The document discusses the peer review process, highlighting its historical context, functions, and inherent drawbacks such as biases and delays. It provides a step-by-step guide on how to effectively respond to reviewer feedback, emphasizing the importance of addressing all comments, communicating changes clearly, and maintaining professionalism. Key takeaways include the need for thorough revisions, polite interactions with reviewers, and the significance of producing an improved manuscript after review.

1. Surviving Journal Reviewer Feedback
Rosdiadee Nordin
Centre of Advanced Electronic & Communication Engineering
Faculty of Engineering & Built Environment
: adee@ukm.edu.my
: https://sites.google.com/site/rosdiadee/
: http://my.linkedin.com/pub/rosdiadee-nordin
__________________________
Pusat Kejuruteraan Elektronik &
Komunikasi Terkehadapan

2. Before Peer Review
• … editor made decisions without seeking outside input
• … until 1665, Henry Oldenburg ‘invented’ the academic peer review
for ‘Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society’
• Current peer review system has been systematically established since
WWII
• The peer review system is very old & doesn’t see much changes

3. Need for Peer Review
• The heart of scientific publication & critical phase
• Publish or perish – career, academic promoted & won a Nobel prize!
• Peer review reports serve two main functions:
• to inform editor whether work is novel, significant & suitable for publication
• to inform authors on errors, means of improving their manuscript

4. Drawbacks of Peer Review
• In 1976, editor of ‘Philosophical Transactions’ rejected manuscript
from Edward Jenner on first vaccination
• Failure to identify novel work
• Suffer from intellectual suppression:
• ‘Rich get richer’
• Strong bias against negative studies
• Bias on nationality, gender, language & specialty

5. Drawbacks of Peer Review
• Reviewer is busy & demotivated person
• Results in publication delay
• However recently emerge few incentives to boost motivation
• Free subscription, acknowledgement & discount for publication charge

6. Peer Review Process
Editor’s Decision
Accept without revision
Ask for minor revision (likely acceptance)
Request major revision (likely re-review)
Rejection

7. Reviewer is a Very Honest Person…
“Since you submitted the paper to a scientific journal: where is the
science?”
“I am not sure why there is a full section about limitations, this in itself
says a lot about the study”
"I’ve never read anything like it & I do not mean it as a compliment”
“Words are used inappropriately – I count, for example, 13 instances of
'unique', but it is used correctly only once”

8. Need for Peer Review
• Reviewers give recommendations
• Ultimately, editor makes the decision
• Respond to reviewers' comments is a tricky deal
• Get it right –published!
• Get it wrong –rejection!
• Require some ‘art’, negotiation & communication skill!

9. How to Respond to Reviewers?
Digest the
reviews
Revise the
manuscript
Communicate
revisions to editor

10. Step 1: Digesting the Reviews
• Read the reviews ONCE, and then file them in a SAFE location
• Don’t think about the reviews for few hours/days/week*
• Instead, do fun things like watch movie, sports, holiday, etc**
• Read the reviews again
• Discuss the reviews with your co-authors
• Create plan-of-ATTACK!
*No specific quantity for this…
**Practice with caution

11. Step 2: Revising your paper
• Address ALL comments
• You can’t pick which comments to address
• Even minor comments need to be addressed
• Address does not always mean change
• You and co-authors should decide what to change, and what to defend
• Often, changing is the easiest route
• Always change errors in references
• Skilled reviewers know the history better than newer authors
• You don’t want to get off on the wrong foot with experts in the field by not
citing the correct papers!

12. Step 2: Revising your paper
• Change does not always mean revamp
• Easy changes include:
• Rewording
• Adding extra references
• Adding an extra paragraph, table, figure
• Adding an appendix
• Difficult changes include:
• Modifying your central hypothesis
• Modifying your main algorithm
• Redoing an experiment
• Start with easy or difficult changes?

