One of my brilliant PhD students had his first experience of responding to reviewers comments last week, and as we sat and talked it through I thought that it might actually be a useful topic to write a blog about. Now, Sam was responding to reviewers comments on a review, but I think a lot of the principles stand no matter the response is linked to. I feel the same way about responding to comments and reviews on any piece of work I’ve poured my heart and soul into, be that manuscripts, grants, a piece of guidance, a policy or a business case, or my current horror – book submission. It might be that I need to remind myself of this advice as much as I wanted to share it with you 🤣.

Getting the opportunity to respond to reviewers is a success in itself

No matter how rough it feels in the moment when you first open the email/attachment and read all those comments where the reviewers have blatantly failed to read your carefully crafted wording in the way it was intended remember this. Being able to respond to reviewers is itself worthy of celebration. It means you haven’t got a full on NO. It means that the people see there is value in what you have done, even if they believe that it could be improved with some tweaking. Anything that isn’t a rejection is worthy of allowing yourself a mini celebration, chocolate bar, glass of wine, cup of tea, before you tackle the trauma of starting to make the changes.

Put on your positive specs

Whilst I drink my celebratory cup of tea I always take a moment to remind myself that this is actually an opportunity, an opportunity to make something I care about better than it would be without this process, that it’s an opportunity for improvement, and that this opportunity is something to be seized and embraced. Who doesn’t want to deliver the best thing they possibly can?

Always be polite

Now, it can also be said that sometimes recognising that opportunity for improvement can be challenging. Sometimes, those responding can have missed something that you clearly stated in both paragraphs X and Y. The thing is, they won’t have spent hours and hours reading your writing, and they are unlikely to have come to know it in the exquisite detail that you do. I tell you this as the person who blocks out only an hour to review your precious creation as that is all my diary allows. The thing is, most reviewers are doing it for the good of the community/trust/committee. They are, in essence, doing us all a favour. Therefore, when responding to what they have said its important to recognise that, and always always be polite in your response that you write. You are a professional after all.

The moral high ground gives combat bonuses

I have, on occasion, seen reviewers’ comments that shouldn’t have gotten by the editor or panel. Comments that could be considered racist or sexist, or to be honest, blatantly are. I’ve also seen responses where editors return those comments and just added a comment of their own to say ignore them and don’t respond in the review. This later one is interesting to me, I feel editors shouldn’t return these comments and should really respond to the submitter to say they are not acceptable.  When responding to these, I think it’s even more important to respond with grace. I separate out the science and deliberately respond to these with my science head. I then flag and escalate the rest of it, as if it’s a completely separate incident.

Don’t respond immediately

This is my top tip, my one thing if you only take one thing from this blog post. Never ever respond immediately. Open the email, read it once, maybe twice, to really ascertain what’s been said and see the response deadline, then close it and walk away. Nothing good ever comes from responding in the moment. I personally have a 48 hour rule. I will leave that email closed for at least 48 hours before I open it again, during which time I will drink that celebratory cup of tea and try not to dwell. After 48 hours, I’m allowed to re-open and read it again. If at that point I can read it without an overt emotional response I’m ready to respond. If not, I will give it another 48 hours. Almost always, after 48 hours, I open it and it’s nowhere near as bad as I had originally perceived with my emotional goggles on and I can just get on with a response.

Bite the bullet and get on with it

I know, I know. I just told you you need space to switch from emotional to logical response and to read what’s there in an analytical way, but you also can’t wait too long to respond. This is for a number of reasons. One, there will be a deadline for you to accept or reject what you’ve been asked to do, and you have already invested a LOT of time to get to this point. Two, you want to draft your response when the original submission is still relatively fresh in your mind as it helps with rebuttals and references. Finally, if you need more than two 48 hour breaks to get your head in the right space it’s likely that this is feeding into something bigger and you probably need to find a coping mechanism and to start processing what that is, and responding is a good way to start unpicking and reflecting on what’s driving how you feel.

