Guide / Writing

How to respond to reviewers

You receive the review comments, and among them is the famous Reviewer 2: the one who seems to have read a different paper, who asks for the impossible, who crushes your morale. The relationship you have with that figure largely decides whether your work gets published or stays in a drawer. Here is how to change it.

This is the essentials, the framework I use, not a treatise. Just enough to start well and not waste time. The detail of your own case is what we work through in mentoring.

Reviewer 2 and your inner voice

We all carry a voice that doubts us, impostor syndrome: “I will not be able to, this is too big for me”. Reviewer 2 is that voice made flesh, coming from outside. That is why their comments hurt so much: they do not attack only the paper, they seem to confirm what you already tell yourself. The first step is to separate the two things. Criticism of the manuscript is not criticism of your worth.

Make the reviewer your ally, not your enemy

The mindset shift that pays the most: the reviewer is not your adversary, they are an expert reader giving you, for free, a second opinion on your work before it goes out into the world. Even if their tone is harsh, there is almost always a valid point underneath. Your task is not to win the argument, it is to use their comments to make the final paper better.

The method for responding

1. Let it sit. Do not reply in the heat of the moment the day you get the review. Anger shows in the letter and plays against you.
2. Respond to everything, point by point. A response letter where you copy each comment and put your reply underneath. Do not leave any unanswered, not even the uncomfortable ones.
3. Thank them, even if it costs you. Start by acknowledging the reviewer’s time. It predisposes the editor well, and the editor is the one who decides.
4. When they are right, concede and improve. Change the text and say it clearly: “following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have…”.
5. When they are not, disagree with data, not ego. Argue with evidence and courtesy why you hold your position. Disagreeing well is legitimate and the editor respects it.