Top 10 Tips for Responding to Reviewer andEditor Comments

Thomas M. Annesley*

Like it or not,many aspects of our lives involve a reviewprocess. In college, your professors were reviewers whoevaluated and graded your work.When you apply for aloan, the bank uses appraisers and accountants to re-view your application.When a US senator writes a newpiece of legislation, there aremany other reviewerswhowill want to change the document. When a companywants to apply for a patent, an army of attorneys re-views the application to find any reason to decline therequest.

So it should be no surprise to anyone who submitsa scientific paper for publication that the editor andseveral reviewers will nearly always find problems orwant to see changes in the paper. It is a normal part ofthe path to publication. You cannot control what thereviewers say. But you can control how you respond totheir comments. So here are my Top 10 Tips to helpyou navigate through the response process.

1. Get Mad. Then Get Over It

The rare scientific paper is the one accepted withoutany need for revision. So, as an author you should ex-pect that your submitted papers, if theymake it past thefirst peer review cycle, will require some sort of modi-fication to satisfy the critiques of the reviewers. It isboth the editors and the peer reviewers job to makesure, on behalf of the journal, that your paper is scien-tifically sound, factual, clear, complete, and original.To do so, these individualsmust often point out what iswrong with your paper. And for you as the author, thathurts.

When you see the criticisms that the reviewershave about your paper, go ahead and get mad. Goahead and vent your frustration to a colleague. Thenget over it before you take any future action to reviseyour paper and respond to the reviewers. Poor judg-ment at this point will produce a poor outcome. Re-sponding to reviewer comments in an argumentative

fashion usually does nothing but polarize the opinionof editors and reviewers against you.

2. ConsiderWhat the Editors Decision LetterReally Says

In nonaccept decision letters, editors usually send amessage about how interested they are in seeing thiswork again (see Examples box). If the editor has de-cided to reject your paper, as the first example shows, itis best to just accept the decision and consider anotherjournal.

Some rejection letters (Example 2) offer an oppor-tunity to resubmit. You still have your foot in the door,but you need to carefully consider whether there is arealistic chance that you can improve the paper to thereviewers satisfaction. After finding numerous defi-ciencies, reviewers sometimes stop providing com-ments because their recommendations are clear by thetime they are partway through the paper. If you decideto resubmit, it is possible that (1) the reviewers alreadyhave a poisoned view of the work and (2) you will re-ceive additional criticisms of your work when the re-viewers look at other parts of the paper they did notread carefully during the first round of reviews.

The third example is also a revise-and-resubmitletter, but it tells you that the paper should be accept-able after you have satisfactorily responded to the re-viewers comments. In that case, it is in your bestinterests to improve the paper and send it back withminimal delay.

3. Wait and Gather Your Thoughts

After you read the decision letter from the editor andsee the reviewers comments, take at least a day to allowyourself to process what both the editor and reviewershave said. Then take a fresh look at the comments todetermine what the reviewers want to see in a revisedpaper. You can develop a game plan by categorizing thereviewer comments, as follows: (1) requests for clarifi-cation of existing text, addition of text to fill a hole inthe paper, or additional experimental details; (2) re-quests to reanalyze, reexpress, or reinterpret existing data;(3) requests for additional experiments or further proofof concept; and (4) requests you simply cannotmeet. See-ing the spectrum of what you need to accomplish

University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, MI.* Address correspondence to the author at: University of Michigan Health System,Room UH2G332, 1500 East Medical Center Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5054.E-mail annesley@umich.edu.

Received January 15, 2011; accepted January 20, 2011.Previously published online at DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2011.162388

Clinical Chemistry 57:4551554 (2011) Clinical Chemistry

Guide to Scientific Writing

551

Examples of Decision Letters

Example 1. Rejection, do not resubmit.

Your paper has been examined by 2 expert reviewers. Unfortunately, we must decline this manuscript forpublication. The reasons for this decision are indicated in the reviewers comments.

Example 2. Declined for now, future acceptance possible.

Your paper has been examined by 2 expert reviewers. For the reasons explained in the comments, we can-not accept this manuscript for publication in Clinical Chemistry. We would consider a revised version thattakes these criticisms into account but cannot offer assurance that submission of a revised manuscript willlead to acceptance.

