Response to reviewer’s comments:
A scientific paper must go through the peer review process to be published, especially in high-impact journals. Peer review guarantees that the work submitted to journals is of a high standard, authentic, and accurate.
After peer review, If the reviewers do not reject the paper, the authors will need to revise the manuscript in response to the reviewer’s comments and suggestions.
Reviewers and editors, who are experts in their fields, will offer constructive feedback that greatly enhances the manuscript. The exchange of feedback between authors and reviewers is crucial. In most journals, at least two to three reviewers are requested, and occasionally as many as six. However, the harsh reality is that the more invited reviewers, the more likely the manuscript will receive harsh, conflicting comments.
Even though the journals accept most revised manuscripts, it is common to encounter rejection after the first, second, or rarely third revision. The authors should address the comments as comprehensively as possible to minimize the probability of rejection after revision. No hard-and-fast rules can guarantee a secured, guaranteed acceptance after revision. In response to the reviewer’s comments, we will discuss some general principles and share our experiences, whether good or bad.
How likely is my manuscript to be accepted after revision?
In order to determine the likelihood of acceptance (and the opposite, rejection) after revision, the first indication is the decision categories-“Accept,” “Accept after Revision/Minor Revision,” “Revision/Major Revision,” “Reject / recommend resubmitting after revision,” or “Reject.”
How to start addressing the reviewers? – Sleep on it:
The main cause for rejection following revision is that the major concerns need to be sufficiently addressed.
Considering the reviewers’ feedback after a few days would be beneficial. One method for processing the reviews’ concerns is reading them once, setting them aside for a few days, then reading them again, and lastly discussing them with the co-authors to formulate a plan of action.
It is necessary to respond to every comment; moreover, responding only sometimes entails amending the manuscript. Therefore, the primary authors, typically the first, second, and corresponding authors, should confer and decide what should be changed and what should be defended.
The simplest solution is frequently to adjust in response to the reviewer’s comments, which shows that you are receptive to advise. However, disagreement is also acceptable, or it is, in fact, a necessary component of the revision process. It would be crucial if the authors could provide statistics and facts to support it.
Sometimes, the reviewers’ comments could be biased. Therefore, it would be great and respectable to have a thorough, convincing, and courteous rebuttal to the editor.
Always write so that it may be transmitted to the reviewers, making it easy for editors to copy and paste the comments into their decision emails.
Preparing the material for resubmission:
- Cover letter/Letter to the editor
As a final step, right before resubmission, a letter to the editor should be written summarizing the changes and, if necessary, defending the manuscript.
The first thing to do is to prepare a letter to each reviewer. Alternatively, combine a point-by-point response that addresses the reviewers’ comments.
- A point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments /Letter to the reviewers
- The most critical part of the resubmission is the point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments. Preparation for this should always be the first step. The manuscript should begin by appreciating the reviewers’ time and insightful, constructive comments that will improve the manuscript. Next, providing a summary of the key changes, including a specific list of comments and responses in the form of a dialogue, is essential.
Finally, the author should specify where any changes were made in the updated manuscript file (page and paragraph numbers). If we have to make a defense, we must try our utmost to communicate politely and effectively.
The authors may first address the easiest changes, such as rewording, adding references, adding another paragraph, table, or figure, or adding an appendix. It is imperative to address all of these easy changes appropriately. As a reviewer’s responsibility, authors should always correct technical errors. Because experienced reviewers are more familiar with the subject’s history than more recent authors, they can comment on any referencing errors that should always be fixed. Professionals in the field know which publications should be referred to first and in what sequence. Unfortunately, life is only sometimes as straightforward as we would like. It is often necessary to make more difficult modifications, such as altering the central hypothesis or the main algorithm or even rerunning an experiment. Changing parts that multiple reviewers mentioned are particularly helpful since repeated comments attract the editor’s attention.
How specifically should I respond to the major revisions?
Reading attentively through the reviewers’ and editor’s remarks should be the first thing you do.
The following three categories should be used to separate comments and change requests:
- Those with whom you agree.
- Those with whom you strongly disagree.
- Those that you may not necessarily agree with but that you could change without significantly impairing the integrity of your article, like a simple title change.
