the main text, but lengthening the table has allowed us to shorten and simplify the overall discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text of the paper. The changes in both table and text appear in red type in the revised paper.

Comment 3: Grammar and sentence structure is adequate for the most part, but dangling modifiers are a problem throughout the paper and at times obscure the authors’ meaning. For example, this sentence appears on p.6: ‘With his entrails already tumbling out on the deck, the oarsman gave his victim a last kick and lopped his head off.’ I’m almost certain that the intention here is to suggest that the victim, not the attacking oarsman, is suffering loss of entrails, but that is not what the sentence says. Here and elsewhere corrections are required.

Response: Thank you so much for catching these glaring and confusing errors, which we have now corrected.

Changes: We have gone through the entire manuscript carefully and adjusted every relevant sentence to avoid dangling modifiers and clarify our meaning. For example, the sentence you noted now reads: ‘The oarsman waited until his victim’s entrails were tumbling out on the deck before he gave him one last kick and lopped his head off.’ This and other revised sentences are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 1: It is clear that the authors know a good deal more about medieval manuscripts than about seamanship, but the manuscript is worthy of publication provided the following matters are addressed.

Response: Thank you for your assessment. We are indeed manuscript specialists who are learning more about ships and the sea via our studies of the Brigantine Manuscript.

Comment 2: There seems to be some confusion in the paper about the meaning of ‘leeboard’ and ‘starboard’ and more generally I’d like to see more accurate nautical terminology used. I wouldn’t recommend the more obscure vocabulary of vessels and seamanship which the authors are unlikely to need in any case, but the most common applicable terms should certainly be used. ‘Ropes’ should be ‘lines,’ ‘back’ of the boat should be ‘stern’ and so on.

Response: We agree that better use of nautical terminology would be more accurate and precise and have taken your advice.

Changes: We consulted the nautical glossary compiled by General Saltydog that was recommended by the assistant editor, Dr Wordsmith, and improved or corrected every ambiguous or inaccurate term we detected. Each changed word is marked in red in the revised paper, and we would be happy to make further alterations.

Comment 3: Table 1 seems too selective. It is obviously easier to include only those hands that the authors are certain about, but I would like to see a complete list of hands and scripts along with the authors’ best guesses at possible dates. I suspect many of the journal’s readers, especially those who are not manuscript specialists, would prefer this information in an effective tabular format.

Response: Thank you for reminding us how important it is to present complex material like details of hands and scripts in a concise and readily accessible way. We agree that the table would be better if it included all hands in the manuscript and have made the following changes.

Changes: We lengthened the table by adding the remaining hands and scripts, describing each briefly and offering an approximate date. We believe this sets the information out clearly and comparatively and is a format that readers will return to when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. We have not entirely removed the descriptions of hands and scripts from the main text of the paper, but lengthening the table has allowed us to shorten and simplify the overall discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text. The changes in both table and text appear in red type in the revised paper.

Comment 4: The formatting of the discussion section seems inconsistent with the preceding sections of the manuscript and the journal’s guidelines. The discussion itself follows a logical line of reasoning for the most part and presents persuasive interpretations and conclusions, but it is a little complex at times, so more divisions and a more defined system of organisation would be helpful.

Response: Thank you for this excellent observation. The discussion section is a little dense at times and could use more structure and clear guidance for the reader.

Changes: We have added a number of subsections with informative headings that summarise key points in the discussion. We used as a model an article published by the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society and recommended by Dr Wordsmith, and we believe that the argument is clearer as a result, but we would welcome comments on particular sections and headings if you have further concerns. The new material is marked in red in the revised paper.

You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service.com

Journal editing.

Journal article editing services

PhD thesis editing services

Scientific Editing

Manuscript editing.

