How to Respond to Reviewer How to Respond to Reviewer and Editor Commentsand Editor Comments

Dr. Steve WallaceDr. Steve Wallace

OutlineOutline

Reviewers and editors decide the fate of our paper.Reviewers and editors decide the fate of our paper. Managing the relationship with them is vital to suc Managing the relationship with them is vital to successful publication.cessful publication.

What are reviewers really saying?What are reviewers really saying? How can we respond to them?How can we respond to them? What do we do when reviewers don't agree?What do we do when reviewers don't agree? How important is the editor in the decision-making How important is the editor in the decision-making

process?process?

Academic writers use the competitive, political, Academic writers use the competitive, political, and supportive energy of other researchersand supportive energy of other researchers

Supportive energySupportive energy: Writing : Writing ssupport groups, upport groups, jjournal clubs, ournal clubs, rreview groupseview groups..

Competitive energyCompetitive energy: Researchers compare themselves wi: Researchers compare themselves with other researchers and keep scoreth other researchers and keep score..

PoliticalPolitical: Researchers are political.: Researchers are political. The negative side is that half of peer reviewed articles in toThe negative side is that half of peer reviewed articles in to

p rated journals are never referenced by anyone, including p rated journals are never referenced by anyone, including the author. This shows that low impact papers are often puthe author. This shows that low impact papers are often published in the best journals because the articles are reviewblished in the best journals because the articles are reviewed by friends of the author (Holub, Tappeiner, and Eberharted by friends of the author (Holub, Tappeiner, and Eberharter, SEJ 1991). er, SEJ 1991).

Practice:Practice:Don’t Criticize ReferencesDon’t Criticize References

I think that the author knows his subject better thaI think that the author knows his subject better than I do. I usually use his references to find a suitabln I do. I usually use his references to find a suitable reviewer e reviewer - Associate Editor, - Associate Editor, JJournal of Retailingournal of Retailing

AvoidAvoid emphasiz emphasizinging the importance of your paper b the importance of your paper by putting down on other papers. Your references ay putting down on other papers. Your references are probably your reviewers and they are sensitive. re probably your reviewers and they are sensitive.

Examples of Examples of OOffensive ffensive CCitation:itation:

"The deficiency of Smith's approach is..." "The deficiency of Smith's approach is..." ““The problems with SmithThe problems with Smith’’s paper are…" s paper are…" ““A serious weakness with SmithA serious weakness with Smith’’s argument, howes argument, howe

ver, is that ......”ver, is that ......” ““The key problem with SmithThe key problem with Smith’’s explanation is thats explanation is that

......” ......” ““It seems that SmithIt seems that Smith’’s understanding of the X frams understanding of the X fram

ework is questionable.”ework is questionable.”

A better citation would be:A better citation would be:

““SmithSmith’’s model was effective in s model was effective in the the X probleX problem, however in m, however in the the Y…”Y…”

““The X benefit of SmithThe X benefit of Smith’’s approach s approach isis not ap not applicable to Y…”plicable to Y…”  

Practice:Practice:Pay Attention to Reviewer CommentsPay Attention to Reviewer Comments

““I don’t think you treated Smith fairly in your I don’t think you treated Smith fairly in your literature review. His insights deserve more literature review. His insights deserve more respect.”respect.”

““You forgot to include Smith as a reference You forgot to include Smith as a reference in you paper. His work is fundamental to in you paper. His work is fundamental to understanding your research.” understanding your research.”

Your Your RResearch esearch AArea is rea is SSmallmall

It is very likely that either your reference or oIt is very likely that either your reference or one of his friends will be your reviewer. ne of his friends will be your reviewer.

Rejected for Rejected for ““Poor English” Poor English”

Meet 100 Meet 100 AActive ctive RResearchersesearchers

There are about a hundred people in your researcThere are about a hundred people in your research field who are likely to be referees of your papers. h field who are likely to be referees of your papers.

Present papers at Present papers at ((or at least attendor at least attend)) two professio two professional meetings a year. When presenting papers or atnal meetings a year. When presenting papers or attending regional, national, or international meetingtending regional, national, or international meetings, try to get to know these people. s, try to get to know these people.

This is your best opportunity for networking. When This is your best opportunity for networking. When you go to conferencesyou go to conferences,, smile and smile and ““work the room.work the room.””

