Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ARTICLE
Responding to Reviewers: Guidelines and Advice
Aksel Sundström
University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Email: aksel.sundstrom@pol.gu.se
(Received 14 January 2023; revised 10 February 2023; accepted 27 February 2023)
Responding to those who have read and critiqued your work, such as editors and
reviewers, is a central part of academic exchange. To be able to explain and
defend the choices you have made in a response letter is also a key skill that takes
time to develop. It is my hope that this essay will help you reflect on the process
of writing these responses and provide some useful tips toward getting pub-
lished.
Apart from a “desk reject,”which means that a paper has not been reviewed,
there are generally four verdicts on a paper submission: “reject,”“major
revision,”“minor revision,”and “accept.”The decision of acceptance is often
“conditional”and generally is only given after one or more rounds of reviews.
Both major and minor revisions mean an “R&R,”the common lingo for the
opportunity to “revise and resubmit”your manuscript. Receiving an R&R is
therefore a real achievement, as it is the first step toward a peer-reviewed
output.
These decisions, communicated by email, will generally be accompanied by
an introduction by the editor and reports from two or more reviewers. These
verdicts invoke in most of us mixed feelings of hope and dread or anticipation
and anxiety (see Shaw 2012). Often, these reports appear daunting at first
sight. They may ask for things that are contradictory or even challenge your
intent with the work. It is important to digest the feedback carefully and
return to the content many times while revising the paper. Changing your
manuscript to meet these reviews is a long process that can be perceived as
equally difficult (and time-consuming) as writing the first draft of the actual
article.
Besides the delicate process of actually altering your work, you need to
document to reviewers and editors what you have done. Inability to respond
to these comments might get the paper rejected. There are myriad guides on how
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Women, Gender, and Politics
Research Section of the American Political Science Association. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits
unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Politics & Gender (2023), 1–6
doi:10.1017/S1743923X23000168
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X23000168 Published online by Cambridge University Press
to respond to reviewers. This short essay aims to consolidate this plethora of
advice and present my own take on this process.
Editors have observed that there are often deficiencies in how prospective
authors answer reviews. For example, Nahata and Sorkin (2019) summarize six
flaws in authors’responses: (1) ignoring or incompletely addressing comments,
(2) not being specific about what exactly was changed in the manuscript, (3) not
knowing how to address differing suggestions, (4) providing inadequate evidence
as justification for not making changes, (5) expressing frustration or impatience
with the process or reviewers, and (6) not clearly explaining why and how the
revised manuscript makes a contribution.
Hopefully, my advice will help early career researchers avoid some of these
pitfalls by prompting you to think of how to improve response letters. As noted
by Woolston (2015), as well as other authors in this Critical Perspectives section,
responding to editors and reviewers is a skill that is seldom a part of formalized
training in graduate schools. The process is partly generic to academic writing,
and therefore it is potentially useful for aspiring scientists across disciplines.
Assessing the Verdict
Think of the decision letter as consisting of two parts: (1) the editor’s comment or
summary of what they are asking you to focus on in your revisions and (2) the
reviewer reports. My suggestion is to spend time on the editor’s comments and
the way they frame what you are asked to do. That is, pay special attention to
what the editor says. If they weigh in, their comments should shape the direction
of your revisions. The editor is, in the end, the person who will decide whether
your manuscript moves forward, and the few lines that are given should be seen
as very valuable information. If you think the review reports are too contradict-
ory, I suggest you email the editor to ask for advice. This question must be
informative (recall that these people will not remember every detail of your
manuscript), and they must be to the point (they are also extremely busy). (See
Franceschet, Krook, and Wolbrecht 2023 for more information on the editorial
process.)
Mindset When Revising: Open and Constructive
Several guides on this theme agree that adopting a certain attitude will help you
when revising. Often, you may initially perceive comments to be incomprehen-
sible or provoking, but find them less so the next morning. Shaw (2012) recom-
mends a “cooling off period”of a few days to get some distance from these
reports.
I think an essential approach is to be open to altering your work and to see this
as a process of academic exchange. A particularly good exercise is to reread your
manuscript in light of the comments, to try to see the reviewers’points from
their perspective (see Morse 1996). A general point in guides on this theme is that
an author should try to recall that reviewers do their best to improve your text.
