Critical Tips on How to Respond to Peer Reviewers

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

“Don’t be proud of your advantages. Don’t be servile to your disadvantages. When you hear something, don’t act easy. Think about whether it is true or not. Act definite when it makes sense. … This is the life of a wise.” - “Life of a Wise” from old Buddhist texts - The peer review (PR) system is considered an integral part of the process of evaluating scientific medical articles for publication in journals [1]. However, many authors are often frustrated or disappointed by critical feedback, and sometimes humiliated to be told by an anonymous reviewer that their paper is not good enough [2 -4]. Sometimes the PR process can be emotionally stressful, especially when authors feel that the comments are ill-informed, biased, or malicious. However, the fact remains that the PR system helps authors improve their manuscripts in the long run, and mature authors understand and use this beneficial system. As the editor-in-chief of Vascular Specialist International (VSI) journal, I have often seen authors responding inappropriately to reviewers’ comments. I think such reactions are a result of misunderstanding the PR system and lack of education about how to respond to reviewers. Therefore, I’d like to describe the PR system of VSI, and provide tips to authors regarding how to respond to reviewers’ comments. When an article is submitted to VSI, a manuscript editorial service checks whether it is presented in the recommended format. If not, it is returned to the authors, and they are asked make relevant changes with regard to ethics or format. Once a manuscript passes this entry check, the editors carefully read it and decide whether to reject it or forward it to the PR system. For the PR, usually three reviewers from related fields are invited by the editors. Because VSI runs a double-blind review system, these peer reviewers do not know each other nor the authors. They usually volunteer their work as a gift to the society or science and medicine without any payment or reward. They are professionals who give critical comments to help improve the article, not to criticize the authors. The authors have the right to alter their manuscript as per reviewers’ recommendations or defend themselves against incorrect comments with sound scientific rationale. Authors must think from the reviewers’ perspective, communicate effectively, and persuade the reviewers with evidence that the manuscript is good enough for publication. I would like to summarize simple but important tips to help authors respond appropriately to peer reviewers’ comments. Please note that there are many articles, online texts, and YouTube videos dealing with this topic [2 -5]. 1) Letter to the editor and reviewers Please start the response letter with thanks to the editors and reviewers, and show that you have sincerely taken full account of all the reviewers’ comments. Provide an overview of the changes, new data, and new analyses performed in response to the most essential comments of all the reviewers. Then quote the full set of reviews. 2) Be polite and respectful As an author, you do not have to agree with every feedback, but politeness will help obtain a favorable decision. It is likely that you have experience of reviewing articles written by other authors, therefore, take the opportunity to treat your reviewers the way you would like to be treated [2]. Although you might want to say: “My English writing skills are better than yours. Why are you complaining about my typos?”, you must say: “Our manuscript has been reviewed by a native English speaker, and revised to improve readability.” [2]. Do not attack the reviewers or question their motives, expertise, or intellectual aptitude. If the reviewer failed to understand something, it is most likely because you failed to explain it clearly. And if the reviewer had a problem, so will readers [4]. Rewrite the paragraphs in question to convey your point clearly. Remember that you need to be polite, even when reviewers are rude. However, if you feel the reviewer has any conflict of interest, malicious intent, or discriminatory attitude, you can report that to the editor-in-chief in a separate letter. Fortunately, I have not received such a letter yet from VSI authors. 3) Respond point-by-point to each and every comment raised by all reviewers Be polite, but do not repeat thanks in every response. As the old Korean proverb says, excessive politeness becomes rudeness. If you agree with the comment, acknowledge it and mention the changes you made. If you disagree with the reviewer’s suggestion, provide a reasonable explanation as to why you did not make the suggested change. If additional work or experiment is recommended, just do it if possible. Otherwise, tactfully explain why the additional work cannot be performed. Author’s document with an overview of changes and point-by-point responses shows the editor that you carefully considered and addressed each criticism, and this aids the editor in making a final decision to accept your paper for publication. 4) Make the response self-contained Show exactly how you revised the manuscript so that the reviewer does not need to go back to the manuscript. Make your changes standout by using different typefaces, colors, and indentations for the three different elements: the reviewer comment, your response, and the change made in the manuscript. This will help the reviewer navigate your response. Reviewers are busy, and sometimes they forget what they criticized. Therefore, highlight the changes for better understanding. Otherwise, you can show both the original and revised versions of the altered paragraph to make it easy for the editor to see how you dealt with the criticism. 5) Stay optimistic If you feel that you received a harsh review, give yourself time to digest before attempting to respond. Read all the comments carefully before answering. Don’t send a letter in anger. They are professional volunteers to help you improve your research. You can vent your anger by first writing a scathing response (which you will not send), then write a more professional version without the hysterics [4]. If you find contradictory comments by different reviewers, stick with what you think is more appropriate. The reviewers are blind to each other. They are able to view other reviewers’ comments on your original manuscript only when they receive your response to the review, and then they may change the initial suggestion. 6) Check repeatedly for any mistakes The best way to write a good manuscript is to rewrite repeatedly and ask other co-authors to cross-check the revised manuscript.