Manuscript editing services

Expert Editing

Expert editing for all papers

Research Editing

Research paper editing services

Professional book editing services

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments on Submitted Articles

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments on Submitted Articles This Free Example address Comments of Peer Reviewers

Understanding the Types of Peer Review

September 5, 2021

Helpful Tips for Becoming an Excellent Peer Reviewer

August 21, 2021

How To Identify a Doctor No Peer Review

July 30, 2021

The Benefits of Peer Reviewing

July 22, 2021

Our Recent Posts

Examples of Research Paper Topics in Different Study Areas

Our review ratings

Examples of Research Paper Topics in Different Study Areas Score: 98%
Dealing with Language Problems – Journal Editor’s Feedback Score: 95%
Making Good Use of a Professional Proofreader Score: 92%
How To Format Your Journal Paper Using Published Articles Score: 95%
Journal Rejection as Inspiration for a New Perspective Score: 95%

Revise and resubmit: Sample peer review comments and examples

A ‘revise and resubmit’ decision means that a manuscript has potential but cannot be considered for publication in its current form. Learn more about the reasons for a ‘revise and resubmit’ decision, and have a look at sample peer review comments and examples of ‘revise and resubmit’ decisions. It can help you to make the right decision and to properly convey your feedback to the manuscript authors.

What a ‘revise and resubmit’ decision entails

As a peer reviewer, you decide on a ‘revise and resubmit’ decision if you think that a manuscript has value and potential, but requires considerable changes before it can be considered for publication.

Thus, in contrast to a ‘reject’ decision , ‘revise and resubmit’ conveys a much more positive message to the authors. At the same time, it differs from ‘major revisions’.

Therefore, you encourage the authors to rework their paper and re-apply to the journal again for a new round of peer review.

Common reasons for a ‘revise and resubmit’ decision

There are six common reasons for a ‘revise and resubmit’ decision:

Sample peer review comments for a ‘revise and resubmit’ verdict

“ With the right changes, I believe that this manuscript can make a valuable contribution to the field of …”

“The authors raise many interesting points, which makes it difficult for the reader to follow their main argument. I recommend that the authors determine what their main argument is, and structure their manuscript accordingly.”

“The manuscript draws on impressive data, as described in the methodology. However, the wealth of data does not come across in the analysis. My recommendation is to increase the number of interview quotes, figures and statistics in the empirical analysis.”

“The manuscript needs to better emphasise the research relevance and its practical implications.”

Reviewer comments ‘revise and resubmit’ example 1

Reviewer comments ‘revise and resubmit’ example 2

Master academia, get new content delivered directly to your inbox, how to properly use ai in academic research, major revisions: sample peer review comments and examples, related articles, 10 things to do when you feel like your dissertation is killing you, separating your self-worth from your phd work, reviewer comments: examples for common peer review decisions, 37 creative ways to get motivation to study.

PhD thesis reviewer

Writing a phd thesis review in france.

There are two external PhD thesis reviewers. They should not share any co-authorship with the PhD candidate, nor affiliation.

The following note summarizes what does the doctoral school expect to find in the PhD reviews that the reviewers will write during the review time (about six to 8 weeks).

It is a public document. It will be distributed to the PhD student and the committee members before the defence. If the candidate is successful, the reviews will be part of their application dossier for academic and faculty positions in France.
It should contain a decision at the end of the review on whether the reviewer is favourable to the defence.
It is expected to be 2-3 pages long.
The typos, small mistakes, English corrections and minor comments go to a separate email sent directly to the PhD student, who will modify the thesis accordingly before the defence.
Reviewers are 100% allowed to interact with the PhD student during all the review phase for example by email, phone call… to ask for clarifications, details…

Tips on French “rapport de thèse” (reviews of a PhD thesis).

Two-step process: the phd thesis reviews, the phd defence..

In France, there is a preliminary step toward the PhD defence: the PhD thesis review. Usually, two reviewers are chosen and contacted by the PhD advisor(s) to write a review on the PhD thesis.

A PhD reviewer ( rapporteur de thèse in French) is required to be a recognized expert in the domain of the PhD, and either be an associate professor or full professor (tenured), or a faculty member with HDR in France (HDR = a second thesis), or have an equivalent senior position (senior scientist/researcher in a lab of a company for example).

The two reviewers have about six weeks to read the PhD thesis, write their review and send it to the doctoral school and the advisor(s). They are not expected to send the review to the PhD student directly, the advisors and the doctoral school will do it. The review is an official document and the explicit approval of each of the reviewers is required for the doctoral school to allow the PhD student to defend his/her PhD. In France, if someone fails the PhD thesis for lack of scientific content for example, it’s at this point, not the day of the defence. If the two reviews are positive (they both agree that the thesis is good enough to be defended), then the doctoral school allows the student to defend his/her PhD thesis, and the second step can be organized: the PhD defence. If the reviews are not positive, then for example the PhD student will continue a few more months to improve the thesis, to address what is required by the reviewers.