13. Step 2: Revising your paper
• Change parts which yielded “I didn’t understand”
• If the reviewer didn’t understand it, the readers might not either
• “I didn’t understand” is a polite way of saying “you didn’t explain clearly
enough”
• Even if:
• Requested change unnecessary
• Text is clear (the reviewer simply missed it)
• It is better to revise
• Goal is to tell the reviewer that they were listened to and understood

14. Step 2: Revising your paper
• Do not pit one reviewer against another!
• Reviewer from different background
• Different view, opinion and expertise – helpful to the editor
• If there’s a conflict, choose one that will improve the paper

15. Step 2: Revising your paper
• Always change parts which have been mentioned by many reviewers
• If two or more reviewers make similar comments, the readers will likely have
the same comments
• Repeated comments stand out to the editor
• It’s OK if you don’t agree with your reviewer

16. Step 3: Communicate with Editor/Reviewers
• Letter to the editor & reviewers
• Provide overview & detail of amendment
• Summary of changes/defences
• Write this first/last
• Short & sweet

17. Step 3: Communicate with Editor/Reviewers
• To help the reviewer navigate your response
• Use changes of font, color, or indenting to discriminate between 3
different elements:
• The review itself
• Your responses to the review
• Changes made to the manuscript
• Make use of track changes & comment box

18. Step 3: Communicate with Editor/Reviewers
• Make a dialogue-type list of comments and responses
• For changes: Indicate location (page, paragraph & line numbers)

19. Polite & Respectful
• Even if the reviewer lacks intellectual capacity, please refrain from
conveying this impression to them
• Imagine if you see him in person
• If the reviewer not the expert, but this level of expertise (or lack
thereof) may be representative of journal readers
• Make the work clear and accessible to all readers, not just experts
• Thank the reviewer abundantly
• but don’t overdo

20. Polite & Respectful
• Do not use AGGRESSIVE or defensive tone
• Example 1:
• What you want to say: That experiment would take forever!
• What you should say: The suggested experiment is interesting and would
provide additional information about..., but we feel that it falls outside the
scope of this study
• Example 2:
• What you want to say: You just didn’t understand what we wrote!
• What you should say: Several statements that we made were more
ambiguous than intended, and we have adjusted the text to be clearer

21. Make the Response Self-Explanatory
• Quote changes directly in the response letter
• Refer to specific line number where changes applied
• A self-explanatory response letter makes it easier for the
editor/reviewer to understand changes
• No need to go back & forth between manuscript & letter
• Reduce chances editor/reviewer to read full manuscript (or find new
things to complain)
• Editor can make quick decision!
• Only exception is when the modification is large (addition of new
paragraphs, graphs, methodology)

22. Respond to Every Point
• Often, reviews will be organized into bullet points
• But reviewer may raise two (or more) separate issues within 1 bullet
• Be sure to respond explicitly to all critiques

23. Begin Response with Direct Answer
• Begin your response to each comment with a direct answer to the
point being raised
• Provide a “yes” or “no” answer
• When the reviewer is correct, state so in your response

24. Write the Response Twice (At Least!)
• Initial document can be incomplete/inaccurate to address concern
• It can also be a place to vent your frustration!
• Once the initial draft finish, or after several days/weeks later...
• You become rational!
• Eventually, you will write what the reviewers want to see
• You can also write a separate letter to the editor
• Address issues such as potential conflicts of interest, reviewers' requests
conflict with one another or with journal policies

25. Top 10 Rules
• Rule 1: Provide an overview, then quote the full set of reviews
• Rule 2: Be polite and respectful of all reviewers
• Rule 3: Accept the blame
• Rule 4: Make the response self-explanatory
• Rule 5: Respond to every point raised by the reviewer
• Rule 6: Use typography to help the reviewer navigate your response
• Rule 7: Begin response to each comment with direct answer
• Rule 8: When possible, do what the reviewer asks
• Rule 9: Be clear about what changed relative to the previous version
• Rule 10: Write the response twice

26. Recap
• When digesting reviews:
• Try not to take things personally
• Expect at least one harsh reviewer
• When revise the paper:
• Divide and conquer (do difficult changes first)
• When addressing the editor/reviewers
• Communicate your changes, making an extra effort to be professional and
thankful
• You can disagree, as long as you explain

27. Key Takeaway
• Process of responding to reviewer is the stressful part of publication
• But, reviewers volunteering their time to ensure validity of results and
quality in our research area
• Manuscript after review process is an improvement from the original

28. Thank You!
Q&A