Related collections

Most cited references 5

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers

William Noble (2017)

You recently submitted your first manuscript for publication, and you were pleased when the editor decided to send the manuscript out for peer review. Now you have gotten the reviews back, and the editor has asked you to revise your manuscript in light of the reviewers' comments. How should you tackle this task? Ideally, the reviewing process can significantly improve your manuscript by allowing you to take into account the advice of multiple experts in your field. Indeed, empirical evidence suggests that papers that have undergone multiple rounds of peer review fare better in terms of citation counts than papers that are quickly accepted [1]. However, in practice, the review process can be emotionally charged as you grapple with comments that may seem to you to be ill-informed, biased, or otherwise problematic. A well-crafted "response to reviewers" document is a critical part of your response. This document is submitted alongside your revised manuscript, summarizing the changes that you made in response to the critiques. Too frequently, authors focus on revising the manuscript itself and spend too little time making the response document clear and compelling. The result can be misunderstandings between the reviewers and the authors and ultimately, the possible rejection of a high-quality manuscript. Following are 10 simple rules that can help in formulating an effective response to reviewers. Rule 1: Provide an overview, then quote the full set of reviews The response letter will typically begin with a summary of changes, pointing out new data and new analyses performed in response to the most essential criticisms of all the reviewers. Note that, at your discretion, the response may include figures and tables that are for the reviewers' benefit but will not go into the manuscript or supplement. These additional results can be mentioned in your Introduction. If a criticism is raised by multiple reviewers, this can also be pointed out in the summary. Thereafter, the response letter should contain the complete set of reviews with your responses interleaved. Rule 2: Be polite and respectful of all reviewers Even if you are convinced that the reviewer lacks intellectual capacity, it is certainly not in your interest to convey this impression to the reviewer. Keep in mind that if the reviewer failed to understand something, the fault likely lies, at least in part, with you for not making the point clear enough. If the reviewer does not seem to be an expert in the area, remember that this level of expertise (or lack thereof) may be representative of many readers of the journal. Your goal is to make the work clear and accessible to all readers, not just to experts. Sometimes you will need to work to understand a particular critique. In some cases, the question the reviewer asks reveals a deeper misunderstanding about the overall study or some of the assumptions therein. When specific comments seem off-base, and especially when a single reviewer has many such comments, this may be because the manuscript does not sufficiently explain the hypothesis it aims to address. In some cases, you may believe that the reviewer is vengeful or is a competitor who has an ulterior motive to delay the manuscript. In such situations, you should not directly confront the reviewer in your response but instead communicate your concerns to the editors in a separate letter. In rare cases, you may feel that a reviewer's critiques are simply discourteous. In such situations, it is important to remember that miscommunications are possible. Regardless, a rude critique does not justify a rude response from you, especially because your primary goal is to publish your scientific results. Rule 3: Accept the blame If the reviewer failed to understand something, apologize for not making it clear. Even if you are convinced that the text is already clear (i.e., the reviewer simply missed it), consider revising the text and quoting the revised text in your response. In general, even if the requested change seems unnecessary, it is usually better to go ahead and revise with the goal of showing the reviewer that they were listened to and understood. Rule 4: Make the response self-contained When you make changes to the text or to figures, quote the changes directly in the response. If possible, you can refer to the specific line number where the changes were applied, though you should be sure to specify whether you refer to the line numbers from the original or the revised manuscript. A self-contained response letter makes it easier for the reviewer to understand exactly what you did without having to flip back and forth between your manuscript and the response. Furthermore, by making your response self-contained, you reduce the likelihood that the reviewer will read the full manuscript and find new things to complain about. The only exception to this rule is when a large chunk of modified text (e.g., a new section) is too long to quote. Such changes can simply be alluded to explicitly (e.g., giving the title of the new section) in the response. Rule 5: Respond to every point raised by the reviewer A frequent complaint from reviewers is that the authors failed to respond at all to several points raised in the review. In some cases, the reviewer may disagree with your response, but you should not try to avoid a difficult point by simply ignoring it. Often, reviews