Receiving a review of a scientific article almost always causes tension for the author. Even a strong paper is rarely accepted without comments: reviewers may ask the author to clarify the argumentation, expand the literature review, revise the structure of the text, or explain the methodology in more detail. How should one respond to such comments correctly? Is it necessary to agree with every point? How should the response be presented so that it looks professional and convincing? We discuss all this in our new article.
Why is a high-quality response to a review important?
A response to a review demonstrates not only that the author has made revisions, but also how well they are able to work with academic criticism. For the editorial board, this is already a sign of the author’s academic integrity, attentiveness, and readiness for professional dialogue. Even if the comments seem debatable, it is important to remember that the purpose of the response is not to “argue”, but to explain one’s position convincingly and to show that the comments have been considered carefully.
How should you work with reviewers’ comments?
First of all, the review should be read calmly and in full, without responding emotionally. It is then useful to divide the comments into several groups:
- Technical
- Substantive
- Methodological
- Stylistic
This approach helps to understand which revisions can be made quickly and which will require deeper reworking of the text. If there are many comments, it is better to prepare a separate working document in which each comment is accompanied by a specific action – what needs to be corrected, clarified, expanded, or rejected with proper justification.
How should the response be presented?
A point-by-point format works best. First, the reviewer’s comment is given, and then the author’s response follows. After that, it should be stated exactly where the changes were made in the text of the article. This format makes the editor’s work easier and shows that no comment has been ignored. If the comment has been addressed, it is important to state directly what exactly has been changed. If the author does not agree, the position should be explained politely, without sharpness, and supported by the logic of the research, the sources used, and the scope of the topic.
Tone and style of the response
The tone of the response should be respectful, restrained and professional. It is not advisable to write defensively or irritably, even if a comment seems unfounded. Phrases such as “we thank the reviewer for this important comment”, “we have clarified this passage”, “we have expanded this section”, or “we consider it necessary to retain the original position for the following reasons” sound professional and help maintain a constructive tone. It is important that the response should look like part of scholarly communication rather than the author’s personal reaction.
Common mistakes in responding to a review
Authors often respond too briefly, fail to indicate exactly where revisions were made, or skip individual comments altogether. Another common mistake is changing the text of the article without explaining this in the response. It is also undesirable to agree formally with a comment without actually revising the manuscript. If a correction is claimed, it must genuinely be reflected in the text of the article.
A short checklist for the author
- Read the review in full and divide the comments by type
- Prepare a separate response to each comment
- Indicate exactly which revisions were made and where they appear in the text
- Maintain a polite and neutral tone
- If there is disagreement, justify it calmly and to the point
- Before submitting, check that the response and the revised manuscript do not contradict each other
The more clearly the author shows that they have heard the reviewer, understood the essence of the comments, and revised the text conscientiously, the higher the probability of a positive decision from the editorial board.
If you do not want to spend extra time preparing a response to reviewers on your own, you can обратиться в Scientific Publications. We will help you analyse the comments, prepare the response letter, check the logic of the revisions, and get the manuscript ready for resubmission. This approach reduces the risk of repeated comments and helps you move through the review stage with greater confidence.