Cite Researchers Who Like YouCite Researchers Who Like You Include references to authors who like your Include references to authors who like your

papers. They might become referees. papers. They might become referees. Include references to people Include references to people whom whom you met you met

at conferences. at conferences. This is to get a fair chance. Referees have tThis is to get a fair chance. Referees have t

o make an effort to be fair to unknown authoo make an effort to be fair to unknown authors.rs.

Complement Complement PPotential otential RReviewerseviewers

Important references should be mentioned Important references should be mentioned oon the fn the first page. irst page.

The editor usually chooses reviewers from those The editor usually chooses reviewers from those mentioned in the introduction and references.mentioned in the introduction and references.

Be generous to all authors, Be generous to all authors, and and explain why their rexplain why their research is esearch is important important for your analysis. for your analysis.

This uses less than 1% of the space, but significanThis uses less than 1% of the space, but significantly affects the probability of acceptancetly affects the probability of acceptance..

Scan Journal for Related Articles Scan Journal for Related Articles

Try to find some related articles in the journal tTry to find some related articles in the journal to which you wish to submit your paper.o which you wish to submit your paper.

Authors who published a paper on a related sAuthors who published a paper on a related subject are likely to be referees. ubject are likely to be referees.

The editor still remembers them and has a coThe editor still remembers them and has a connection to them. You need to cite their papernnection to them. You need to cite their papers.s.

EEven if they are slightly related, try to use their ven if they are slightly related, try to use their references. Explain how your work is related.references. Explain how your work is related.

Suggesting Reviewers

SuggestSuggest Researchers whose hypotheses and ideas your work Researchers whose hypotheses and ideas your work

supportssupports Researchers whose work yours builds onResearchers whose work yours builds on International collaborators in the same fieldInternational collaborators in the same field Don’t suggestDon’t suggest Researchers working closely on the same research Researchers working closely on the same research

questionquestion Researchers whose work is refuted by your studyResearchers whose work is refuted by your study Researchers whose ideas run counter to your own or Researchers whose ideas run counter to your own or

to the findings in your manuscriptto the findings in your manuscriptWilliams HC. How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2004; 51:79–

83

Suggesting Reviewers (continued)

Compared to editor-selected reviewers, author-suggested reviewers may be more likely to recommend acceptance

Nominating nonreviewers may increase the odds of publication success even more than that of nominating reviewers

Wager E, Parkin EC, Tamber PS. Are reviewers suggested by authors as good as those chosen by editors? Results of a rater-blinded, retrospective study. BMC Med 2006; 4:13

Goldsmith LA, Blalock EN, Bobkova H, et al. Picking your peers. J Invest Dermatol ,2006; 126:1429–1430

Practice: Practice: Incorporate English Editing into Your Supply ChainIncorporate English Editing into Your Supply Chain

Use professional editorial assistanceUse professional editorial assistance Particularly if you are not a native English Particularly if you are not a native English

speaker speaker Editors will not publish papers with Editors will not publish papers with

grammatical errors grammatical errors Referees are often biased; they have an Referees are often biased; they have an

excuse to recommend rejection because of excuse to recommend rejection because of grammatical errorsgrammatical errors

4%

9%

7%

8%

13%

2%

16%

7%7%

English Errors 27%

Faulty methodology

Inadequate references

Poor quality supporting figures

Outside the scope of journal

Not enough contribution to field

Authors did not follow manuscript instructions

Poor writing style and use of English

Title not representative of study

Subject of little novel interest or not generally applicable

Poorly written discussion

Reasons for Major Revision or Rejection of Taiwanese Journal Papers

Everyone Gets Criticized

The peer-review process means that almost all authors receive criticism.

Reviewers’ comments were deemed valuable by 76% (176 of 231 authors) of authors whose manuscripts were eventually accepted and 60% (21 of 35 authors) of authors whose manuscripts were rejected or withdrawn.

Ernst E. A beginner’s guide to criticism. Med J Aust 2007;187:649Green R, Del Mar C. The fate of papers rejected by Australian Family Physician. Aust Fam Physician 2006; 35:655–656

Authors Use Comments in Revision

A study on rejected manuscripts showed that 82% of authors used at least one change suggested by the reviewers from the original journal.