Most reviewers mean well, and in fact, they have devoted time they could have
2 Aksel Sundström
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X23000168 Published online by Cambridge University Press
spent on other tasks to help colleagues in the discipline. A general insight is that
“in most cases, the reviewers are trying to help the author improve the manu-
script, and the comments should be taken as helpful recommendations for
making it a stronger and more meaningful article”(Robbins et al. 2016, 253).
A similar insight that I think is useful to bear in mind as an author is that these
reviewers might be right, after all. While that could mean you are wrong, often
this is about tweaking your work toward this new perspective. And if you still
think the reviewers are not right, chances are that they will still be represen-
tative of others who will read your text in the same way. As stated by Nahata and
Sorkin (2019, 959), “some readers of the journal may misinterpret the content of
the paper in similar ways if it is not revised or clarified as suggested by the
reviewers.”Hence, use these reviews as an indication of whether the audience
understands your argument.
The more challenging situation arises when you are asked to make changes
you do not agree with. Most academics can understand why this creates con-
flicting feelings (see Mikal 2021). In guides on this theme, the strategies for
addressing such suggestions seem to differ. On one end of the spectrum, authors
such as Guyatt and Haynes (2006, 905) recommend a strategy of always pleasing
the reviewer: “Go along with it. It’s seldom worth fighting with the reviewer. We
happily make changes that we do not believe improve a paper.”On the other end
is the perspective that you should stick to your original idea, that “you don’t have
to make changes you firmly believe would detract from the purpose of the
manuscript”(Robbins et al. 2016, 253). You will have to find your own way to
strike this balance.
It Is Fine to (Subtly) Disagree
When you approach reviews, you might find that there are situations in which
the reviewer is impossible to satisfy. In the end, you might need to communicate
that some points were left as they were for one or another reason. In this case, it
is generally much better to be constructive (see Woolston 2015) and to explain
why you chose not to make a suggested change. You can oppose reviewers, but, as
Linton (2019, 2) notes, “when you find you need to disagree do so diplomatically
and skillfully.”Even if you receive language from a reviewer that goes beyond
disagreement to offensive, do not use language that is unfitting. Instead, contact
the editor if you think there are problems with the tone of the reviewer. As Noble
(2017) notes, a rude review does not justify a rude response.
How to Use the Response Letter/Memo
The review reports require that you write a separate document in which you
outline how you incorporated suggestions and identify specifically in the manu-
script where—and how—you inserted each change. Personally, I use this docu-
ment as a “to-do-list”that I write while revising the manuscript. This is a process
of several steps. First, I create an empty master file, where I more or less paste the
full review reports, which I then start to distill. Second, I craft these points into
Politics & Gender 3
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X23000168 Published online by Cambridge University Press
bullets that are action points for me in revising the manuscript. Third, I turn
these bullets into things that I have done as I proceed with the revision. Thus, the
to-do list turns into a have-done list (with specific references to things altered in
the manuscript) that I use in the response letter.
Remember to always go back to the original comments in the decision letter
when you are done, to reflect on whether your response is ready for resubmis-
sion. You should make sure to respond to all the comments in the review,
including those where you decided to refrain from implementing a suggested
change. This is important, as failing to address some comments (making the
reviewer feel that not all points in the review were addressed) is sometimes a
cause of rejection (Linton 2019). A crucial mistake that Linton (2019) discusses is
to say that “you took care of everything”without providing detailed evidence, as
very few editors or reviewers will appreciate a vague and unrealistic response.
Remember that reviewers will forget the details of your manuscript and, indeed,
their own comments. So be very specific in discussing which comment you
received and on which section.
What the Response Letter/Memo Should Look Like
A general feature of the response letter is that they can be lengthy. In fact, it can
be longer than your manuscript, though some journals restrict its length. A
response letter is also anonymous. It normally has an introductory heading that
is addressed to the editor and includes the title of the manuscript.
The letter should consist of three parts. First, the author appropriately thanks
the editor and the reviewers for their time and helpful comments. Next, the
author gives a high-level response to the main concerns about the paper and how
these have been addressed (try to summarize the changes made in a few
descriptive sentences). The second part is where the actual, detailed response
is outlined. This is the main content of this letter. Finally, the author signs the
rebuttal on behalf of the coauthors.
