Navigating Journal Paper Revisions: A Comprehensive Guide for Authors
Writing a journal paper is hard work, but securing a 'Revise and Resubmit' (RR) decision is just the beginning. Successfully navigating the feedback from reviewers is crucial to finalizing your manuscript. This article provides a step-by-step guide on how to respond to reviewers effectively, ensuring your paper reaches the finish line.
Understanding the Revision Process
When you receive feedback from reviewers, it's natural to feel defensive, especially if the comments seem unreasonable or contradictory. However, responding to these comments with a calm and structured approach is essential for a successful revision. Here's a structured method to help you address the reviewers' points:
Step-by-Step Guide to Responding to Reviewers
Step 1: Acknowledge and Address Each Point
Start by making a list of all the points raised by the reviewers. For each point, consider whether accepting the change would genuinely improve the paper. If so, make the necessary changes and explain them in your response letter. If you believe the suggestion is unnecessary, clearly state your rationale without appearing dismissive.
Step 2: Write a Formal Acknowledgment Letter
Begin your response letter by formally accepting the reviewer's feedback and thanking them for their comments. This sets a professional tone and shows that you value their input. For instance:
Dear [Reviewer Name],
We would like to thank you for your insightful comments and suggestions, which we believe will help enhance the quality of our manuscript. We appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our work, and we are committed to addressing each of your points.
Step 3: Copy and Paste Reviewer Comments
On the second page of your response, copy and paste the original comments from the reviewers verbatim. Italicize these comments to indicate that they are direct quotations. This ensures transparency and clarity in your responses. For example:
Reviewer 1: The literature review is missing some critical citations, including Smith 2010, Jones 2008, Jones 2007, and Jones and Thomas 2014.
Reviewer 2: The methodology section needs more detailed explanation to support the conclusions drawn in the paper.
Five Simple Rules for Writing a Response to Reviewers
Rule 1: Provide an Overview Then Quote the Full Set of Reviews
Begin your response by giving a brief overview of the manuscript and then list all the comments from the reviewers. This provides a clear structure and enables you to address each point systematically. For example:
Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Below is a summary of your comments, followed by our detailed responses.
Comments from Reviewer 1:
The literature review is missing some critical citations, including Smith 2010, Jones 2008, Jones 2007, and Jones and Jones and Thomas 2014. The results need further clarification to support the conclusions of the paper.Comments from Reviewer 2:
The methodology section lacks detailed explanations, which undermines the credibility of the findings. The discussion section requires more depth and context to fully explore the implications of the study.
Rule 2: Be Polite and Respectful of All Reviewers
Always maintain a polite and professional tone in your responses. Even if you disagree with a point, express gratitude for their input. This shows that you respect the reviewers and their experience, which can help in getting a more favorable response. For instance:
We appreciate the suggestions made by Reviewer 1 regarding the literature review. We agree that including these additional citations will provide a more comprehensive view of the field. We have added these references and revised the relevant sections to ensure a thorough coverage.
We also thank Reviewer 2 for highlighting the need for more detailed methodology. We have expanded on the methodology section to provide a clearer explanation of our approach, which we believe strengthens the paper's validity.
Rule 3: Accept the Blame
Admitting mistakes is often necessary, especially if the reviewer's comment reveals a flaw in your original submission. This does not detract from the quality of your work but shows that you are open to feedback. For example:
We regret that the methodology section in our previous submission was insufficient, leading to some ambiguity in the discussion. We have revised the methodology section to include a more detailed explanation, which we hope will address the concerns raised by the reviewer.
Rule 4: Make the Response Self-Contained
Your response letter should be self-contained, explaining what changes were made and where they were implemented. This not only clarifies your position but also ensures that the journal can easily track the modifications. For example:
After carefully considering your comments, we have made several changes to the manuscript. We have added the missing citations in the literature review section (pages 5-7) and have expanded the methodology section (pages 10-12) to provide a more detailed explanation of our approach. We have also revised the discussion section to include more context and depth.
Rule 5: Respond to Every Point Raised by the Reviewer
No detail is too small to address. Ensuring that every point raised is addressed in your response shows that you have taken the feedback seriously and are committed to improving the manuscript. For instance:
Regarding the concern raised by Reviewer 3 about the statistical analysis, we have reviewed our methodology and included additional figures and tables to support our conclusions (Appendix A and B). We have also modified the results section to reflect these changes, ensuring our analysis is robust and transparent.
Handling Difficult Reviewer Comments
Some reviewers may be overly critical or provide comments that seem irrelevant to the paper. In such cases, it's crucial to stay professional and avoid confrontational responses. Here are some strategies:
Strategy 1: Try and Avoid Arguments
Avoid straight-up arguments or countering the reviewer's comments unless their comment is clearly off-base or misses a key point. Instead, be reasonable and recognize that the reviewer might have a point. For example:
We appreciate your detailed feedback on the methodology section, even if we do not agree with every aspect of your proposed revisions. We have made changes where we believe they will improve the clarity and rigor of our study.
Strategy 2: Find a Way to Incorporate the Comments
Instead of rejecting every suggestion, find ways to incorporate them into your manuscript. This shows that you are open to feedback and can make your paper stronger. For instance:
While we do not fully agree with every suggestion, we have made several changes based on the reviewer's comments. These include adding new citations (pages 8-9) and modifying the experimental design (page 15) to ensure the results are as clear and robust as possible.
Final Thoughts
Mastering the art of responding to reviewing comments is crucial for getting your work published. Every rrRR decision is a step towards publication, and every setback is an opportunity to improve. Remember, the goal is to enhance the quality of your research, not to win an argument. Stay professional, and your efforts will pay off in the long run.
Happy revising!