User login
How to address reviewer criticism
Authors of manuscripts typically receive one of three responses from journals: 1. Accepted as submitted; 2. Accepted pending revisions (major or minor); and 3. Rejected. Receiving an unconditional acceptance is an unusual fate worth documenting and celebrating. On the other hand, irreversible rejections are so common that authors need to get accustomed to them. Upon receiving an unqualified editorial rejection without a formal review (usually described as priority-related rejection), send the same manuscript out the next day to another journal (with electronic submissions you can do this on the same day).
If your manuscript is rejected after being reviewed, consider seriously the comments given and try to learn from them. Was your study design flawed? Do you need additional data? Were your analyses incomplete or did you employ suboptimal statistical methods? Was your interpretation of the findings far reaching and out of proportion to the actual data? Use this experience and feedback, revise your manuscript, and submit it to a different journal. It is not uncommon to encounter the same reviewer at the next journal; fixing major issues seems responsive and gets you in the door.
To receive a “conditional acceptance” or “rejection with hope” is the most likely “good” editorial response. Avoid a very quick response, because it may be hasty or create an impression of a hasty response. Because most manuscripts with substantial reviews are sent back to the reviewers, the turnaround time in most journals is several weeks and, therefore, there is little to be gained by sending the revised manuscript in 1 day rather than 1 week. The best course of action is to cool down for 1-2 days and then decide and draft responses in 1 week, including planned additional analyses. In the case of seemingly contradictory or numerous requests from reviewers, it is best to carefully examine clues from the editors or associate editors as to the nature and extent of the revision needed. In most instances, we draft the response letter before revising the manuscript. We use the draft letter to obtain specific input from other authors and ‘brainstorm’ about additional analyses that can best address reviewers concerns.
Do the best that you can to fully address all reviewers’ comments. Adequate time should be spent making real changes, including adding additional data or analyses to the manuscript, and taking utmost care in describing and highlighting these changes. If you believe that the reviewers missed a point that was already included in the paper, then point this out as politely as possible as part of the response letter (see below).
In addition to revising your manuscript, you will be asked to prepare a point-by-point response to each of the reviewers’ comments you receive. Thank the editors and reviewers sincerely for their comments and explain how changes based on the comments have made the paper better; they did spend time reviewing your manuscript, and they have not rejected it yet. Reviewers are usually recognized experts, or their apprentices, in the content or method of research employed in your paper. Reviewers are also likely to be authors on papers cited in your manuscript. Avoid unnecessary arguments when possible, especially about noncore issues or about changes that you already conceded. If you are compelled to contest any of the reviewers’ comments, provide substantial evidence that supports your position and be respectful with your responses. Address each comment separately, beginning with the comments raised by the editors followed by those from reviewer one, two, and so on. After each response, clearly point the reviewers and the editors to the revised sections in the manuscript. In case of similar comments, it is acceptable to direct the second (or the third) reviewer to your previous response. Provide new tables, figures, data elements, and references as part of the response letter to make it a stand-alone document. It can be difficult (and annoying) if the reviewer has to flip back and forth between documents to understand the full story.
Appealing editorial decisions consumes a lot of energy, annoys editors and reviewers, and is generally futile. If it is needed, then write a polite, brief appeal letter that summarizes the reasons for the appeal. The most common editorial response to an appeal, which usually follows a several-week delay, is an equally polite affirmation of the original decision. The second and arguably worse outcome is for the manuscript to be sent to two to three new reviewers with another rejection after a several-month delay.
Have colleagues read and comment on your revised paper and use these comments to improve the draft. There is evidence that writing groups are effective in providing suggestions for improving papers: A writing group also keeps the momentum going during the revision process. Setting realistic time lines with the coauthors of the paper is a useful strategy to maintain momentum during revisions.
Writing (and revising) papers can be a highly rewarding activity. Start early, plan carefully, and do not delay the process. Reviewers’ comments are mostly geared toward enhancing the manuscript. Take them seriously, address them fully, and you will have an improved (and we hope, an accepted) manuscript.
Additional reading
El-Serag HB. Writing and publishing scientific papers. Gastroenterology. 2012 Feb;142(2):197-200. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.12.021. Epub 2011 Dec 16.
Downey SMet al. Manuscript development and publishing: A 5-step approach. Am J Med Sci. 2017 Feb;353(2):132-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2016.12.005. Epub 2016 Dec 9.
Sullivan GM. What to do when your paper is rejected. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7:1-3. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-14-00686.1
Kotz Det al. Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part XII: responding to reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:243. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.003. Epub 2014 Jan 9.
Dr. El-Serag is chairman of the Margaret M. and Albert B. Alkek department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; incoming president of the American Gastroenterological Association Institute; and past Editor in Chief, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Dr. Kanwal is professor of medicine and chief of the section of gastroenterology and hepatology, department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine and Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, and Editor in Chief, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. This material is based on work supported by Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas grant (RP150587). The work is also supported in part by the Center for Gastrointestinal Development, Infection and Injury (NIDDK P30 DK 56338).