will be organized into bullet points, but the reviewer may raise 2 separate issues within 1 bullet. In such situations, be sure to respond explicitly to both critiques. It is fine for you to interleave your responses in such a way that you break up 1 bullet with multiple responses. It is usually better to do this than to try to respond to multiple points in 1 block of text. Rule 6: Use typography to help the reviewer navigate your response Use changes of typeface, color, and indenting to discriminate between 3 different elements: the review itself, your responses to the review, and changes that you have made to the manuscript. You can explain these typographical conventions in the introduction to your response. Rule 7: Whenever possible, begin your response to each comment with a direct answer to the point being raised You can provide background information, but you should do so after giving your primary response. Provide a “yes” or “no” answer whenever possible. When the reviewer is correct, state so in your response. Your goal is to show the reviewer that you took their comments seriously, and you should quickly convey what you did in response to their critique. Rule 8: When possible, do what the reviewer asks In general, you should avoid giving the impression that you couldn't be bothered to carry out the additional experiments or analyses that the reviewer asks for. Even in cases in which you believe the reviewer has requested an analysis that you don’t find informative, or is otherwise flawed, you will often be in a stronger position if you do what the reviewer asked, report the results in your response, and then explain why you believe the results do not belong in your manuscript. In some cases, if the reviewer makes detailed or very insightful suggestions that get incorporated into the revised manuscript, it may be appropriate to add to the Acknowledgments section an explicit "thank you" to the reviewer. Indeed, many authors routinely include an acknowledgment of the reviewers in all of their publications. Note, however, that some journals (including PLOS Computational Biology) do not allow reviewer acknowledgments. Sometimes reviewers simply ask for too much. It is certainly acceptable to say that the requests go beyond what you perceive to be the scope of the current work. However, it is also important to recognize that the scope of a given manuscript is often difficult to define precisely. If the reviewer asks for 10 things, and you say that 9 out of 10 of them fall outside the scope of your work, then you are not likely to satisfy the reviewer. In such a situation, you may need to do a few things that you think fall outside the scope of your original work. Occasionally, it may be necessary to fall back on the discretion of the editor. For example, editors often ask that authors shorten their manuscripts, whereas reviewers often ask for additional details, experiments, or analyses. If, for example, a reviewer asks you to move some content from the supplement to the main manuscript, you may want to say that you are willing to do so if the editor concurs. Rule 9: Be clear about what changed relative to the previous version When you make a change in response to a reviewer's comment, it can sometimes be difficult to convey to the reviewer exactly what that change consisted of. A common error is for an author to respond to a reviewer's comment by saying, "This point is addressed in the manuscript in the following way…" This response fails to make clear whether the author is simply pointing out text that was already present in the previous version of the manuscript, or the author is describing changes that have been incorporated into the new version. In your response, refer explicitly to the previous and revised versions of your manuscript and explain what changes have been made. Rule 10: If necessary, write the response twice Your initial draft of the “response to reviewers” document may aim to analyze what the reviewer meant while considering different avenues of response and the cost–benefit tradeoff of performing additional experiments. This document can be helpful to you and your coauthors as you decide how to formulate a final response document. The initial document can also be a place to vent your frustration with what you perceive to be unfair or rude reviews. After writing this initial draft, you can begin writing a completely separate document that contains what you actually want the reviewers to see. In practice, it is often helpful to write the "venting" version of the response first, wait a while, and then begin working on the "real" response several days later, perhaps after you have done some of the work to address the critiques raised by the reviewer. In addition to the "response to reviewers" letter, you may in some cases want to write a separate letter to the managing editor. In this letter, you can address issues about potential conflicts of interest. You may also want to point out when the reviewers' requests conflict with one another or with journal policies. The process of responding to reviewer critiques can be one of the more stressful parts of the publication process. Throughout the process, it is helpful to keep in mind that, in most cases, the reviewers are well-meaning colleagues who are volunteering their time to help ensure the validity of results that are reported in the scientific literature. In nearly every case, the manuscript that comes out of the review process is improved relative to the original version.