Even though most of these rejected manuscripts were later published in lower-impact, second-choice journals, some manuscripts incorporating at least one of the changes suggested by the reviewers of the first journal were published in higher-impact, second choice journals.

Armstrong AW, Idriss SZ, Kimball AB, et al. Fate of manuscripts declined by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2008; 58:632–635

Revision (continued) Revision (continued)

““If you don‘t proofread your own introductioIf you don‘t proofread your own introduction, why expect the referees to spot and corren, why expect the referees to spot and correct all the errors?ct all the errors?””-- Chinese History Professor # 2Chinese History Professor # 2

““You should always check spelling before You should always check spelling before submission. But there are no substitutes for submission. But there are no substitutes for reading the papers personally. Spelreading the papers personally. Spelll checker checkers do not check word meanings.s do not check word meanings.”” –– Electrical Engineer Electrical Engineering Post Doctoral Researcher # 102 ing Post Doctoral Researcher # 102

Revision from Reviewer CommentsRevision from Reviewer Comments

– The time limit for resubmission is usually six The time limit for resubmission is usually six months to a year from the date of the invitation months to a year from the date of the invitation letter. letter.

– This is your This is your lastlast chance to revise the paper. chance to revise the paper. You have a 50% chance.You have a 50% chance.

– Poor revisions will surely result in rejection. Poor revisions will surely result in rejection. – If you lose your chance to submit, you may wait If you lose your chance to submit, you may wait

three more years. Go the extra mile. three more years. Go the extra mile.

Be well-prepared, complete, polite, and use evidence not emotion

– Take every comment seriously. Take every comment seriously. – First, thank the reviewer. First, thank the reviewer. – Number all comments and respond.Number all comments and respond.– Indicate that you are doing everything possible. Indicate that you are doing everything possible. – If you cannot follow the demands, thank the If you cannot follow the demands, thank the

referee for the suggestion, explain why they arereferee for the suggestion, explain why they are beyond the scope of the paper beyond the scope of the paper or why it is not or why it is not possible at the time.possible at the time.

Williams HC. How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol, 2004; 51:79–83

Do Not Attack RefereesDo Not Attack Referees

Generally, it is not a good idea to attack the Generally, it is not a good idea to attack the reviewers. reviewers. – Do not say: "The referee's idea is bad, but mine is Do not say: "The referee's idea is bad, but mine is

good." good." – Better to say, “the referee has an interesting idea, but Better to say, “the referee has an interesting idea, but

the proposed idea is also good, particularly because of the proposed idea is also good, particularly because of this or that fact.” this or that fact.”

– If the referee makes a good point (you can almost If the referee makes a good point (you can almost always find conditions under which the referee's points always find conditions under which the referee's points are good), explain why you are not pursuing that are good), explain why you are not pursuing that

strategy in the paper.strategy in the paper.

When answering peer review comments:

Differentiate comments and responses in the letter file using different font styles

Identify major revisions in the text made in response to peer review comments with highlighting, underlining, and strikethrough fonts or as requested by the editor

Revising Your Article Based on Revising Your Article Based on Reviewer CommentsReviewer Comments

Start with small changesStart with small changes Biggest mistake authors make is planning to Biggest mistake authors make is planning to

respond too muchrespond too much Don’t get overwhelmed—do a little every Don’t get overwhelmed—do a little every

dayday

Revising CitationsRevising Citations

Most reviewers reports do this.Most reviewers reports do this. Don’t read all of the articles and books Don’t read all of the articles and books

recommended unless the reviewer says you’re recommended unless the reviewer says you’re doing the same research or the citation contradicts doing the same research or the citation contradicts youyou

Add a brief sentence about each citation, not a Add a brief sentence about each citation, not a paragraphparagraph

Reviewers can be helpful in pointing out recent Reviewers can be helpful in pointing out recent studies and avoiding embarrassing mistakesstudies and avoiding embarrassing mistakes

Revising Terms and DefinitionsRevising Terms and Definitions

Use previous research to defend your Use previous research to defend your definition of the term or revise itdefinition of the term or revise it

Revising to ShortenRevising to Shorten

Editorial comment:Editorial comment: What can you cut?What can you cut? Unnecessary words, block quotes, Unnecessary words, block quotes,

footnotes, long summaries of other footnotes, long summaries of other research, additional cases research, additional cases

If possible divide into two articlesIf possible divide into two articles

Revising to LengthenRevising to Lengthen

Common contradiction between editors and Common contradiction between editors and reviewersreviewers

Can be used as an excuse not to revise Can be used as an excuse not to revise unless the editor agreesunless the editor agrees

May need to ask the editor for more spaceMay need to ask the editor for more space

Revising Theoretical and Revising Theoretical and Methodological ApproachesMethodological Approaches

May be better to move to a new journalMay be better to move to a new journal

Do You Have to Do Everything the Do You Have to Do Everything the Reviewers Ask?Reviewers Ask?