When you outline the complete set of changes you have done, there are a
couple of ways to structure your response. While some prefer to present the
comment and then a response (Guyatt and Haynes 2006), others argue that it is
more efficient to simply state what you have changed. You can think of three
types of letters here, in terms of details: (1) the “cut and paste of comments,”
where the full comment is met by your response (creating lengthy letters);
(2) the “point-by-point summary,”where you condense the comment by a
reviewer with your own words, followed by your response (with the risk that
reviewers might feel your summary is inaccurate or dodging the most difficult
aspects); and (3) the “editor-only”style, where you refer broadly to points from
reviewers and focus more on your response (potentially resulting in a response
letter that is overly broad and lacking in specificity).
Another choice is the structure. You could either follow your manuscript’s
chronological order and mention thematically the comments from each
reviewer on a given section (e.g., the suggestions they had for your methods
section and how you addressed them). A second approach is to first address one
4 Aksel Sundström
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X23000168 Published online by Cambridge University Press
of the reviewer’s full list of views from A to Z and then the second reviewer’s.
Regardless, I suggest you start with bigger and crucial points and move to the
smaller things at the end of the letter, as this mirrors the way that review reports
are often structured. While these letters do not have to be beautifully written,
they need to be direct and clear. Try to diversify your language, using different
versions of the following comment: “We are thankful for this comment that
reviewer 2 posed and we addressed it in the following way…”
You could end the letter by declaring that you have not exceeded the size limit
and that you hope the text is now suitable for publication. Many letters will also
include supporting code or tables if this is information not included in the
appendices of the manuscript.
Concluding Remarks
The process of revising your work is tough, and I want to remind you that a
response letter is that place to communicate how much effort you spent on the
revision. As should be clear, I recommend that you think of this letter as a
companion to your revised manuscript and one that you should spend concen-
trated effort and time on. Do try to see these reviews as an opportunity to get
valuable feedback from peers. And see your rebuttal as a chance to fine-tune your
“sell,”explaining why your work is novel and rigorous. You will soon find your
own voice when mastering these types of letters, which are an important part of
our profession of academic exchange.
Acknowledgments. The author’s work is funded by the Swedish Research Council (grant no. 2019-
03218).
References
Franceschet, Susan, Mona Lena Krook, and Christina Wolbrecht. 2023. “Submitting to Politics & Gender:
Advice from the Editors.”Politics & Gender. DOI: 10.1017/S1743923X23000193.
Guyatt, Gordon H., and R. Brian Haynes. 2006. “Preparing Reports for Publication and Responding to
Reviewers’Comments.”Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59 (9): 900–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclinepi.2006.05.004.
Linton, Jonathan D. 2019. “Responding to Reviewers.”Technovation 86–87: 1–2. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.technovation.2019.06.002.
Mikal, Jude. 2021. “How to Revise and Resubmit without Losing Your Voice.”Inside Higher Ed, January
12. https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2021/01/12/advice-remaining-true-your-intent-
when-revising-and-resubmitting-manuscripts (accessed April 5, 2023).
Morse, Janice. M. 1996. “Revise and Resubmit: Responding to Reviewers’Reports.”Qualitative Health
Research 6 (2): 149–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600201
Nahata, Milap C., and Eugene M. Sorkin. 2019. “Responding to Manuscript Reviewer and Editor
Comments.”Annals of Pharmacotherapy 53 (9): 959–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239600600201.
Noble, William S. 2017. “Ten Simple Rules for Writing a Response to Reviewers.”PLoS Computational
Biology 13 (10): e1005730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730.
Robbins, Susan P., Sondra J. Fogel, Hugh McLaughlin, Elizabeth C. Pomeroy, Noel Busch-Armendariz,
and Karen M. Staller. 2016. “From the Editor—Publish, Don’t Perish! Strategies for Getting
Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals.”Journal of Social Work Education 52 (3): 251–57. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2016.1182399.
Politics & Gender 5
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X23000168 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Shaw, Jason D. 2012. “Responding to Reviewers.”Academy of Management Journal 55 (6): 1261–63.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.4006.
Woolston, Chris. 2015. “Scientists Offer Advice on How Best to Respond to Reviewers.”Nature 522: 9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/522009f.
Aksel Sundström is Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Government at the
University of Gothenburg: aksel.sundstrom@pol.gu.se
Cite this article: Sundström, Aksel. 2023. “Responding to Reviewers: Guidelines and Advice.”Politics &
Gender 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X23000168
6 Aksel Sundström
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X23000168 Published online by Cambridge University Press