0 comments Cited 6 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Ethics and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers to the Authors, Readers, and Editors

Seung-Kee Min (2021)

“Treat others the way you want to be treated.” - Old idiom - Survival audition programs in music, including Superstar K, K-pop Star, Miss and Mister Trot, and Phantom Singer, are very popular in Korea. They cover all kinds of musicians, including idol groups, folk singers, bands, rappers, and even opera and musical singers. I became a great fan of a recently finished music show entitled “Sing Again,” which was broadcasted on a cable television channel. The music audition and competition program offered forgotten or nameless singers second chances to stand in the spotlight once again [1]. The judges were veteran singers or producers from different age groups, to add a variety of viewpoints in the evaluation of the participants. Along with the surprising brand-new young musicians, the attitudes of the judges were quite interesting. They tried to deliver fair comments and unbiased decisions with warm hearts to understand the situations and feelings of the unknown participants, point out their weaknesses, and encourage them to perform better. Because the decision is open to the public, convincing comments are appraised from the fans; however, unfair or rude decisions may attract blame from the public on social media. These judges remind me of peer reviewers for Vascular Specialist International (VSI), and I think the peer review process needs to be more sympathetic and encouraging, with a warm gaze, like the audition judges. The peer review system is considered an integral part of judging scientific medical journals, research funding, and academic qualifications. Peer reviewers play a critical role in the peer review process. They are invited to review an article by the editors, and they usually volunteer their work as a gift to society or science and medicine without any payment or reward. Peer reviewers can judge whether a submitted article is novel and worthy of publication, without any publication misconduct such as plagiarism, data falsification, or unjustified authorship. However, many reviewers are not instructed as to how to be a good reviewer, or are not educated on their ethical obligations. During the last two years working as the editor-in-chief of the VSI journal, I found many good reviewers, but also encountered bad reviewers. The principles of the peer review process of VSI are precisely described in the “Instruction for Authors” portion of the journal’s homepage (http://vsijournal.org/content/contributors/instructions_for_authors.html). In brief, the VSI journal adheres to a double-blind review policy, where the authors’ names and affiliations are not open to the reviewers, and the reviewers’ identities are kept confidential. All manuscripts are reviewed by at least three reviewers appointed by the editor-in-chief and the authors shall be informed of one of the following decisions: accept, major revisions, minor revisions, and reject. In addition, feedback after publication or process for appeals is clearly described. However, this process was not flawless. I’d like to mention briefly the examples of peer reviewer impropriety, which makes the position of editor an extreme occupation: 1) unreasonable delays in the response to accepting the invitation to review an article, and delay in the submitting of reviewer reports; 2) accepting or rejecting a manuscript too easily, with minimal critiques, within a short time interval; 3) misunderstanding the policy of the journal and the requirements for each type of article; 4) breaching the confidentiality agreement or pushing a training fellow or junior staff to review an article under his/her name; 5) unfairly criticizing a competitor’s work, and requesting too much information; 6) asking for too many revisions that are either outside of author’s reach or not relevant to the findings the author wishes to convey; 7) failing to disclose a conflict of interest; and 8) using ideas or text from a manuscript under review. The Public Library of Science (PLOS) publisher [2] clearly recommends the basic ethical guidelines for peer reviewers: 1) Choose assignments wisely; 2) Provide an objective, honest, and unbiased review; 3) Honor confidentiality of the review process; and 4) Be respectful and professional. Many international societies and publishers recommend the ethics of peer review, including the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and American Journal Experts (AJE) [3 -5]. VSI also provides “Instructions for Reviewers” on the website (http://vsijournal.org/content/contributors/instruction_for_reviewers.html). I would like to summarize the ethics and responsibilities of peer reviewers to the VSI authors, readers, and editors. 1) Confidentiality The review process is strictly confidential, and all reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript they are reviewing. This not only includes the contents of the manuscript, but also the disclosure of their identities to the authors or to other colleagues. It is therefore inappropriate to share or discuss the contents of a manuscript with others before publication, unless permission is obtained from the editors. If the reviewer had to receive third-party assistance, he/she should acknowledge these individuals’ contributions in the written confidential comments submitted to the editor. The editor may approve the consultation of a third person if he/she has the necessary expertise to significantly improve the quality of review, is ready to maintain confidentiality, and has not been excluded by the editor for review previously. Reviewers should not use the knowledge or ideas obtained from the manuscript for any purpose (scientific, personal, or financial) unrelated to the review process before the manuscript is published. Reviewers should not retain the manuscript personally and destroy the copy after submitting their reviews. 2) Integrity, diligence and professionalism The reviewer should carefully accept the offer to review a manuscript only when he/she is an expert in the specific field and can finish the review within the predefined deadline. The reviewer should understand the aims and scope of the journal (VSI aims and scopes are found at http://vsijournal.org/content/about/aims_and_scope.html) and the peer review model. Reviewers must read the manuscript thoroughly and provide constructive feedback with a respectful tone to improve the quality of the article, regarding study design, methods of data presentation, applied statistical analysis, expressions to improve clarity, relevant references, and convincing conclusions. The reviewer’s comments and conclusions should be objective and free from any personal or professional biases. The contents should be considered based on the facts that are being presented, and comments should be based solely on the paper’s originality, quality, and scientific merits. The most crucial ethical obligation is the prevention of the publication of erroneous and/or unsubstantiated findings, which could mislead subsequent research. 3) Objectivity and constructive critique The authors’ efforts should be objectively assessed. Thus, reviewers should avoid negative bias and prejudice. Positive bias of favoritism, including honorary authors, specific devices, or procedures, should also be avoided. Because VSI runs a double-blind review system, reviewers should remain blinded to reduce present or future bias. If the reviewer has any conflicts of interest, he or she should declare and decline the request to review. Reviewers should avoid requesting citations of their own work for personal gain. The reviewer should avoid disparaging personal remarks. Do not blame, but criticize the authors to strengthen their manuscript. 4) Conflict of interest Conflicts of interest that may arise for reviewers may include one of the following: 1) have recent or ongoing collaborations with any of the authors; 2) have commented on drafts of the manuscript; 3) are in direct competition with any of the authors; 4) have a history of dispute with any of the authors; and 5) have a financial interest in the outcome. Assigned reviewers may contact the editor if they are unsure about a potential conflict of interest, in which case the editor may decide whether it is appropriate for the reviewer to review the manuscript. 5) Vigilante of publication ethics The reviewer should be familiar with the publication ethics. Reviewers should report ethical concerns regarding plagiarism, fraud, duplicate publication, data fabrication, inappropriate authorship, or unethical study design and/or execution to the editor, with specific supporting evidence for their concerns. As described in a previous editorial [6], plagiarism in medical scientific research is not rare. The role of editors and publishers in detecting ethical misconduct is limited; therefore, peer reviewers’ roles are crucial in maintaining publication ethics. 6) Timeliness Reviewers are responsible for providing a review in a timely fashion based on the journal’s policy for review. This includes 1) deciding to review the manuscript, and 2) completing the review within the requested time frame. Every effort should be made for the timely publication of submitted manuscripts. This editorial is just the start of the reminders of ethics for VSI peer reviewers. VSI editors need to make a continuing education program for peer reviewers and an accreditation process for new reviewers. Training materials for language and English expressions are also crucial for non-native English-speaking reviewers, so that VSI journal article may be reviewed with clarity and politeness [7]. I strongly believe that these programs help improve the quality of the articles published in the VSI and contribute to scientific advances and justice in the field of vascular surgery.

