Regular proper documentation of surgical cases promotes medical knowledge development while enhancing patient care quality. The Surgical Case Report (SCARE) standards introduced their format for surgical case report documentation in 2016 [1]. As surgical methods evolve, it becomes increasingly necessary to update medical guidelines.

Professional assistance for manuscript peer review response

Reference List Accuracy in Scholarly Writing : Common Errors and Best Practices

Noah Clarke | Associate Journal Editor 03 Mar, 2025

Dr.Nancy | Clinical and Medical Research Expert
22 Feb, 2025

Introduction

Many researchers find the peer review process stressful, and anxiety ridden. Response to reviewer should be considered crucial in the manuscript review process with clear communication. It should be considered as an opportunity for thorough manuscript evaluation to improve the quality of manuscripts and their overall contribution to their respective fields [1]. With the right strategies in place, the entire journey of scientific publishing can become fruitful and prove to be a positive learning curve for any researcher.

What to expect?

Knowing the potential decisions that can be declared after a peer review process, which can help researchers be better prepared.

Accepted without revision

The submission has been reviewed and accepted for publication with no changes required.

Accepted with minor revisions

Minor changes are recommended before officially accepting the manuscript for publication.

Example: A manuscript on “Study of ashwagandha on sleep improvement” is accepted with the need to update the reference from 2024

Accepted with major revision

Major changes are recommended in the manuscript before being accepted for publication.

Example: A study on “Efficacy of nutrition on cognitive impairment” is accepted with the inclusion of additional data supporting nutritional efficacy on cognitive function

Reject and resubmit

The author can respond to and resolve the reviewer’s comments despite the rejection of the initially submitted manuscript

Example: The study “efficacy of collagen on skin aging” is rejected due to the missing data for control group. The missing data needed to be resubmitted for approval.

Rejected

This is the final decision by the editor.

Use the right resources

Experienced journal editors advise researchers to invest time and resources and seek expert help to ensure that a high-quality academic journal submission, adhering to all guidelines, is prepared for publication. Expert assistance from academic writers and researchers can help the author gain a fresh perspective on the comments and questions, leading to an improved response [3].

Categorize the comments

Authors should categorize the comments received peer review process into two categories: major or minor. Major comments may involve changes in the study’s methodology, results, or conclusions. In contrast, minor comments may reflect changes in grammar, adding or removing references, tables or figures, unclear information or sentences, etc. Major comments should be considered critical and given priority over minor ones while forming a response [4].

Example:

Major comments- The method section does not specify the inclusion criteria which is crucial to know how the subjects are included in the study. Please include the inclusion criteria.

Minor comments- The abstract of the manuscript is very complex and not clear. The abstracts need to be clear and concise.

Map out your responses

Strategically planning your responses to the reviewer’s comments will help your manuscript stay organized throughout the process and ensure you do not miss addressing any comment. Here are some pointers for efficiently drafting responses in the peer review process [4], [5]:

Mark the location of changes required in the manuscript.
Start with the major changes and keep track of them.
Number each comment and respond to them in a sequence to avoid confusion.
Provide a detailed and precise response or explanation for every comment. The comments can be broken down point-by-point, if needed.
Attach additional data, files, and references if requested.

Handling disagreements tactfully

If a comment from a reviewer seems unreasonable or against the integrity of the research, the author has a right to disagree politely and explain their perspective. Although more than one refusal for changes may lead to rejection of the manuscript, a proper acknowledgment and justification may help put the author’s point forward. Moreover, the author can appeal to the editor in accordance with the journal’s guidelines [4].

Example:
If a reviewer states a correction that affect established theories in your topic, we can respond:
“We value the reviewer’s suggestion. But, based upon the studies [reference], our method matches with the established procedure in this field. so, we strongly believe maintaining this procedure is scientifically valid”.

Begin Your Clinical Research Journey With Us!