Authors of manuscripts typically receive one of three responses from journals: 1. Accepted as submitted; 2. Accepted pending revisions (major or minor); and 3. Rejected. Receiving an unconditional acceptance is an unusual fate worth documenting and celebrating. On the other hand, irreversible rejections are so common that authors need to get accustomed to them. Upon receiving an unqualified editorial rejection without a formal review (usually described as priority-related rejection), send the same manuscript out the next day to another journal (with electronic submissions you can do this on the same day).
If your manuscript is rejected after being reviewed, consider seriously the comments given and try to learn from them. Was your study design flawed? Do you need additional data? Were your analyses incomplete or did you employ suboptimal statistical methods? Was your interpretation of the findings far reaching and out of proportion to the actual data? Use this experience and feedback, revise your manuscript, and submit it to a different journal. It is not uncommon to encounter the same reviewer at the next journal; fixing major issues seems responsive and gets you in the door.
To receive a “conditional acceptance” or “rejection with hope” is the most likely “good” editorial response. Avoid a very quick response, because it may be hasty or create an impression of a hasty response. Because most manuscripts with substantial reviews are sent back to the reviewers, the turnaround time in most journals is several weeks and, therefore, there is little to be gained by sending the revised manuscript in 1 day rather than 1 week. The best course of action is to cool down for 1-2 days and then decide and draft responses in 1 week, including planned additional analyses. In the case of seemingly contradictory or numerous requests from reviewers, it is best to carefully examine clues from the editors or associate editors as to the nature and extent of the revision needed. In most instances, we draft the response letter before revising the manuscript. We use the draft letter to obtain specific input from other authors and ‘brainstorm’ about additional analyses that can best address reviewers concerns.
Do the best that you can to fully address all reviewers’ comments. Adequate time should be spent making real changes, including adding additional data or analyses to the manuscript, and taking utmost care in describing and highlighting these changes. If you believe that the reviewers missed a point that was already included in the paper, then point this out as politely as possible as part of the response letter (see below).
In addition to revising your manuscript, you will be asked to prepare a point-by-point response to each of the reviewers’ comments you receive. Thank the editors and reviewers sincerely for their comments and explain how changes based on the comments have made the paper better; they did spend time reviewing your manuscript, and they have not rejected it yet. Reviewers are usually recognized experts, or their apprentices, in the content or method of research employed in your paper. Reviewers are also likely to be authors on papers cited in your manuscript. Avoid unnecessary arguments when possible, especially about noncore issues or about changes that you already conceded. If you are compelled to contest any of the reviewers’ comments, provide substantial evidence that supports your position and be respectful with your responses. Address each comment separately, beginning with the comments raised by the editors followed by those from reviewer one, two, and so on. After each response, clearly point the reviewers and the editors to the revised sections in the manuscript. In case of similar comments, it is acceptable to direct the second (or the third) reviewer to your previous response. Provide new tables, figures, data elements, and references as part of the response letter to make it a stand-alone document. It can be difficult (and annoying) if the reviewer has to flip back and forth between documents to understand the full story.
Appealing editorial decisions consumes a lot of energy, annoys editors and reviewers, and is generally futile. If it is needed, then write a polite, brief appeal letter that summarizes the reasons for the appeal. The most common editorial response to an appeal, which usually follows a several-week delay, is an equally polite affirmation of the original decision. The second and arguably worse outcome is for the manuscript to be sent to two to three new reviewers with another rejection after a several-month delay.
Have colleagues read and comment on your revised paper and use these comments to improve the draft. There is evidence that writing groups are effective in providing suggestions for improving papers: A writing group also keeps the momentum going during the revision process. Setting realistic time lines with the coauthors of the paper is a useful strategy to maintain momentum during revisions.
Writing (and revising) papers can be a highly rewarding activity. Start early, plan carefully, and do not delay the process. Reviewers’ comments are mostly geared toward enhancing the manuscript. Take them seriously, address them fully, and you will have an improved (and we hope, an accepted) manuscript.
Additional reading
El-Serag HB. Writing and publishing scientific papers. Gastroenterology. 2012 Feb;142(2):197-200. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.12.021. Epub 2011 Dec 16.
Downey SMet al. Manuscript development and publishing: A 5-step approach. Am J Med Sci. 2017 Feb;353(2):132-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2016.12.005. Epub 2016 Dec 9.
Sullivan GM. What to do when your paper is rejected. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7:1-3. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-14-00686.1
Kotz Det al. Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part XII: responding to reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:243. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.003. Epub 2014 Jan 9.
Dr. El-Serag is chairman of the Margaret M. and Albert B. Alkek department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; incoming president of the American Gastroenterological Association Institute; and past Editor in Chief, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Dr. Kanwal is professor of medicine and chief of the section of gastroenterology and hepatology, department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine and Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, and Editor in Chief, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. This material is based on work supported by Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas grant (RP150587). The work is also supported in part by the Center for Gastrointestinal Development, Infection and Injury (NIDDK P30 DK 56338).