Example 3. Declined for now, future acceptance very likely.

Your paper has been examined by 2 expert reviewers. As you will see in their comments, each reviewerfinds merit in the work but makes constructive suggestions. Please consider the suggestions carefully, asthe changes will produce an article that better serves you and our readers.

to improve the paper helps you prioritize your efforts.If additional data analysis or statistical analysis is re-quested, decide whether you have the resources to doso or need to set up a consultation with a professionalstatistician. If additional experiments need to be per-formed, begin to design experimental protocols and toset them in motion. If there are reviewer requests thatyou cannot meet, you need to gather your thoughtshere as well. You need to satisfy the reviewer somehow,so begin to develop a logical explanation for how orwhy the study is not affected by a failure to includewhatthe reviewer requested.

4. Even If the Reviewer IsWrong, It Does Not MeanYou Are Right

Sometimes reviewers miss something and then askabout it in the comments. Sometimes the reviewer isnot an expert on everything you presented in the paperand misjudges the importance of something that theyask to be removed. Sometimes a reviewermisinterpretsa result. Sometimes a reviewer does not completely un-derstand your message and therefore questions it. Inother words, reviewers can be wrong.

But even if a reviewer appears wrong, that does notmean you are right. You, the author, could be thesource of the reviewers misdirected comment. If thereviewer is confused ormisjudges something in the pa-per, they might have unintentionally identified some-thing you did not explainwith the proper clarity, forgotto include, or failed to emphasize sufficiently. So, lookfirst at what you can do to improve the paper and sat-isfy the reviewer, not explain to the reviewer how he orshe is wrong.

5. Choose Your BattlesWisely

If your scientific paper is typical, the reviewers will askyou to make more than one modification. Somechanges you will agree are worthwhile, some you willthink are irrelevant, and some you will disagree with.Even if you do not fully agree with the reviewers onsome points, you need to choose your battles wisely. Ifa change to a sentence or paragraph requested by thereviewer does not affect the intendedmeaning, do yourbest tomake the change. It does not hurt you and sendsthe message that you took their suggestions seriously;however, if you believe that a requested change willnegatively affect the paper, go ahead and respectfullydisagree. It is your name on the title page. But do notrespond by stating that the reviewer is wrong withoutallowing the reviewer, wherever possible, to save face.Explain where the reviewer may have misinterpretedthe section and that you want to keep the text intact.Youmight find, however, that as you explain the ratio-nale for keeping the text as is, some of the wording andlogic you use to respond to the reviewermight beworthadding to the paragraph in question to help the readerbetter understand the paper.

6. Do Not Pit One Reviewer against Another

One argument you should never use when respondingto reviewers is that only one reviewer took issuewith anaspect of the paper whereas the other reviewer sawnothing wrong with it. Reviewers are often selected be-cause they have different areas of expertise and willlook at a paper from 2 different points of view. Thisapproach helps the editor achieve the goal of thor-

Clinical ChemistryGuide to Scientific Writing

552 Clinical Chemistry 57:4 (2011)

oughly evaluating the entire paper. So, do not considerthe absence of a criticism to be the same as tacit agree-ment with your statements. Respond to each revieweras if the review were the only one you received.

In some situations the reviewers willmake diamet-rically opposed recommendations. For example, onereviewermay suggest the addition ofmore informationto a figure, whereas the second reviewer may suggestthat the figure could be removed from the paper. Inthese situations you must decide which suggestion willimprove the paper; however, do not ignore either sug-gestion by using the argument that the reviewers couldnot agree. Provide a logical explanation to both review-ers for why you feel that one of the suggestions wouldbe more effective in improving the paper.

7. Be Grateful for the Reviewers and Editors Time

Reviewers volunteer their timewhen they agree to eval-uate a scientific paper. Although the comments maysometimes appear harsh, most reviewers are authorsthemselves and try to point out ways to improve thepaper. So, be grateful for their time as well as the edi-tors time. State as much when you resubmit the paper.

Be polite and thoughtful in all of your responses tothe comments you received. If a reviewer complimentsyou about some aspect of the paper, thank the individual.If the reviewermade a good observation that you had notconsidered, thank the reviewer even if you have a reasonwhy the observation is not relevant to the paper.