The reviews can be written in French or English. In France, these reviews are part of the application dossier for any faculty or academic position (assistant professor for example). A review is expected to be about 2 to 3 pages long.

What to do / not to do in a PhD review: Separate clearly the official part for the doctoral school (2-3 pages) on the thesis, sent to the doctoral school and the advisors, then a separate email sent to the PhD student with the English mistakes, typos and minor comments.
It is possible (allowed) for a reviewer to invite the PhD student for a seminar in his/her lab so that the PhD student explains some parts of his/her PhD. It is less common nowadays.
Why accept or decline to review a PhD?: When receiving the invitation to review a PhD thesis, the thesis itself is not finished, hence it is not possible to decide to review or not based on the PDF of the thesis. However, the invitation should contain the list of publications and preprints on which the thesis will be based, together with a link to these papers. -> A potential reviewer should check that he/she is competent to review the thesis based on these papers (at least competent for part of the thesis / some of the papers). Reviewing a PhD is a lot of work, if the contacted expert does not have time, he/she can decline and maybe suggest other names, like for reviewing a paper.

Writing a PhD review/report

In the beginning review, there should be an explanation on which parts (topics, chapters) of the thesis the reviewer is competent (expert), and on which this is not the case. The set of reviewers is supposed to cover the whole PhD thesis. Usually each PhD reviewer knows who is the second reviewer when receiving the manuscript to review.
The main sentence is the conclusion at the end: a positive review should have a mention saying that the reviewer agree and is in favour of the defence. (in French, it looks like “Je suis très favorable à la soutenance de thèse”).
The audience of this report are the committees and jury members for faculty positions (in France), who are computer scientists but not necessarily cryptographers (they are not expert on the topic of the PhD).
Usually the review starts by explaining the context and the content of the thesis, of the chapters, without judgment (without evaluating the work)
The report continues with an evaluation chapter by chapter.
Conclusion: assessment of the work done by the thesis, what are the contributions, what are the good sides, what is missing (in terms of references or of technical content)
Time needed for a thesis review: about the equivalent of two weeks full time.
In England the reviews are confidential, in France they are public.
The review is important in France for the faculty position hiring committees as it is a review from a specialist, independent of the PhD student and of the advisors.
later, a hiring committee member can contact a PhD reviewer and ask precise questions on the thesis.

What shall a reviewer do if the thesis is insufficient for a PhD. In France, a borderline PhD cannot be changed into a Masters degree.

the reviewer shall contact the advisor(s) in advance (do not write an email to the PhD student a Friday evening)
consider a “mild” review, or
ask (by email) modifications and improvements of the thesis, and assess again the resubmitted manuscript, with a non-enthusiastic review.
When agreeing in reviewing the manuscript, the reviewer engages in sending the review, otherwise, the thesis cannot be defended without two positive reviews!

IMAGES

SOLUTION: Thesis statements reviewer
Reviewer comments to authors (from custom
How to respond to reviewer comments: The Drafts Review Matrix
Table 19 from Appendix 3. Reviewer Comments Reviewer Comment Rand
10 Simple Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments Effectively
SOLUTION: Thesis statements reviewer

VIDEO

PhD Thesis introduction 101
𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗴𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 to write your PhD Thesis, Research and Review Paper . #phd #phdthesis
Key Mistakes to avoid during PhD Thesis Presentation

COMMENTS

Reviewer comments: examples for common peer review decisions
Examples of 'reject' reviewer comments. "I do not believe that this journal is a good fit for this paper.". "While the paper addresses an interesting issue, it is not publishable in its current form.". "In its current state, I do not recommend accepting this paper.". "Unfortunately, the literature review is inadequate.
How to Respond to Reviewer Comments
After your general letter, copy each reviewer comment into the document and reply to it specifically. I usually put the reviewer comments in bold and then my answers underneath. You don't have to respond to every single comment, especially if they are of the 'typo on page 15' type. These responses will be a mixture of providing further ...
How to respond to reviewer comments: The Drafts Review Matrix
My Drafts Review Matrix has four columns: Comment location: Where the reviewer inserted a comment asking for a clarification or a response. I usually make sure that my first column clarifies exactly where the coment is exactly located e.g. "first paragraph, line 3, page 44.". Original text: I always make sure to include text that the ...
PDF Reviewer Comments to Author(s): Reviewer #1 (Jillon Vander Wal, PhD)
Microsoft Word - Reviews and checklist.doc. Reviewer Comments to Author(s): Reviewer #1 (Jillon Vander Wal, PhD): Overall, this is a clear, concise, and well-written manuscript. The introduction is relevant and theory based. Sufficient information about the previous study findings is presented for readers to follow the present study rationale ...
Addressing Reviewer Comments: Refining Your Dissertation
The insights gained from addressing reviewer comments can shape your future work and improve your academic writing skills. Embracing the feedback process is a pivotal step in your journey toward completing a successful dissertation. It requires a mindset that values improvement, collaboration, and professional growth.
PDF Instructions for PhD thesis reviewers
experiments and/or revising the manuscript and then resubmit the thesis. If the reviews are positive, the reviewer's comments and criticisms will be provided to the candidate and all members of the examination board and will be subject of the thesis defense. There the candidate has to address any criticism and the examiners have to judge
PDF Sample Response to Reviewers
Reviewer 1. There are numerous strengths to this study, including its diverse sample and well-informed hypotheses. Author response: Thank you! 1. Comment from Reviewer 1 noting a mistake or oversight in the manuscript. Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is correct, and we have [explain the change made].
PDF A template for responding to peer reviewer comments
Template 1 - General template. Dear Dr./ Mr./Ms. [Editor's Name], Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled. [mention the manuscript's title] to [include the name of the journal, italicized]. I/We [use the relevant pronoun "I" or "We" here and wherever applicable throughout] appreciate ...
My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to
Point 1: [Quote the reviewer's comment] Response 1: [Address point 1 and say what revisions you've made to the paper] Point 2: [Quote the reviewer's comment] Response 2: [Address point 2 and say what revisions you've made to the paper] Then repeat this for all comments by all reviewers!
Expert Tips for Responding to Reviewers' Comments on Your Research Paper
It's important to maintain a professional and respectful tone when responding to negative or critical comments. Avoid getting defensive or argumentative. Instead, focus on addressing the concerns raised by the reviewer and providing evidence or reasoning for your responses.
PDF Reviewing the Review: An Assessment of Dissertation Reviewer ...
Abstract. Throughout the dissertation process, the chair and commitee members provide feedback regarding quality to help the doctoral candidate to produce the highest-quality document and become an independent scholar. Nevertheless, results of previous research suggest that overall dissertation quality generally is poor.
(PDF) Writing a Response to Reviewers' Comments and Cover Letter
Before defending a PhD thesis or a master thesis, one needs to write a scientific document gathering the basics and the different results obtained within the framework of the addressed theme.
Responding to examiners' feedback
Kate Chanock has these 7 stages of resentment about getting feedback on your work from reviewers, which can be adapted for how a PhD student might respond to examiners, whether the reports are written or oral in the form of a Viva (although I am aware that an oral exam in quite different to receiving written reports).
How to Respond to Reviewer Comments and Revise a Research Manuscript
When responding to peer reviewer comments, it is essential to be thorough and clear in your explanations. Acknowledge the reviewer's feedback, explain any changes made, and provide a robust justification for any disagreements or decisions not to incorporate specific suggestions. This demonstrates your engagement with the reviewers and the ...
PDF General Comments from the Reviewers General Comments from Reviewer 1
General Comments from the ReviewersGeneral Comments from Reviewer 1Comment: This is an interesting study and the au. hors have collected a unique dataset using cutting. dge methodology. The paper is generally well written and structured. However, in my opinion the paper has some shortcomings in regards to some data analyses and text, and.
PDF Assessing a PhD thesis
Assessing a PhD thesis - The Examiner's Perspective Dr Louise Johnson April 29, 2015 Background. ssessing a PhD thesis - The Examiner's PerspectiveDr Louise Johnson April 29, 2015Background:Professor of Australian Studies but a Human Geographer well known for working in the areas of gender/women's studie.
Major revisions: Sample peer review comments and examples
It means that the peer reviewer considers a manuscript suitable for publication if the authors rectify some major shortcomings. As a peer reviewer, it is useful to learn about common reasons for a 'major revision' verdict. Furthermore, you can get inspired by sample peer review comments and examples which reflect this verdict appropriately.
How to Write a Peer Review
Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom. Here's how your outline might look: 1. Summary of the research and your overall impression. In your own words, summarize what the manuscript ...
Minor revisions: Sample peer review comments and examples
Minor revisions: Sample peer review comments and examples. Master Academia. 4 minutes read. 'Minor revisions' means that a manuscript only has to undergo small changes and improvements before it can be published in an academic journal. If you review a manuscript and struggle to formulate your feedback to reflect a 'minor revisions ...
Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments
A Sample Response to the Comments of Peer Reviewers. Edward Researcher. Palaeography Institute. 1717 Writer's Lane. South River, MI, USA, 484848. 734-734-7344. [email protected]. Dr Helen Wordsmith. Assistant Editor.
PDF Examiner Comment on Theses That Have Been Revised and ...
across institutions. Examiner comment about the thesis falls into three core groupings: • comment that is about the examiner and the process of examining, • comment about the detail of the thesis, and • comment that is evaluative. Selected detail about the coding categories (or nodes) falling within these core groups is provided in Table 1.
Revise and resubmit: Sample peer review comments and examples
The top 10 thesis defense questions (+ how to prepare strong answers) Theoretical vs. conceptual frameworks: Simple definitions and an overview of key differences; 3 inspiring master's thesis acknowledgement examples; 10 common challenges of first-year students (+ practical solutions) The best online courses for PhD researchers in 2024
PhD thesis reviewer
Usually, two reviewers are chosen and contacted by the PhD advisor(s) to write a review on the PhD thesis. A PhD reviewer (rapporteur de thèse in French) is required to be a recognized expert in the domain of the PhD, and either be an associate professor or full professor (tenured), or a faculty member with HDR in France (HDR = a second thesis ...