Connect with us to explore how we can support you in maintaining academic integrity and enhancing the visibility of your research across the world!

Resubmitting an organized file

A well-laid-out manuscript with clearly highlighted revisions and responses makes it easier for reviewers to follow, leading to lower chances of misinterpretations and a higher probability of acceptance. Here are some great ways to prepare a well-presented file for submission [4], [6] :

Different colors or fonts should be used to highlight the three main features in the revision file: comments from the reviewer, your response, and the revisions carried out in the manuscript.
Each comment should be addressed sequentially, with its corresponding modification highlighted appropriately for an effective peer review process.
If the journal allows changes in the originally submitted file, use the track changes feature to point out the revisions effectively.

Example:

Reviewer comment- The data interpretation is not clear and very complex in the conclusion section to draw outcome.

Author response– We have simplified the data interpretation and adequately added information to draw conclusions.

Manuscript– Refer to conclusion where we made the changes.

Do’s and don’ts of responding to peer-review

Do’s for successfully responding to peer review:

Go through the feedback thoroughly and set it aside [4].
Read it multiple times after a few days for a better understanding [4].
Keep a positive perspective during the entire process [4].
Always maintain a professional and polite tone [4].
Draft a response letter expressing your gratitude to the reviewers and editors [4].
Repeatedly check for grammar or spelling mistakes [4].
Re-read your revised manuscript repeatedly and get feedback from experts or peers before submitting it [4].
Reach out to the editor for clarity on vague or unclear comments [4].
In case of conflicting or contradictory comments from two different reviewers, proceed with the most appropriate change while addressing both [4].
End with an acknowledgment or note of thanks [4].
Contact the editor, in case of a violation of publication ethics or other concerns [4].

Don’ts- Mistakes to avoid while responding to peer review:

Do not get defensive or take the critique personally [4].
Do not get argumentative while responding to the comments [4].
Don’t get carried away while explaining your stand; keep your response clear and concise [7].
Do not copy and paste the reviewer’s comments into the manuscript or revised notes [4].
Do not question the reviewer’s expertise or experience in the field of research [7].
Do not unnecessarily delay the submission of your revised manuscript [4].

Example for response to reviewer:
“Thank you for the valid feedback. We have carefully considered your feedback and made the mandatory revisions. key changes:

Written the abstracts clear and concise (Pg. 1).
Updated references from 2024 (Pg. 2 – 8).
Changed the data interpretations with clear and adequate data (Pg. 5-7)

We offer the expertise, knowledge, and comprehensive support your Clinical research and publication needs.

Keytake Ways

While the peer review process is one of the difficult stages of a research publication journey, it could also be the most enlightening one. Professional academic writing services can hand-hold the authors throughout the process, facilitating submissions of top-quality research papers with a higher chance of acceptance. For authors, it is crucial to maintain a positive and systematic approach towards the feedback received from reviewers. It is also important to remember that editors, reviewers, and authors are a part of a collaborative system to put out authentic and impactful scientific research.

References.

Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Saetta A, et al. The SCARE guidelines: consensus-based surgical case report guidelines. Int J Surg 2016;34:180–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Agha RA, Borrelli MR, Farwana R, et al. for the SCARE Group. The SCARE 2018 statement: updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines. Int J Surg 2018;60:132–136. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Agha RA, Franchi T, Sohrabi C, et al. for the SCARE Group. The SCARE 2020 Guideline: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines. Int J Surg 2020;84:226–230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Pill J. The Delphi method: substance, context, a critique and an annotatedbibliography. Soc Econ Plann Sci 1971;5:57–71. [Google Scholar]
Agha RA, Barai I, Rajmohan S, et al. Support for reporting guidelines in surgical journals needs improvement:a systematic review. Int J Surg 2017;45:14–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Agha RA, Farwana R, Borrelli MR, et al. Impact of SCARE Guideline on the reporting of surgical case reports: a before and after study. Int J Surg 2017;45:144–148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]