Targeted literature searches are a fundamental part of writing clinical manuscripts that will meet the standards of high-quality journals and contribute meaningfully to evidence-based practice. When physicians write clinical manuscripts, utilizing a targeted literature search can identify high-quality, relevant, and current evidence. While a general literature review is useful, a targeted literature search is specific to the clinical question and should be completed through frameworks established, such as PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) and PRISMA [1].
How to Respond to Reviewer Comments and Revise Your Research Paper
- Home
- Academy
- Research Impact
- How to Respond to Reviewer Comments and Revise Your Research Paper
High-Impact Journals
- Perseverance
- Understanding the Purpose of Reviewer Feedback
- Classifying Reviewer Comments: Major vs. Minor Revisions
- Developing a Point-by-Point Response Plan
- Balancing Acceptance, Clarification, and Rebuttal
- Documenting Changes in the Revised Manuscript
- Ensuring Professional Tone and Constructive Engagement
- Conclusion
Interesting topics
How to Respond to Reviewer Comments and Revise Your Research Paper
Table of Content
1. Perseverance
2. Understanding the Purpose of Reviewer Feedback
3. Classifying Reviewer Comments: Major vs. Minor Revisions
4. Developing a Point-by-Point Response Plan
5. Balancing Acceptance, Clarification, and Rebuttal
6. Documenting Changes in the Revised Manuscript
7. Ensuring Professional Tone and Constructive Engagement
8. Conclusion
The peer review process is central to the academic manuscript revision journey. Peer review ensures research is validated, accurate, and innovative. However, when you receive the reviewer feedback, it can be stressful and disconcerting to receive constructive criticism and requests for revisions. Taking a systematic and professional approach to responding not only has the potential to strengthen the manuscript, but it may also improve the overall response to your manuscript. [1]
1. Tackling Reviewer Comments
Responding to reviewer feedback can be a process that requires tenacity. Authors should recognize that responding to reviewer comments is an opportunity to improve their work, not a condemnation of their ability. [2]
Important considerations:
- Separation: Take a break before responding to reviewer comments, particularly if you receive emotional feedback.
- Reframe: Think of the reviewer comments as useful feedback that helps make your research better.
- Iterate: Acknowledge that it is common to have several rounds of revision.
2. Perseverance
Although it can be tiresome to tackle every reviewer comment and concern, providing an answer to each one of them is very important, and it shows the reviewer you respect their opinion. Lastly, as an author, you must guarantee yourself that the peer review process has helped you provide a revised manuscript of much higher quality than the original submission. Also, the readers of your manuscripts need to go through the task of answering reviewer comments and revising the studies for that. [3]
3. Understanding the Purpose of Reviewer Feedback
A reviewer will also provide comments that relate to their role as a: [4]
- Quality assurance: Methodological precision and clarity.
- Readability: The way the manuscript is presented to the expected audiences.
- Ethical evaluation: How ethical are you in your writing regarding ethical writing norms and referencing?
Understanding these purposes can help authors tailor their revisions to journal expectations and scientific integrity.
4. Classifying Reviewer Comments: Major vs. Minor Revisions
Not all comments carry equal weight. Sorting them helps prioritize responses.
| Type of Comment | Examples | Response Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Major Revisions | Methodological flaws, missing data analysis, unclear research questions, need for additional experiments | Address thoroughly, provide new analysis or explanation, acknowledge limitations if correction is not feasible |
| Minor Revisions | Language edits, formatting, citation style, and figure clarity | Correct promptly and acknowledge changes clearly |
| Tip: Start with major revisions before moving to minor edits. | ||
5. Developing a Point-by-Point Response Plan
A point-by-point response letter is critical. You need to consider each comment in the same order and structure.
- For each reviewer comment, copy the entire comment into your response document (italicized or in quotes).
- Provide a respectful but direct response to the comment.
- Indicate the location of the change in the manuscript.
- If you disagree, justify your response with references or reasoning.
Example:
- Reviewer Comment: The sample size is small; the results may not be generalizable.
- Author Response: We acknowledge that the sample size is limited (p. 12). We have added a paragraph in the Discussion (p. 21) where we mention this limitation and suggest that researchers conduct large studies.
6. Balancing Acceptance, Clarification, and Rebuttal
- Acceptance: If relevant, implement suggestions because your feedback is accurate.
- Clarification: If a misunderstanding occurred on the reviewers’ part, enhance the clarity of your manuscript rather than dismiss the feedback.
- Rebuttal: If the suggestions are inaccurate or impractical, provide a justification using evidence.
Guidelines for creating a rebuttal are:
- Make it a rebuttal and not defensive.
- Refer to scholarly articles whenever possible to justify.
- Offer alternatives (e.g., suggest adding an explanation in place of a new experiment if it’s plausible that it would be impractical to collect additional data).
7. Documenting Changes in the Revised Manuscript
Transparency is vital. Reviewers should be able to trace changes easily. [5]
Best practices:
- Highlight changes using track changes or different coloured text (if journal policy permits).
- List page and line numbers for each change in the response letter.
- Summarise key changes in the cover letter.
8. Ensuring Professional Tone and Constructive Engagement
The reply letter displays the author’s professionalism. Even if feedback is harsh, the reply letter must maintain polite and academic language.
| DO’s | DON’Ts |
|---|---|
Thank reviewers and editors.
|
Use defensive or emotionally charged language.
|
Connect with us to explore how we can support you in maintaining academic integrity and enhancing the visibility of your research across the world!
Conclusion
The process of replying to reviewer comments requires patience, planning, and professionalism. By categorizing comments, developing point-by-point responses, and documenting revision changes, authors maximize the quality of the manuscript and the chances for publication. In the end, constructive engagement with reviewers is simply part of the process of enhancing scientific communication.
How to Respond to Reviewer Comments and Revise Your Research Paper? Our Pubrica consultants are here to guide you. [Get Expert Publishing Support] or [Schedule a Free Consultation]
References
- How to respond to reviewers’ comments. (2022, April 12). Earth System Governance. https://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/news/how-to-respond-to-reviewers-comments/
- How to respond to reviewers’ comments. (n.d.). Frontiersin.org. Retrieved August 21, 2025, from https://www.frontiersin.org/for-authors/submitting-research/how-to-respond-reviewer-comments
- Palmer, A. (2022, May 4). Perseverance tips for peer review. Canadian Science Publishing. https://blog.cdnsciencepub.com/perseverance-tips-for-peer-review/
- Understanding reviewer feedback: Guidelines and explanations. (2017, March 12). The Peer Review. https://thepeerreview-iwca.org/issues/issue-0/understanding-reviewer-feedback-guidelines-and-explanations/
- Reviewing revised manuscripts. (n.d.). Wiley.com. Retrieved August 21, 2025, from https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/reviewing-revised-manuscripts.html