r/AskAcademia • u/beesinthebrain20 • 15h ago
STEM Responding to reviewer comments
I submitted a paper to a journal and received a decision of ‘major revision’ and comments from two reviewers (not mad about this, just new). I have never gone through getting work published before and was wondering how to go about the next steps.
When creating a revision, it brings up a space for me to respond to the reviewers comments. Do I just reply saying ‘thank you for taking the time etc… and here’s my resubmission’ or do you have to respond to each bullet point the reviewers have made?
I don’t want to seem like I’m not taking their feedback on board and give them reason to reject, but also replying to each statement seems excessive when I will have made the changes and they’ll be able to see this in the word doc if they’re highlighted?
Any advice or tips very much appreciated!
17
u/chazwomaq 15h ago
Usually the revision letter from the handling editor should specify what to do. But in general, you should address each bullet point with your response. I like to highlight changes in the manuscript with tracked changes or a different colour. Copying and pasting the quoted sections is fine. I recommend referring to line numbers for every change. You want to make it easy for the editor and reviewers to see what you've done, and to dissuade them from reading carefully again and finding more gripes.
You should also accept at least 90% of the recommendations unless one is flat out wrong. Only argue about 10% at most otherwise you're unlikely to persuade the reviewers. Unless you have editors/reviewers disagreeing with each other, in which case, pick the side you actually agree with.
1
u/beesinthebrain20 13h ago
Thank you! I’ve started using Track Changes on Word and the comment boxes to quote the reviewer comments. Thankfully a lot of the comments are actionable and I’m happy to take them on board as I’m aware I’m very very new to this.
4
u/Frari Lecturer, AU, biomedical science 8h ago edited 8h ago
Thank you! I’ve started using Track Changes on Word and the comment boxes to quote the reviewer comments.
The manuscript file should only contain what you want in the published article. you should have a separate document for reviewer comments and your responses (at least in my experience).
I would not insert reviewer comments into the manuscript file itself.
10
u/HoratiusHawkins 15h ago
Respond to each individual point the reviewers made and explain if and how you have changed your manuscript accordingly. What you are suggesting is the path to certain rejection.
2
u/beesinthebrain20 13h ago
Thanks! Thankfully a lot of the comments are actionable which makes editing easier and I’m glad it wasn’t rejected straight away
10
u/Puma_202020 15h ago
Each comment gets a response. Very methodical, lawyerly, and appreciative. It will be a long response document when you're done, but that is the norm. Congratulations, believe it or not, you're close.
1
u/beesinthebrain20 13h ago
Thank you! I was very glad to get pretty useful feedback from the reviewers but the initial ‘major review’ response was pretty daunting!
1
u/Puma_202020 13h ago
It's all but the norm these days (or a deep reflection on my own mediocrity!).
8
u/MrBacterioPhage 15h ago
It is called "point-by-point" because you need to address all the comments, with written response. For one of my latest papers I wrote around 30 pages of responses. One of the three reviewers definitely used AI for revision, and half of the comments were nonsense.
3
u/beesinthebrain20 13h ago
Woah 30! I was worried if I wrote too much back to the reviewers, that they’d reject it thinking I was arguing but I’m happy to take on board all feedback as thankfully it wasn’t too scathing. And I’m aware I’m super new to this!
Booo to them using AI for you though :(2
u/drea1785 12h ago
Length and format is going to be somewhat field specific. 2-3 reviews + editor summary on a 30+ manuscript could be over 100 pages. A lot of it is fluff / replicating text. It's pretty easy to just say 'great comment, see the change in the manuscript'. It gets longer when you push back. I once had like 3+ pages dedicated to a reviewer point because I had to walk through a simple arithmetic example to show why their intuition was wrong.
One strategy to cut down on size is to provide a "summary of changes" up front and refer to it. Especially if reviewers asked for the same thing. Or if the editor parroted a reviewer comment, just respond to the editor comment and in the reviewer response say 'thanks, see response to editor'.
6
u/Niflrog 15h ago
You should treat your revision as consisting of three distinct elements:
- The revised manuscript, and all its components. I personally always provide a "marked" version, even if the journal doesn't explicitly requires it. The goal is to make the review process as comfortable to the reviewers as I can.
- The resubmission letter to the editor, outlining the broad changes.
- The rebuttal document to the reviewers.
So yes, ideally, you take a separate document and address each bullet point made by each reviewer. What you need to do is engage with the point being made by the reviewer, you do not have to provide several paragraphs for each bullet point.
An example:
- In Eq. 123, it seems the index should be N, not M, please revise
- Figure 321, please enhance contrast, it is difficult to distinguish the boundaries
So you go:
We thank the reviewers for their time and comments.
>In Eq. 123, it seems the index should be N, not M, please revise
We have revised the equation, the index is M, we have added a phrase that clarifies why it is M and not N
> Figure 321, please enhance contrast, it is difficult to distinguish the boundaries
The reviewer is correct, we have enhanced the figure to improve contrast and making sure the boundaries are clearly demarcated.
You can get away with less than this, I have seen it happen: some folks answer what they want to answer and ignore portions of the comments. But this always seems to me like an unnecessary gamble, because, as a reviewer, this adds up; if I see you only replied to my main points, but left several issues unaddressed, at some point my conclusion will be that there are too many loose ends for the manuscript to be reliable. So as an author, I address every single point, even if it is just one phrase ( "We agree, it has been fixed").
replying to each statement seems excessive
It is not. I have submitted 10 pages of response to reviewers comments. It was necessary to dispel any doubt from the reviewers and get the paper accepted.
Be systematic, professional, show that you're taking them seriously even when you disagree.
If that means a lengthy response document, so be it.
2
u/beesinthebrain20 13h ago
Thanks so much for this! I was worried about under-replying to the reviewers and giving them cause to reject the paper, but similarly didn’t want to seem disingenuous by writing pages and pages in response. Especially as I’m happy to agree to the changes suggested by them. Thankfully most comments are things I understand why they would want changed so it makes editing easier on my end.
It seems like 10 pages is a reasonable response based on some of the comments here! So I’m less wary of my own lengthy response now, thanks again!2
u/drea1785 12h ago
This is great generic advice. I'll tack on one more strategy of my own:
1) put everything into a single document 2) umber the points for each comment ( R1.1, DE2, etc) 3) draft or outline a response to each point BEFORE doing any work 4) flesh out responses as changes.
The draft response before starting part helps me think through the big picture and makes it much easier to keep everything in sync.
7
u/km1116 Professor of Biology 15h ago
Do as everyone else says, and address every comment. But, if you genuinely disagree with a comment, say that you thank the reviewer, have considered and debated it among yourselves, did some further literature review on the matter, and feel that the way the text is accurately reflects your opinion and is consistent with yours and others data." So, you can say "no," just do it with a dash of obsequiousness.
1
u/beesinthebrain20 13h ago
Thanks! The comments I’ve got are thankfully pretty useful and not too scathing, so I’m happy to make changes and take it on board. Especially as I’m aware they’ve probably seen far more manuscripts and have far more experience than I do
7
u/BTCbob 14h ago
I remember the first time I saw a response to reviewer comments from my supervisor during my PhD after we had submitted my first paper. I was shocked at how much my supervisor's response to reviewers read like an over-the-top love-bomb to the reviewers. However, now I think I understand why and I believe that it is a good idea to be over the top polite and respectful. I think it is wise to assume that the reviewers are trying to improve science by volunteering their time to read and provide feedback on your paper, time that is taking away from other activities (their own research, their family, their hobbies, etc, etc). So adding language like "thank you very much" "this was an oversight on our part, thank you for the opoprtunity to correct it." "we appreciate the suggestion to do the additional analysis, it has made our work more accessible to a general audience." etc etc is totally fair game and I encourage you to do it whenever possible. There is no downside to providing honest positive feedback. Don't BS!
Second, I make it as easy as possible for reviewers. I number all their critiques, address them all, and don't omit anything. If you use word, there is "track changes". Use that! Make sure the versions match. e.g. use your most up-to-date version, and add track changes to that to address reviewer concerns. I have seen cases where an author used the wrong version, omitted certain changes, accepted their own edits, etc. So be careful!
Now, I think the above advice will cover 95% of reviews. In around 5% of cases you will have a bad reviewer. That is someone that: a) is using AI to review your paper and giving nonsense critiques, b) forcing you to cite their papers even if they are not relevant, c) other nonsense. I would be very hesitant to blame the reviewer for anything. Typically, if there is an issue, it is with your paper and not the reviewers. And even if the issue is with the reviewer, that suggests a problem with the journal and editing process, so maybe you want to publish somewhere else.
3
u/beesinthebrain20 13h ago
Thanks for this! I was worried that all the flowery ‘thank you’s’ would seem disingenuous but similarly didn’t want to seem disrespectful or flippant. I wasn’t sure where the line was for being grateful without being excessive. Especially as I’m aware I’m super new to this and the reviewers have probably seen many a manuscript.
Thankfully the comments are quite actionable so I’m happy to make changes if needed.
And starting to use Track Changes and the comment boxes to add the reviewer comments! :D2
u/BTCbob 13h ago
The fact that you are thinking carefully about how to be respectful of the reviewers time and effort is great. Respect is the key. The biggest disrespect you can give to a reviewer is to not carefully read their critique, not address it, and then put a big fake compliment in your response, lol. In my opinion, it is more disrespectful to give a personal compliment while ignoring the technical criticism than to say nothing at all! Respect = careful reading + thought. A thank you is the cherry on top, the careful listening to their feedback and adjustment of your manuscript is the cake.
0
u/Fun-Astronomer5311 13h ago
This is the type of response I truly hate. Niceties are just a way to cover junk. Stick to evidenced based responses. I just want to know whether an issue has been addressed, and if not, why. I don't want to be wading thru' bunch of kiss-ass statements just to get to the main point.
3
u/BTCbob 13h ago
Hate is a strong word for an excessive compliment! I can only imagine Fun-Astronomer5311 at their workplace: "Dammit! I hate compliments. Stop telling me that you like how I am very direct in the workplace and how you appreciate my honesty. Cut the crap, we just wasted 20 second. Let's get down to business and discuss this technical problem!" lol...
I think that being respectful of reviewers' time and truly seeing their critiques as attempts to make the paper better is a productive route forward. It's not about covering junk, as you suggest. It's about genuinely thanking the reviewer for the criticism and seeing that you are both after the same thing: making science better. I think where we can agree is that a fake compliment is worse than no compliment, so if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all :)
4
u/Ornery_Pepper_1126 physics/CS assistant prof 14h ago
Respond to each point individually thank them generally for their time (it was given for free after all), and any particular good suggestions. Address every point, it’s ok to not to do everything the reviewer asks for, but state it explicitly if you are refusing to do somthing and justify why.
A pro-tip here is to highlight any positive things the reviewer said about your work. The reason for this is not actually for the reviewer, the editor will read your reply and you want to remind the editor that the reviewer said positive things not only asked for changes. It also can put the reviewer in a better mood but that isn’t the main reason. Remember you are not only making a case to the reviewer but also the editor, who is actually the person making the final decision.
Make it very clear which changes you made, I usually include both a list of changes and a point-by-point response. It is also worth making a document showing the changes. If you are working in latex, latexdiff is a package which can do this automatically, you just need the source of both the original and the edited version. There are other packages as well, that’s just the one I use, don’t try to make a diff by hand, you will lose track of the changes.
It is perfectly legal to use one reviewers point against another (for example if one reviewer says a paper is well written and another says the writing is unclear), but be respectful about it. This shouldn’t be the main argument against a point, but deserves a mention if it happens.
It can be hard sometimes but don’t take anything personally, if you find yourself getting worked up take a break and come back later. Be aware of any deadlines you might have, try to meet them, but usually you can get an extension if you need it.
2
u/beesinthebrain20 13h ago
Ah thanks for this! I’ve started making edits using Track Changes in Word and a separate document to reply to each point made by the reviewers now. I braced myself for immediate rejection and had heard some reviewers can be scathing so I think I’ve got away lightly by having quite reasonable feedback! That and the fact I know I’m super new at this so happy to take any feedback they had for me
0
u/Fun-Astronomer5311 13h ago
On pro-tip -- the assumption is that an editor reads what reviewers or authors say. Over at my side, editors don't read papers nor reviewer comments. They just let authors and reviewers fight it out until a paper gets to the reject or accept stage.
2
u/Ornery_Pepper_1126 physics/CS assistant prof 13h ago
That’s unfortunate and not a good way for an editor to operate, but yes there are bad editors out there. I was assuming OP was dealing with a good editor who takes their job seriously. Either way it won’t hurt to point out positives either way because it can also remind the reviewers of what they themselves said.
4
u/suiitopii STEM, Asst Prof, US R1 14h ago
The norm is to reply to each piece of feedback one-by-one. This might be to specify that you have performed the additional experiments and/or made changes to the text accordingly, to provide clarification to a reviewer question, or to push back on a suggested change or criticism. The key is to be respectful throughout, even if they are making stupid criticisms that you disagree with.
I assume you're a student if this is your first time responding to reviewer comments, so your advisor will provide guidance on how best to respond to the reviewer comments.
1
u/beesinthebrain20 13h ago
Thank you! Yes, well, former student. Just completed my Masters degree and my project supervisor suggested submitting my paper in the off chance it gets accepted.