How to Respond to Reviewer Comments

Share this:

How to respond to reviewer comments: The Drafts Review Matrix

0 Responses

About Raul Pacheco-Vega, PhD

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Follow me on Twitter:

Addressing Reviewer Comments: Refining Your Dissertation

Embrace the Feedback Process

Receive Free Grammar and Publishing Tips via Email

Prioritize Revisions

Engage in Dialogue

Revise and Improve

Seek Additional Input

Connect With Us

Dissertation Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

Thesis Editing and Proofreading Services Discount (New for 2018)

Neurology includes Falcon Scientific Editing in Professional Editing Help List

Useful Links

My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions

The Peer Review Process

How Many People Review Each Paper?

Potential Journal Responses

Example Peer Review Comments & Addressing Reviewer Feedback

1. Replying to Journal Reviewers

How to Reply to Journal Reviewers

What To Actually Include In Your Reply To Reviewers

Example Peer Review Comments & Author Replies

Example Peer Review: Paper 1

Example Peer Review: Paper 2

Things To Be Aware Of When Replying To Peer Review Comments

2. How to Make Revisions To Your Paper

Putting Together Your Paper Revision Submission

Share this:

Related Posts

How to Plan a Research Visit

The Five Most Powerful Lessons I Learned During My PhD

Minor Corrections: How To Make Them and Succeed With Your PhD Thesis

2 Comments on “My Complete Guide to Academic Peer Review: Example Comments & How to Make Paper Revisions”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Privacy Overview

Expert Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments on Your Research Paper

Introduction

Keep your Response Concise

How do I maintain a professional and respectful tone when responding to negative or critical comments from reviewers?

Read the Reviewers’ Comments Carefully

Address each Comment Individually

Be Specific About Revisions

Explain any Concerns

Provide a Clear and Concise Cover Letter

Handling Contradictory Suggestions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best way to present revisions in response to reviewers’ comments?

Is it appropriate to ask for clarification on a reviewer’s comment?

Upcoming Events

Recent Posts

How to write a PhD in a hundred steps (or more)

Share this:

How to Respond to Reviewer Comments and Revise a Research Manuscript

Complete this form to receive your peer reviewer comments table

Author: Jessica Parker, EdD

Book Editing

Medical Editing

PhD Thesis Editing

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments

You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service.com

Scientific Editing

Expert Editing

Research Editing

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments on Submitted Articles

Related Posts

Understanding the Types of Peer Review

Helpful Tips for Becoming an Excellent Peer Reviewer

How To Identify a Doctor No Peer Review

The Benefits of Peer Reviewing

Our Recent Posts

Our review ratings

Explore our Categories

Revise and resubmit: Sample peer review comments and examples