Receiving feedback on your work is a standard part of the submission process in many professional fields. It is helpful to view this feedback as a constructive opportunity for improvement rather than a personal critique. Developing the skill to respond effectively and professionally can influence the outcome of your submission and strengthen the quality of the work. This process is a learned skill that improves with practice and a structured approach.
Take Time to Process the Feedback
Upon receiving reviewer comments, resist the impulse to react immediately and instead set the feedback aside for a day or two. This pause allows initial emotional reactions, such as frustration or defensiveness, to diminish, enabling a more objective evaluation. Rereading the comments after this cooling-off period often reveals they are less severe than they first appeared.
After stepping back, read the comments multiple times to fully grasp what each reviewer is conveying. Next, categorize the feedback by grouping comments into types, such as major revisions, minor revisions that focus on clarity or formatting, and requests for clarification. This categorization helps transform a long list of critiques into a manageable set of tasks, allowing you to prioritize your efforts.
Create a Structured Response Document
A well-organized response document is foundational for communicating your revisions clearly. A point-by-point format is an effective strategy where you address each comment individually. This prevents any feedback from being overlooked and shows you have considered every suggestion. This structure also ensures the editor can easily follow your logic and see how you engaged with the feedback.
Create a two-column table to implement this. In the first column, paste the reviewer’s original comment. The second column is for your detailed response. This side-by-side layout provides a clear comparison, making it simple for the reviewer to see their point and your corresponding action or explanation.
For clarity, number each comment and create separate sections for each reviewer, such as “Response to Reviewer 1.” This organizational framework demonstrates professionalism and makes the review process more efficient. Using different fonts or colors to distinguish between the reviewer’s text and your own can also enhance readability.
Address Each Comment Systematically
When you agree with a reviewer’s suggestion, your response should be appreciative and direct. Begin by thanking the reviewer for their input to maintain a courteous and professional tone. This acknowledgment shows respect for the time and effort the reviewer invested in your work.
Following the opening, clearly state the specific change you have made in response to the comment. For instance, if a reviewer noted a lack of detail in a particular section, your response should confirm that you have added the requested information. This direct confirmation shows you have taken the feedback seriously and acted upon it.
Finally, provide the exact location of the revision in the updated document. You should reference the page and paragraph numbers where the changes can be found. For example: “We have expanded the discussion on this topic as requested. The new text can be found on page 8, paragraph 3.” This precision saves the editor and reviewers time.
Handle Disagreements Professionally
It is acceptable to disagree with a reviewer’s comment, but the manner in which you do so is important. Disagreements must be handled respectfully and supported by an evidence-based rationale. The goal is not to be confrontational but to explain your position clearly and professionally.
Begin by acknowledging the reviewer’s point and thanking them for their perspective. This demonstrates that you have carefully considered their feedback, even if you chose not to implement the change. This approach validates the reviewer’s contribution before you present your counter-argument.
Your response should be a clear and polite explanation for your disagreement. Provide a well-reasoned justification for your original choice, backing it up with evidence from your data or references to established literature. Citing specific policies, technical standards, or data points will strengthen your position and show that your decision is based on sound reasoning rather than personal preference.
Final Review and Submission
Before resubmitting your work, a thorough final review is necessary to ensure the entire package is polished and professional. Proofread both the response document and the revised manuscript carefully for any typos, grammatical errors, or formatting inconsistencies. Also check the overall tone, ensuring it remains respectful and constructive throughout.
Write a brief and polite cover letter to the editor. This letter should summarize the most significant changes made to the manuscript, not repeat the entire response document. Mention that you have addressed all reviewer comments in the attached point-by-point response, as this letter serves as a concise introduction to your revised submission.
Finally, confirm that you have included all the required documents for resubmission. This includes:
- The cover letter
- The detailed response to reviewers
- A clean version of the revised manuscript
- A version with changes tracked
Providing both a clean and tracked-changes version of the manuscript can be beneficial. Ensuring all components are present and correctly formatted demonstrates your attention to detail.