0 comments Cited 2 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Book: not found

Responding to peer reviewers: you can't always say what you'd like [Internet]

B Mudrak (2024)

0 comments Cited 1 times – based on 0 reviews

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Vasc Specialist Int

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Vasc Specialist Int

Title: Vascular Specialist International

Publisher: The Korean Society for Vascular Surgery

ISSN (Print): 2288-7970

ISSN (Electronic): 2288-7989

Publication date Collection: 2022

Publication date (Electronic): 31 March 2022

Publication date PMC-release: 31 March 2022

Volume: 38

Electronic Location Identifier: 8

Affiliations

[1]Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Author notes

Corresponding author: Seung-Kee Min, Division of Vascular Surgery, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul 03080, Korea, Tel: 82-2-2072-0297, Fax: 82-2-766-3975, E-mail: skminmd@ 123456snuh.org , https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1433-2562

Author information

Seung-Kee Min https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1433-2562

Article

Publisher ID: vsi-38-8

DOI: 10.5758/vsi.223811

PMC ID: 8971667

PubMed ID: 35361743

SO-VID: 7e5a5b46-0633-4af5-935b-b1126016dd0e

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Critical Tips on How to Respond to Peer Reviewers

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Prometheus. Critical Studies in Innovation

Most cited references 5

Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers

Ethics and Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers to the Authors, Readers, and Editors

Responding to peer reviewers: you can't always say what you'd like [Internet]

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 4,657

Cited by 1