Authors of manuscripts typically receive one of three responses from journals: 1. Accepted as submitted; 2. Accepted pending revisions (major or minor); and 3. Rejected. Receiving an unconditional acceptance is an unusual fate worth documenting and celebrating. On the other hand, irreversible rejections are so common that authors need to get accustomed to them. Upon receiving an unqualified editorial rejection without a formal review (usually described as priority-related rejection), send the same manuscript out the next day to another journal (with electronic submissions you can do this on the same day).
If your manuscript is rejected after being reviewed, consider seriously the comments given and try to learn from them. Was your study design flawed? Do you need additional data? Were your analyses incomplete or did you employ suboptimal statistical methods? Was your interpretation of the findings far reaching and out of proportion to the actual data? Use this experience and feedback, revise your manuscript, and submit it to a different journal. It is not uncommon to encounter the same reviewer at the next journal; fixing major issues seems responsive and gets you in the door.
To receive a “conditional acceptance” or “rejection with hope” is the most likely “good” editorial response. Avoid a very quick response, because it may be hasty or create an impression of a hasty response. Because most manuscripts with substantial reviews are sent back to the reviewers, the turnaround time in most journals is several weeks and, therefore, there is little to be gained by sending the revised manuscript in 1 day rather than 1 week. The best course of action is to cool down for 1-2 days and then decide and draft responses in 1 week, including planned additional analyses. In the case of seemingly contradictory or numerous requests from reviewers, it is best to carefully examine clues from the editors or associate editors as to the nature and extent of the revision needed. In most instances, we draft the response letter before revising the manuscript. We use the draft letter to obtain specific input from other authors and ‘brainstorm’ about additional analyses that can best address reviewers concerns.
Do the best that you can to fully address all reviewers’ comments. Adequate time should be spent making real changes, including adding additional data or analyses to the manuscript, and taking utmost care in describing and highlighting these changes. If you believe that the reviewers missed a point that was already included in the paper, then point this out as politely as possible as part of the response letter (see below).
In addition to revising your manuscript, you will be asked to prepare a point-by-point response to each of the reviewers’ comments you receive. Thank the editors and reviewers sincerely for their comments and explain how changes based on the comments have made the paper better; they did spend time reviewing your manuscript, and they have not rejected it yet. Reviewers are usually recognized experts, or their apprentices, in the content or method of research employed in your paper. Reviewers are also likely to be authors on papers cited in your manuscript. Avoid unnecessary arguments when possible, especially about noncore issues or about changes that you already conceded. If you are compelled to contest any of the reviewers’ comments, provide substantial evidence that supports your position and be respectful with your responses. Address each comment separately, beginning with the comments raised by the editors followed by those from reviewer one, two, and so on. After each response, clearly point the reviewers and the editors to the revised sections in the manuscript. In case of similar comments, it is acceptable to direct the second (or the third) reviewer to your previous response. Provide new tables, figures, data elements, and references as part of the response letter to make it a stand-alone document. It can be difficult (and annoying) if the reviewer has to flip back and forth between documents to understand the full story.
Appealing editorial decisions consumes a lot of energy, annoys editors and reviewers, and is generally futile. If it is needed, then write a polite, brief appeal letter that summarizes the reasons for the appeal. The most common editorial response to an appeal, which usually follows a several-week delay, is an equally polite affirmation of the original decision. The second and arguably worse outcome is for the manuscript to be sent to two to three new reviewers with another rejection after a several-month delay.
Have colleagues read and comment on your revised paper and use these comments to improve the draft. There is evidence that writing groups are effective in providing suggestions for improving papers: A writing group also keeps the momentum going during the revision process. Setting realistic time lines with the coauthors of the paper is a useful strategy to maintain momentum during revisions.
Writing (and revising) papers can be a highly rewarding activity. Start early, plan carefully, and do not delay the process. Reviewers’ comments are mostly geared toward enhancing the manuscript. Take them seriously, address them fully, and you will have an improved (and we hope, an accepted) manuscript.
Additional reading
El-Serag HB. Writing and publishing scientific papers. Gastroenterology. 2012 Feb;142(2):197-200. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.12.021. Epub 2011 Dec 16.
Downey SMet al. Manuscript development and publishing: A 5-step approach. Am J Med Sci. 2017 Feb;353(2):132-6. doi: 10.1016/j.amjms.2016.12.005. Epub 2016 Dec 9.
Sullivan GM. What to do when your paper is rejected. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7:1-3. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-14-00686.1
Kotz Det al. Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part XII: responding to reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:243. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.10.003. Epub 2014 Jan 9.
Dr. El-Serag is chairman of the Margaret M. and Albert B. Alkek department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; incoming president of the American Gastroenterological Association Institute; and past Editor in Chief, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Dr. Kanwal is professor of medicine and chief of the section of gastroenterology and hepatology, department of medicine, Baylor College of Medicine and Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, and Editor in Chief, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. This material is based on work supported by Cancer Prevention & Research Institute of Texas grant (RP150587). The work is also supported in part by the Center for Gastrointestinal Development, Infection and Injury (NIDDK P30 DK 56338).