You should copy the criticism, put it into another Word document, and address each point raised. Written responses to reviewers’ remarks are typically required by journals using online peer review. However, even if it is not specifically requested, you should still provide it as it shows the editor that you have taken their suggestions seriously. It also helps the editor and reviewers with the second round of reviews. Even when you disagree with the modifications, you may feel obligated to adopt them. That is not the situation.
Reviewers might be knowledgeable about the subject matter of a paper, but they might have less publication experience than you have, and they could be better. The variations in reviewers’ comments for the same manuscript frequently show that reviewing is not an exact science. For instance, there might be a section of the text that one reviewer believes is significant and needs to be expanded, while the other reviewer believes it is unimportant and should be removed. Reviews largely reflect the opinion, and authors can and often do disagree with reviewers’ viewpoints.
Dealing with suggested modifications you accept or are not strongly against is a rather simple process. You make the necessary adjustments and record them in the answer document underneath the pertinent section. The amount of information to include here will vary. You can reply “amended” if the amendment, for instance, mentions a spelling error. Consider providing a more thorough response if the request is complicated. In light of this, a suitable response to the statement “a more detailed explanation of the methods used in this study is required” might be “More detail about the methods used in this study have been provided, including the methodology used, the study setting, the target participants, the process for recruitment, the study procedure, the ethical issues and data analysis.”
It is crucial to be respectful when responding to criticism you disagree with and to explain your case calmly and logically for not making the suggested modifications. For instance, in response to the reviewer’s statement, “this paper’s content does not bring new understanding in this field.” The authors describe their findings concerning earlier research by Harding (2005), Johnstone (2003), and Mermagus (2008). Given the similarities between the results of prior studies and the conclusions of this study, it seems plausible to conclude that this research adds nothing new. I am afraid I have to disagree with the reviewer’s criticism; in this case, the author should write in response to the reviewer’s comments. Although the results of the other studies mentioned by the reviewer are similar, the Harding research was conducted in the operating room.
In contrast, the Johnstone and Mermagus investigations were conducted in A&E. This is the first known study to be conducted with a juvenile population. A sentence like, “The discussion section has now been updated to more clearly convey this essential contribution to knowledge,” or something similar may be added. This demonstrates respect for the reviewer’s viewpoint and will also increase the work’s effect. If editors are sure that the required alterations have been made or that there are good reasons for not making the changes, they will often send manuscripts for re-review when edits are finished and resubmitted. The amended manuscript is typically sent to the same reviewers if they are still available to avoid new issues being brought up by new reviewers. The procedure will be the same as for the first review: the editor will consider the comments provided by the reviewers before deciding whether to accept, ask for minor adjustments, ask for significant revisions, or reject the article. You should see requests for small adjustments as a sign that the paper is getting closer to being accepted. When the reviewers or editor feel that the feedback needs to be sufficiently addressed, a request for major modifications or rejection is typically made.
Appropriate and inappropriate Sentence Starters for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments
Examples for appropriate response :
- We appreciate the reviewer’s interest in this topic…
- The reviewer has already pointed it out…
- We acknowledge that…, yet…
- We agree with the reviewer that…; nonetheless…
Examples for inappropriate response :
- The reviewers need to get what I tried to say.
- It would not be essential to change following the reviewers’ recommendations.
- We do not have access to such information.
- Repeating the experiences/analysis would not allow us to arrive at a different conclusion…
- Message for the typesetter
If the authors have specific formatting concerns with the manuscript, writing a letter to the typesetter may be helpful. This is typically created at the same time as the proof after the manuscript has been accepted.
How to revise different parts of the manuscript :
1. Introduction
To our surprise, a scientific manuscript’s introduction is frequently too lengthy. We anticipate a thorough and succinct introduction, unlike a review piece. Reviewers frequently suggest trimming the introduction and concentrating on the purpose and main idea of the study. In addition, the reviewers frequently recommend updated and relevant references; the authors should include all of these references in the revised manuscript.
2. Methods
A scientific manuscript worthy of publishing is built on a sound technique.The reviewers can be quite critical of this section; thus, revisions frequently include more experiments, new analyses, and further data collecting. Sometimes things have been done properly; they have yet to be explicitly mentioned in this section.
Occasionally one of the reviewers is a statistician, and they usually ask about the used test in the analysis section to check its reliability. Sometimes one of the reviewers is a statistician, and they usually ask about the used test in the analysis section to check its reliability. Therefore, following the ten steps to writing a statistical analysis section for a medical study is important.
