Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responding to reviewers’ comments: tips on handling challenging comments

  • Lecture Text
  • Published:
ChemTexts Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of every author is to have their research work published. In the process of publishing a peer-reviewed article, authors are often required to revise their original manuscript based on the comments from the reviewers. Although some of these comments are straightforward and concise, others are conflicting and unclear and, as such, authors may find it challenging to plan and carry out the revision as well as compose the accompanying response letter. In this article I outline eight challenges in handling reviewers’ comments that may be useful for novice authors. In general, authors will always benefit from adopting a positive attitude towards reviewers’ comments and make the effort to improve their manuscript.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scholz F (2022) Writing and publishing a scientific paper. ChemTexts 8:8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00160-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McGrail MR, Rickard CM, Jones R (2006) Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. High Educ Res Dev 25:19–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360500453053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Johnston J, Wilson S, Rix E, Pit SW (2014) Publish or perish: strategies to help rural early career researchers increase publication output. Rural Remote Health 14:372–377

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kelly J, Sadeghieh T, Adeli K (2014) Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, and a survival guide. EJIFCC 25:227–243

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Annesley TM (2011) Top 10 tips for responding to reviewer and editor comments. Clin Chem 57:551–554

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gabbaï FP, Chirik PJ (2018) Dos and don’ts: thoughts on how to respond to reviewer comments. Organometallics 37:2655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ensom MHH (2011) Improving the chances of manuscript acceptance: how to address peer reviewers’ comments. Can J Hosp Pharm 64:389–391

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Nahata MC, Sorkin EM (2019) Responding to manuscript reviewer and editor comments. Ann Pharmacother 53:959–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hiemstra PS (2018) How to write a response to the reviewers of your manuscript. Breathe 14:319–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hunt MJ, Ochmanska M, Cilulko-Dolega J (2019) How to write an effective response letter to reviewers. Med Sci Pulse 13:60–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Silbiger NJ, Stubler AD (2019) Unprofessional peer reviews disproportionately harm underrepresented groups in STEM. PeerJ 7:e8247. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8247

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Curran-Everett D (2017) The thrill of the paper, the agony of the review. Adv Physiol Educ 41:338–340. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00069.2017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mavrogenis AF, Quaile A, Scarlat MM (2020) The good, the bad and the rude peer-review. Int Orthop 44:413–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hites RA (2021) How to convince an editor to accept your paper quickly. Sci Total Environ 798:149243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson SH (1996) Dealing with conflicting reviewers’ comments. Nurse Author Ed 6:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4910.1996.tb00365.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Adib S, Nimehchisalem V (2021) Reasons for manuscript rejection at internal and peer-review stages. Int J Educ Lit Stud 9:2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kim SD, Petru M, Gielecki J, Loukas M (2019) Causes of manuscript rejection and how to handle a rejected manuscript. In: Shoja M, Arynchyna A, Loukas M, D'Antoni AV, Buerger SM, Karl  M et al (eds) A guide to the scientific career. Hoboken, Wiley, pp 419–422

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Ware M (2008) Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Citeseer. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.214.9676&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Accessed 17 May 2022

  19. Ralph P (2016) Practical suggestions for improving scholarly peer review quality and reducing cycle times. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 38:13

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rasmussen SC (2020) Peer review-critical feedback or necessary evil? Substantia 4:5–6

    Google Scholar 

  21. Agarwal R (2013) Editorial notes. Inf Syst Res 24:1–2. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2013.0476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Street C, Ward KW (2019) Cognitive bias in the peer review process: understanding a source of friction between reviewers and researchers. ACM SIGMIS Database Adv Inf Syst 50:52–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Barroga E (2020) Innovative strategies for peer review. J Korean Med Sci 35:e138–e138. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e138

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pharmacy Department, Tunku Azizah Hospital, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz, Kampung Baru, 50300, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Shamala Balan

Authors
  1. Shamala Balan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shamala Balan.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balan, S. Responding to reviewers’ comments: tips on handling challenging comments. ChemTexts 8, 16 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00167-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40828-022-00167-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation