Peer-review has many different forms. One classical form is the journal publication process, where authors submit articles, reviewers comment on it, and the authors are invited to submit a revised version based on the comments.
In that case, it is expected to write an “author response” that is either included in the main cover letter or attached as a separate file in the revision package.
The document presents tips on how to write such a response.
Goals of the author response
Show to the reviewer that you have taken their comments into account.
Save the reviewer’s time by clearly explaining what you have done to address their concerns, and pointing them to the changed parts in the manuscript (when reviewing a revision, the reviewers often do not read again the manuscript completely)
Convince the editor-in-chief or the associate editor that you are right when:
- You disagree with some comments
- The reviewers ask you for additional work that you consider out of the scope of the paper
Provide your champion with ammunition (a champion reviewer will fight for getting your paper in, as in a conference)
How to write an effective author response
- Number all reviewer comments, e.g.
- Rev1.1 You should cite the Bible (first comment of reviewer #1)
- Rev1.2 You should give the units
- Rev2.1 Typo on line 3
- Don’t hesitate to break the reviewer paragraphs, when they contain different points or questions, e.g.
- Rev1.3a I wonder what the inter-rater agreement is?
- Rev1.3b I doubt about the validity of experiment A.
- Answer to all comments, exhaustively
- Write “No answer”, or “Not-applicable” when appropriate
- For each comment, point to the corresponding changes in the manuscript (e.g. see §3 of Sec 4.3). It’s a good idea to emphasized the changed text in the manuscript (eg with a color).
- Addressing comments does not always mean changing the paper (“you and only you decide what to change, and what to defend” [3])
- Don’t hesitate to thank the reviewers when they give good ideas. “Say things like “we agree” or “this is an excellent point”" [2]
- When you disagree, clearly explain your disagreement, with objective facts.
- For each reviewer, summarize the main changes at the beginning
- Use typesetting for separating the original comments and your response (e.g. original comment in bold, and answer in italics, indented).
Other tips
- “Take a break: Initial irritation is only natural. Take time off and then read the comments again carefully and objectively to ensure that you have clearly understood the reviewers’ concerns.” [4]
- “Wait and Gather Your Thoughts” [1]
- “Do not use an aggressive or defensive tone.” [2]
- Write the response before doing the changes in the manuscript, and don’t forget to make them.
Anti-patterns
See the excellent “Examples of Responses to Reviewers” (Section 3 of this doc)
Template
Cover letter
(summary of major changes, response to the editor’s comments (if any))
Response to Reviewer #1
(summary of main changes made for Reviewer #1)
(point-by-point answers)
Rev1.1 You should cite the Bible
We have cited the Bible at page 23
Response to Reviewer #2
(summary of main changes made for Reviewer #2)
(point-by-point answers)
Rev2.1 Typo on line 3
We have fixed all typos.
etc.