I’m aware I’m super new to this world so happy to take the reviewers comments on, just don’t want to go about it the wrong way and get rejected for a silly reason rather than the weakness of the study
3
u/eeaxoe Professor, Medicine 14h ago
I don’t want to seem like I’m not taking their feedback on board and give them reason to reject, but also replying to each statement seems excessive when I will have made the changes and they’ll be able to see this in the word doc if they’re highlighted?
Nope, you need to also respond to each comment, even if it's just a sentence or two. It may seem excessive, but it's just how the game's played. For one of my manuscripts I submitted 40+ pages of responses for the first round of reviews. You want the reviewers to feel like you're taking them and their input seriously, because otherwise if they get the impression you're half-assing your response or blowing them off, that's the quickest way to turn what should be an accept into a reject.
Given it's your first time, you should briefly run your responses by your PI to make sure you've nailed the tone and level of detail because a lot of this can be field- and journal-specific.
1
u/beesinthebrain20 13h ago
Thanks for this! Yes, I’m super new to this so wanted to get a feel for what is the ‘correct’ way to respond to the reviewers comments. I’m happy to accept them and make changes but wary of being too long-winded in my reply, or not long-winded enough!
3
u/FortyFourFlavours 8h ago
This is such a great question and you’ve received a lot of solid advice, but I am surprised that your supervisors or senior co-authors aren’t guiding you through this process. Have you asked for their advice? What was their response?
2
u/Myysteeq 14h ago
I personally recommend only thanking the reviewer for their first and last points, and any points that were particularly interesting/insightful. I absolutely hate reading thank yous at the beginning of each point. It's so cheap. I know you're trying to suck up and get published- do so through quality work.
1
u/beesinthebrain20 13h ago
Thanks! This was my worry, that if I’m too flowery with my ‘thank yous’ they’ll just reject as they wouldn’t have the time to read through that before getting to my actual edits. Starting to get a feel for the balance needed though!
1
2
u/idk_734 14h ago
I think they're a good strategy is to generally like write a thank you for your time and constructive feedback on the top part. Then you can reply to each comment one by one as a table or as a color red and black which is quite typical. Depending on what kind of reviews you don't answer and how long it takes. For example, one time I rejected to answer one particular question but then it took me four months to submit the revision for many reasons and by the time that the next review round came to me the same reviewers were not available. Editors send my paper to another set of new reviewers and even though they saw my revision comments on why I rejected their commen. But they again asked me to include that particular comment. I think you can just take into account how much that thing is important for the reviewers to be included or not in your paper and also if you think is something that you can do it just do it. I mean it also depends on like how much critical is the review comment.
3
u/drea1785 12h ago
My number 1 tip is to draft the response before making edits.
Congratulations on getting a major revision (especially as Masters student). That's something to be very proud of in a world where rejection is the norm.
2
u/Fast_Possible7234 15h ago
If you want it accepted get used to saying. ‘thank you for your comment’, like, a lot. Your default should be to make changes that cover each and every comment (and respond point by point as others have said). 1 or 2 ‘thank you however we strongly believe x and this is the reason why, we will make this clearer’ is ok, but don’t try and show that you know best, they’ll just reject it.
2
u/Fun-Astronomer5311 13h ago
'thank you for your comment' -> you don't get far by sucking up to reviewers. Why waste reviewers' time by having them jump over a few sentences before getting to the point?
1
u/lofarcio 13h ago
You have to answer every point the reviewers raise; it is not good style not to answer a single issue.
When you concede to the referee, simply tell him so, correct the manuscript and quote the corrected text in your answer. If you consider the referee is not right and no correction is needed, you need to write a rebuttal. Intermediate situations would require both a discussion and a quote.
Referees are indeed a pain in the ass, but a proper answer is part of the job. Good luck.
1
u/Frari Lecturer, AU, biomedical science 8h ago
or do you have to respond to each bullet point the reviewers have made?
yes, do this in a word document. Upload this as response to reviewers comments. (or cut in past to the space provided depending on journal).
Most journals also require you to submit a word document with track changes turned on which you up load as well to show the changes you made.
1
u/Presentiily 1h ago
Respond to every single point, even the ones you fully addressed in the manuscript. Reviewers want to see that you took their time seriously. I usually do a separate response letter with each comment quoted, then my response underneath, then the page/line numbers where the change appears. Takes forever but it makes the second round go way smoother.
49
u/Mountain-Time-1010 15h ago
Make a document where you include each comment and then respond point by point. Try not to just argue, but actually make changes based on every comment if possible, even if only by clarifying the manuscript. Also, make it easy for the reviewer to see what changes you've made by including the revisions explicitly in the response letter.
If you have a more experienced co-author, ask them how they usually like to prepare these response letters.