A organized framework for replying to referee remarks is given, with three golden rules: (1) react thoroughly, (2) respond graciously, and (3) respond with proof. These rules should guide your reply whether the referee is positive or negative in his/her report.
If the referee is favorable toward your paper, you should use this opportunity to explain more fully any points that were not clear enough for the reviewer to understand. You should also take this chance to show how your findings add to what is known about the subject. If necessary, include some new data or examples to strengthen your argument.
If the referee is critical of certain aspects of your work, it is important to address these issues directly rather than simply referring to other papers in the same journal. Try not to be defensive about questions that may seem obvious to you but not to others. It is best to admit mistakes honestly and resolve problems quickly so that you do not lose confidence in the quality of your work.
In general, follow up within a few weeks of receiving the referee's report is recommended. If there are parts of the report that you are unable to address due to time constraints, let the editor know so that they can be addressed in a future revision.
Responding to reviewer feedback
What to say in response to reviewers
When possible, provide a "yes" or "no" response. If the reviewer is accurate, include it in your response. Your aim is to demonstrate to the reviewer that you took their feedback seriously, and you should promptly communicate what you did in response to their criticism. It is important not to abuse this privilege by sending lengthy replies to unsubstantiated comments.
If you cannot agree with the comment, simply state so. For example, if the reviewer claims that your article is too short, then you could reply that you agree with the comment but want to keep the length down to avoid boring readers. In any case, remain professional at all times!
It is useful to save drafts of responses to avoid typing the same thing over and over again. However, we recommend that you do not use the same draft for more than one comment because then you are not able to change your mind later.
It is okay to make changes to a draft response before sending it. For example, you may decide later that you want to add something further to the discussion.
Be careful not to write a long response when there is a shorter way to say the same thing. For example, if the reviewer says your article is too long, then you shouldn't just cut out parts of it without explaining why. You should try to reduce its length while still maintaining its essence by removing unnecessary details or examples.
Your comments should be respectful and impartial, combining conciseness and thoroughness. Your remark has no space for ego. Begin by thanking the reviewers for pointing out the flaws in your manuscript and giving you the opportunity to improve your study before publication. Only then, address their concerns specifically and thoughtfully.
If you are unable to do so directly, it may help to ask someone who is more experienced or knowledgeable about the topic to review your response for you. This person could be a colleague or another author of the journal where you are submitting your work.
Finally, remember that reviewer comments are only opinions expressed by other scientists, they are not facts. Do not feel offended by critical remarks nor hesitate to make changes if you believe them to be necessary.
Replying to reviewer comments is a crucial step in the editorial process. Without a proper response, editors may decide to reject your paper without further consideration.
Tips for Responding to Others' Writing
Copyright © 2020 - 2022 Authors Cast Inc.