No, but you must answer every comment No, but you must answer every comment with a detailed defense.with a detailed defense.

Types of Defense You Can Use in Types of Defense You Can Use in Your Revision Cover LetterYour Revision Cover Letter

DatesDates: Reviewer 1 has disputed my dating : Reviewer 1 has disputed my dating of_______. I stand by my dating, but have added of_______. I stand by my dating, but have added a footnote explaining how I arrived at the dates a footnote explaining how I arrived at the dates and I have provided some additional sources.and I have provided some additional sources.

AnalysisAnalysis: Reviewer 2 disagrees with my list of : Reviewer 2 disagrees with my list of causes for______. Although I think my list is causes for______. Although I think my list is correct, there is a debate in the literature on the correct, there is a debate in the literature on the causes, so I have added a reference to that causes, so I have added a reference to that debate in the text.debate in the text.

ArgumentArgument: Reviewer 1 seems to have misread : Reviewer 1 seems to have misread the premise of my article, which was______. I the premise of my article, which was______. I thought it was clear, but I have taken the thought it was clear, but I have taken the opportunity to clarify this point.opportunity to clarify this point.

DataData: although the comments of Reviewer 1 on : although the comments of Reviewer 1 on the relevance of my argument about_____ was the relevance of my argument about_____ was interesting, I could not add material on that topic interesting, I could not add material on that topic because I must adhere to the word limit.because I must adhere to the word limit.

Data: I thought the second reviewer’s comment Data: I thought the second reviewer’s comment regarding the relevance of_____ was brilliant, but regarding the relevance of_____ was brilliant, but after several attempts, I could not integrate it into after several attempts, I could not integrate it into the text in a brief enough space. Instead, I have the text in a brief enough space. Instead, I have inserted a general note.inserted a general note.

Cases: because the reviewers were in conflict on Cases: because the reviewers were in conflict on the treatment of the second case ( one the treatment of the second case ( one recommended that I say more about it and the recommended that I say more about it and the other recommended that I cut it), I have chosen to other recommended that I cut it), I have chosen to follow the second reviewer and cut that section.follow the second reviewer and cut that section.

TitleTitle: I did not modify the title as one reviewer : I did not modify the title as one reviewer recommended, because I think it better suggests recommended, because I think it better suggests the argument, but I have added more specific key the argument, but I have added more specific key words so it will more accurately show up on online words so it will more accurately show up on online searches.searches.

CitationCitation: the second reviewer recommended that I : the second reviewer recommended that I address________, but there wasn’t enough space address________, but there wasn’t enough space for it, so I just added an end note referencing that for it, so I just added an end note referencing that reading.reading.

TermTerm: one reviewer thought my use of the : one reviewer thought my use of the word_____ was unusual, but I have found it used word_____ was unusual, but I have found it used in this way more than a dozen times in academic in this way more than a dozen times in academic texts in the field; so, I have chosen to keep it. I can texts in the field; so, I have chosen to keep it. I can provide you with those citations if you wish.provide you with those citations if you wish.

AdditionalAdditional: once I started revising in response to : once I started revising in response to the peer reviewers’ helpful comments, I saw some the peer reviewers’ helpful comments, I saw some other problems and revised several sections so other problems and revised several sections so that they were tighter and more to the point. I also that they were tighter and more to the point. I also changed my text in the second section from___ changed my text in the second section from___ to____, since it supports my point better.to____, since it supports my point better.

Cover LetterCover Letter

Separate your response from your cover Separate your response from your cover letter to disguise your name.letter to disguise your name.

ConclusionConclusion

www.editing.hkwww.editing.hkwww.editing.hk/blogwww.editing.hk/blog