8. Restate the Reviewers or Editors CommentWhen Responding

Clarity on your part is essential if the editor and reviewersare to understand your responses. They will not recall theorder in which the comments were written, nor will theyremember the exact wording they used. Make their jobseasier by restating a reviewers comment before describ-inghowyoumodified thepaper.Thepagenumber for thetext inquestionmaynotbe the same in the revisedversionas in theoriginal version, so ineachofyour responses statethepage and linenumberof the revisedversionwhere anycorrections were made, any new text was added, orany text was moved within the paper. Copy the exacttext from the revised version into your response.Also, in your revised version do not retain the orig-inal text with a strike-through line or use the track-changes function to identify it.

Even if a reviewer has numbered his or her com-ments, do not simply write down Comment 1 fol-lowed by a response. Restate the reviewers comment.If the reviewers had similar comments, do not ask onereviewer to see response to Reviewer 2, or simplywrite Comment 1: See response to comment 4 from

Reviewer 1. Each comment from each reviewer de-serves an individual response, even if you use the sametext in your separate responses to the 2 reviewers.Dontbe concerned about the length or word count of yourresponses. The goal is to help the editor and reviewerseasily understand what you did to improve the paper.

9. Be Prepared to Cut Text

A journal is expensive to produce, and the editor isresponsible for balancing content and costs. So dontbe surprised if the editor asks you to condense yourpaper by removing text, or even removing a table orgraph. Take this request seriously, and make an honesteffort to help the editor. Look for overlap in the contentof the Introduction and the beginning of the Discus-sion. Figure legends often restate experimental detailsthat have already been presented in the Methods.Columns in tables can sometimes be combined oreliminated and replaced with footnotes. In todayselectronic-publishing environment, informative butnonessential figures, tables, and experimental detailscan be supplied as online supplemental files. Substituteshort words for longer ones. Consider using the activevoice rather than the passive voice to save words (e.g.,lisinopril lowered blood pressure instead of bloodpressure was lowered by linisopril).

10. Do Not Submit the Same Version to AnotherJournal

If your paper is rejected by the first journal you submit-ted your work to or if you decide not to send a revisionback to that journal, do not send the paper to a secondjournal without attempting to address the concerns ofthe original reviewers. Reviewer comments often helpimprove a paper, so why not take advantage of the re-viewers advice if it can improve the paper? The sameflaws that the original reviewers identified are likely tobe detected by the new reviewers. Even worse, the sec-ond journalmight send the paper to the same reviewerswho first saw your paper. Why take chances instead ofdevoting the time to revise the paper before you send itoff to another journal?

Final Thoughts

There is an old adage, less ismore. Inmany cases thatis good advice to follow; however, when responding toreviewer and editor comments, more is definitely bet-ter. More time is better than less to gather yourthoughts before you respond. More consideration ofhow the reviewers and editors suggestions might im-prove the paper is better than less. More thought aboutthe final goal, which is an accepted paper, can help you

Clinical ChemistryGuide to Scientific Writing

Clinical Chemistry 57:4 (2011) 553

choose your battles wisely. More detail in your writtenresponses is better than less detail. And perhaps mostimportant of all, expressing more humility and grati-tude is wiser than what you might really want to say.

AuthorContributions:All authors confirmed they have contributed tothe intellectual content of this paper and have met the following 3 re-quirements: (a) significant contributions to the conception and design,acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; (b) draftingor revising the article for intellectual content; and (c) final approval ofthe published article.

Authors Disclosures or Potential Conflicts of Interest:Uponman-uscript submission, all authors completed the Disclosures of PotentialConflict of Interest form. Potential conflicts of interest:

Employment or Leadership: T.A. Annesley, Clinical Chemistry,AACC.Consultant or Advisory Role:None declared.Stock Ownership:None declared.Honoraria: None declared.Research Funding:None declared.Expert Testimony:None declared.

Role of Sponsor: The funding organizations played no role in thedesign of study, choice of enrolled patients, review and interpretationof data, or preparation or approval of manuscript.

Clinical ChemistryGuide to Scientific Writing

554 Clinical Chemistry 57:4 (2011)