3. Results
Any modifications to this section must consider the comments made in the Method section. Reviewers may delete part of the tiny print rather than repeating the information already presented in the tables and figures. However, the primary and some significant secondary endpoints should concentrate on the main characteristics of the cohorts. Part of the results may be transferred to Supplementary Materials if the additional information required by the reviewer’s results in a word count surpassing the allotted space.
4. Discussion
After editing, this is frequently the most extended section. Limitations cited by reviewers should be further addressed in the discussion, according to many critics. It is important to compare and contrast the study’s new findings with existing literature, particularly when they differ from or are novel to existing knowledge.
5. References
Due to the widespread use of reference manager software, inconsistency in the format of references is becoming less prevalent. It is more likely that reviewers (as well as editors) will request newer references to replace outdated ones or to add relevant studies. It should be the rule rather than the exception to include all suggested new references.
6. Figures & Tables
Each table and figure should be able to stand alone, with all abbreviations explained in the footnote.
The reason for this is that many readers (as well as reviewers) prefer to read the tables and figures rather than the narrative description of the results.
A frequent concern is the low resolution of figures, which can be avoided by including high-quality figures in the initial submission round.
Sometimes reviewers might ask for your health data. If you have some objections, politely you should write your objection in response to the reviewer’s comments.
How to deal with rejection after revision?
After spending a great deal of time and effort revising the manuscript, it is frustrating to receive such an email from the editorial office.
Many reviewers would prefer to reject the paper in the first round of review, but the handling editor would prefer to give it a chance to be revised. Having some key methodological issues unresolved in the revised manuscript may be unacceptable to the reviewers. Inconsistencies between the first and second versions are another common weakness. Therefore, the reviewers may provide the following comments at the second review:
There is always a proportion of manuscripts that are not accepted after revision. It is uncommon but can occur as high as 15% in high-impact journals.
Hence, if we do not wish our manuscript to be included in this proportion, we should make every effort to address all the reviewers’ comments. In addition, the authors should always cross-check and proofread their revised manuscript for consistency, grammar, and spelling.
Suppose some key methodological issues still need to be resolved. In that case, the authors should consider repeating the study according to the proposed methodology or admitting that future research is necessary.
If the reviewers do not agree with the latter response to the reviewer’s comments, the manuscript may always be submitted to another journal.
How do we handle our manuscript that was rejected?
A manuscript need not be abandoned if it is rejected. There are many journals in medicine and health. So if a manuscript is rejected by one journal, it is a chance to be accepted by another. The reason is the disagreements among their editors and reviewers. Because of the many manuscripts they receive, some journals have high rejection rates of 80% to 90%. As a result, these journals reject many articles that other publications may accept. Perseverance, maintaining a positive attitude, and viewing the revising and submission of the manuscript as a learning experience are key.
Sending the same manuscript to a different journal after deciding to resubmit should not be done. It is unlikely that any of the feedback will merit consideration. It is helpful to adopt the same procedure as for major revisions: think about what needs to be altered in light of feedback, separate those adjustments from those you do not agree with; make the changes; then resubmit. It would be beneficial to look for the mentorship of a more accomplished author if you need help understanding the reviewers’ suggestions or if you do not feel capable of making the necessary improvements. In addition, adding writing and publishing expertise would allow the author to write more objectively because they will have less invested in the subject matter. A mentor can also help you interpret reviewers’ comments to see them as helpful rather than insulting.
Persistence is key to success:
Since editors heavily depend on reviewers’ expertise to make the final decision, they will only be satisfied if the reviewers are satisfied. The most important tip is to follow the reviewers’ suggestions. From the authors’ perspective, getting a manuscript accepted after revision can sometimes be longer if there are many challenging comments to address. Despite this, it is crucial not to avoid all the troubles associated with making the changes. In a positive light, it can be viewed as an opportunity to improve the manuscript. Feedback of this kind is usually gratifying. When the manuscript is finally accepted after revisions, whether in the same journal or another, it signifies that the effort has finally paid off. Be persistent, and do not give up. I hope the manuscript finds a good home for publication—greetings to all who are revising or are planning to revise their manuscripts.
For more information: