CEPI5215 Chap.7 Responding to Reviewers
Responding to Reviewers
A reviewer response is both scientific reasoning and an audit trail. This chapter converts each editorial or reviewer comment into a direct answer, manuscript action or principled disagreement, and precise location. Accepted changes may propagate across methods, results, displays, abstract and discussion.
Rejection is handled as a publication decision: identify remediable weaknesses, revise the work and prepare a new venue-specific package rather than transferring defensiveness to the next editor. The response process is complete only when the scientific decision, manuscript revision and letter agree. A seemingly local request may alter participant counts, analyses, displays and the abstract.
A propagation check prevents the revised paper from containing two incompatible accounts of the same study.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Reading the editorial decision, priorities, deadline and resubmission instructions
- 02
Classifying comments by validity, reporting, interpretation and presentation
- 03
Point-by-point response structure and exact change locations
- 04
Scientific disagreement, feasibility constraints and alternative repairs
- 05
Propagation of new analyses through the complete manuscript
- 06
Rejection, appeal, resubmission, acceptance, copyediting and proofs
Worked example · free
Respond to a mixed set of reviewer requests
- +1Give each scientific request its own response entry even if one revision addresses several comments.
- +1Decline causal wording with a design-based explanation and remove any remaining overstatement.
- +1Run and report the justified adjustment, then update every section affected by its result.
- +1Clarify participant flow, reconcile denominators and give precise manuscript locations for all changes.
Key terms
- Decision letter
- The editor’s communication stating an outcome, priorities and conditions for any further submission.
- Major revision
- A decision requiring substantial scientific or reporting changes before renewed editorial judgment.
- Point-by-point response
- A letter that answers each comment and locates every manuscript action.
- Rebuttal
- A reasoned response explaining why a requested change should not be made.
- Sensitivity analysis
- An analysis testing how findings change under alternative assumptions or decisions.
- Proof
- A prepublication version checked for production errors rather than an opportunity for unrestricted rewriting.
Responding to Reviewers FAQ
Must authors agree with every reviewer?
No. They should identify the concern, make useful changes and disagree when a request is scientifically unsound, impossible or outside scope. A disagreement needs a clear reason, supporting evidence and often a manuscript clarification that prevents misunderstanding.
How precise should change locations be?
Use the system requested by the journal, such as page and line numbers or section and paragraph. Quote the revised wording when useful. Vague claims such as “done” force editors and reviewers to search and weaken the response audit trail.
What should happen after rejection?
Separate journal fit from remediable manuscript problems and fundamental design limits. Use valid feedback to revise, choose a suitable next venue and rebuild files for its instructions. Do not send an unchanged package or a response addressed to the former journal.
How should authors open a response letter?
Thank the editor and reviewers briefly, identify the manuscript and summarise the most important revisions. Keep the opening factual. Detailed answers belong under numbered comments, where actions and locations can be verified.
What if two reviewers give conflicting advice?
Identify the underlying aims of both comments, decide which approach best serves the study and journal, and explain the trade-off to the editor. Do not pretend both incompatible changes were made or criticise one reviewer personally.
When is an appeal appropriate?
Use the journal’s process when there is a specific factual, procedural or scientific basis, not simply disappointment. State the issue concisely, support it and remain prepared for the decision to stand.
How detailed should a response to praise be?
A brief acknowledgement is usually sufficient unless the positive comment identifies a change or editorial priority. Preserve most response space for actionable concerns. Avoid using praise to argue that critical comments should be ignored; evaluate every scientific point on its own merits.
Assessment move
Copy every editor and reviewer point into a response grid with columns for concern, decision, manuscript action, affected sections and final location. Resolve major scientific issues before polishing tone. When adding an analysis, search all files for earlier values and interpretations. When disagreeing, begin with the valid concern and explain the study or data constraint before offering a clarification or limitation.
Ask a co-author to follow each response into the clean manuscript. Complete the submission only when response letter, marked file and clean file agree. Before editing, meet with relevant co-authors to decide responses to major scientific points. Lock the response numbering, then update the manuscript with tracked changes while recording locations. Search for every value or phrase affected by new analysis.
After revisions, create a clean file and have a colleague who did not draft the letter follow each response into it. Confirm that rebuttals address the concern rather than merely rejecting the proposed solution.
