10 Tips for responding to peer review comments

Responding to peer review comments is an essential part of publishing. Peer review feedback aims to help authors clarify the arguments in their manuscripts, strengthen evidence, and improve the presentation of their research. For many authors, especially early-career researchers, reading and responding to reviewer comments could be a daunting experience. Understanding the intent behind each comment helps authors strengthen their research and communicate it effectively. Clear, thoughtful responses and respectful communication make the review process smoother.  

If going over reviewer feedback and responding to reviewers makes you anxious, here are ten practical tips to help you interpret reviewer comments, respond confidently, and revise your manuscript efficiently. 

1. Read the comments once, then step away briefly

Received an email alerting you about peer review comments being in? Great! Calmly read all reviewer comments first. Go over each comment. A first read will give you an overview. Next, take a short break. Step away for a bit and come back to the review report. You are now ready to start processing the comments and framing your responses to the reviewers. A short break before replying helps you interpret each point accurately. More importantly, it gives you some distance and helps you ensure that you respond instead of reacting to the feedback you have received. 

For example:
Review feedback:On the first read, you see that the reviewer has said: “The introduction lacks focus and a clear description of the research question.” 

The first read (the reaction mindset): Reading this might throw you off and make you anxious, and you could frame a defensive response, such as: We disagree with the reviewer. The comment is inapplicable. The introduction is complete.”  

The second read (the response mindset): However, you return to this comment after a break, you may be able to understand that this comment nudges you to tighten the structure or clarify the research gap further. You will be able to say: “Thank you for this observation. We have revised the introduction to strengthen the focus and clarify the motivations for the study. We have also strengthened the literature review to indicate the gaps in existing knowledge.” 

2. Break each comment into clear parts with a manageable action for each 

Reviewer comments can be specific or broad. This means that they could either include specific feedback about a section/paragraph, or they could be generic (like the example for the first point above). Try to break each comment into smaller parts. Identify concrete next steps you need to take for each. This will help you ensure that you address everything. 

Consider this scenario:
Review feedback: The reviewer has said that: “The methods section needs to be more detailed.” At first glance, this might seem vague.
Think about whether this could be about: 

1. 1. Missing participant information 
   2. Unclear assumptions 
   3. Steps described too briefly 

Thinking about this will help you revisit your methods section with a fresh perspective and identify gaps you may have missed while writing. 

The right approach: 

Once you have identified the gaps, you address them and frame an apt response: “We appreciate the suggestion to expand the methods. We have added details on participant selection, analysis steps, and the statistical approach.” 

3. Clarify vague or broad comments

Some comments could be brief and open to interpretation. Make a reasonable, transparent interpretation and explain how you addressed it. 

Scenario:
Review feedback: “Please clarify your main findings.”
This may mean that the results are too condensed or the implications are unclear. 

How you could frame your response:“We interpreted this as a request to better connect our results with their broader implications. We have expanded the discussion to highlight the significance of the findings.” 

4. Prepare to address contradictory feedback 

It is not uncommon for two reviewers to provide contradictory comments/suggestions for the same sections of a manuscript. Typically, editors expect you to make a balanced decision. Make an attempt to understand both comments and choose one approach, keeping the impact of your research in mind. However, if you are unable to address either, reach out to the journal editor and ask them for advice. 

Example: 

• • Reviewer A: “Please shorten the literature review.” 
  • Reviewer B: “Please expand the literature review.” 

How you could respond: 

“The reviewers offered contrasting suggestions. Reviewer 1 suggested <mention the suggestion> and Reviewer 2 recommended <mention the feedback>. The comments were contradictory. After careful consideration we chose to incorporate the feedback shared by Reviewer <mention the reviewer number>. To elaborate, we removed repetitive sections and added four relevant studies to strengthen the context without increasing the length of the manuscript.” 

5. Carefully evaluate requests for additional experiments or analyses 

Reviewers sometimes suggest new experiments or analyses. While these may be useful, but it may not always be possible for authors to undertake these experiments if they are dealing with time, resource, or funding constraints. 

Review feedback:
Reviewer asks: “Run an additional experiment using a different variable.” 

What your response could clarify: 

“We appreciate the suggestion. However, this falls outside the scope of the current study because <clarify why and how the changes are out of scope>. We have expanded the limitations section and clarified the rationale for our study design.”  

Remember: If you are unable to undertake the additional experiment/analyses for any other reason, be transparent about this. Reviewers and editors are/have been researchers too and will understand your limitations. If, however, you can consider the additional experiments, then your response should clarify this either with a timeline for when you can finish them or with additional data/information from them. 

6. Respond professionally and respectfully to misunderstandings 

Reviewers may misread a section or make incorrect assumptions. Remember that their comments in such cases are still within the scope of their duties as reviewers. Address these respectfully. 

Consider this scenario:
The reviewer says that your recruitment criteria weren’t explained, even though they were included in your manuscript. 

How you could respond: 

“Thank you for highlighting this. The recruitment criteria have been included in <mention the section and page and/or line number>. We have also revised the section to ensure that this information is clearly highlighted.” 

If a review comment is incorrect: 

“We appreciate the concern. Our sample size follows established recommendations <specify the recommendations along with a link>. We have now added a clarification about this in the methods section to convey this.” 

7. Structure your response clearly

A clear response letter helps editors and reviewers follow your revisions. A simple, consistent format works best. It is not uncommon for authors to create a table to address review feedback. Include everything the reviewers and editor would need to know about your responses and revisions. Specify how you addressed each comment and where the revisions can be found in the manuscript. 

Example – option 1: 

Comment 1 

• • Feedback received: Paste the comment here 
  • Author response: 
  • Please find changes here: Section number, paragraph number, page number, line number 

Comment 2 

• • Feedback received: Paste the comment here 
  • Author response: 
  • Please find changes here: Section number, paragraph number, page number, line number 

Example – option 2: 

Comment	Your response (how you addressed the feedback, including your agreement or disagreement with the reviewers)	Where can the changes be accessed
Comment 1 – Paste the feedback/comment		Mention the section title, paragraph number, page number (and line number if possible)

You could also submit two versions of the manuscript – one with track changes to show all the additions and deletions and another version with all changes accepted as a cleaner copy. When sharing page or section numbers in your responses, be sure to mention the version you want the reviewers and/or editor to refer to. 

8. Keep your tone polite and respectful

Reviewers choose to invest a lot of time to help you improve your manuscript. Even direct or seemingly blunt comments usually aim to strengthen clarity or rigor. Reviewers are researchers, too. The tone of your responses should be polite, appreciative, and respectful. 

Example:
Review feedback: “This section is unclear and poorly organized.” 

How you can respond: 

“Thank you for highlighting this. We have reorganized the section and revised the wording to improve clarity.” 

A calm, appreciative tone leaves a positive impression and shows that you are responding thoughtfully. 

9. Prepare all revisions related files thoroughly 

Before resubmitting a revised version that incorporates review comments, ensure that you include all relevant files and that they are complete and correctly labeled. A typical re-submission package includes: 

• • A version with tracked changes 
  • A clean version with all changes accepted 
  • A complete and detailed response letter 
  • All relevant multimedia files 
  • Any additional files requested 

10. Responding gets easier with practice

Remember that framing responses to reviewer comments is a skill that improves with experience. Each round of revision helps you understand how your manuscript can be strengthened. Don’t be discouraged by detailed feedback – view it as a reflection of the reviewer’s effort to help you present your work clearly. 

 

Our conversations with authors and reviewers indicate that while reviewers only intend to support authors with a new perspective, authors are also keen to hear what experts in their field think about their work. The two stages of peer review – peer review feedback and responses to reviewers – are a great way for authors and reviewers to communicate with each other and build perspective as well as strengthen the research. Authors who approach the process of responding to reviewer comments patiently and transparently are able to look beyond seemingly harsh or hard comments to extract the value of the feedback. Clear, respectful author responses contribute to a more transparent and supportive publishing process and help reviewers understand the author’s perspective, too. 

 

Join the ReviewerOne community 

ReviewerOne connects provides researchers with a safe space to connect with peers, exchange ideas, collaborate, and grow. Join the conversations on improving research and strengthening peer review. Sign up for early access to the ReviewerOne community. 

How do you approach peer review comments? Tell us about your experience in the comments below.