Decide on the structure of your response

You’ve finally got to the point where you are going to sit down and start drafting your response.  There are lots of ways that you can do this, everyone is different, but in case you haven’t had the opportunity before, I thought I’d share how I do it in case it helps.

There are two main pieces that I would work on in parallel, the response to reviewers document and the in-text changes.

Response to reviewers:

• I do this in Word and always have my paper title as the header.
• I open with a paragraph where I thank my reviewers for their helpful comments (whether you truly feel it or not, this goes back to always being polite, but in all honesty there’s usually a lot of good to be thankful for)
• I then break my responses down by reviewer, so I will have a section headed reviewer 1, another headed reviewer 2 etc, also a general one for the editors comments if there are any
• Within each section for each reviewer, I will copy and paste over the comments I have received. I then break down these comments. Some reviewers give you a lovely bullet pointed list, sometimes with line numbers, and so this is easy. Some will give you paragraphs of text where you then have to extract each point and effectively make a bullet pointed list out of it.
  • At this stage, I tend to remove commentary, things where they is no change requested. This gives me a working list to work from, and I will colour code this text so it stands out from my responses, which I will write under each bullet point. I tend to make the reviewers comments red, I don’t know why I just do. Then, when I start writing my responses, I do these in black.
  • You can also, at this point, identify whether several reviewers have given similar comments, and then you can cluster those changes.

It’s only really at this point that I can see the wood for the trees, and generally, it’s much less bad than I had initially thought.

In-text changes:

This one is pretty straight forward. You may not have this if you are responding to a business case or grant review as they will want all the information contained in the response document. This additional document is mainly for manuscripts and contains the changes that you make in response to the review in your original paper. I tend to highlight changes to the text in yellow and then make sure I cross reference back in my response to reviewers with line numbers, as well as any commentary, so they are easy to find. The main thing to remember here is, once you’ve completed your response, save off a ‘clean’ copy without the highlights as well as the highlighted version as some places will want you to upload both.

Read what is there not what you think is there

So, the above information is about how you prepare to respond, but how do you actually respond? The first thing, and I think this is key, is to read what they have actually said, not what you think they have said. This is where I find splitting the points to be addressed up really helps, as it enables you to read them in a different way.

Common features that reviewers want added/addressed include:

• addition of references
• spelling mistakes
• improvements in unclear sentence structure
• other nuance changes

For all of these the action is fairly straight forward, you just make the changes within the original document and write a comment in your response to reviewers stating ‘changed in text – line XX and YY’. If you get similar comments from more than one reviewer, I would address them in the order in which they occur. So reviewer 1 has a similar comment to reviewer 3, I’d respond in the reviewer 1 section and in the reviewer 3 section state, for instance, ‘already addressed under reviewer 1 in line XX’.

Decide where you line is

It’s actually quite lovely if you just get quick responses as described above, sometimes however the comments require a little more. Sometimes the reviewers will want new points addressed, or occasionally fresh data included. At this point you need to decide how much the paper in it’s current format is important to you to maintain. This has happened to me a few times. Normally the additional points made actually really strengthen the paper and I am more than happy to spend the few extra hours to add in, especially as they tend to be points I already had in drafts but was forced to lose due to word count. There have however been occasions where I disagreed with the reviewer on either the fact that certain points should be included or the way they had suggested that they be done. On these occasions you are entitled, and I have done, to include commentary under the reviewers’ comment where you state why you don’t feel that it would be a suitable edit. You will need to be polite and clear, and ideally evidence, why you don’t agree. The decision will then lie with the editor as to whether they agree or not.

Get a second opinion

Once you’ve completed your response, or earlier if you are deciding to rebut points, it’s valuable to get a second opinion. You should send your response documents to your other authors for sign off, but if you are a sole author you should still find someone to sense check. This process is important, both to help ensure that you have actually addressed all the points raised, but also to help ensure that your arguments are robust where needed. I have been on papers where the first author has returned the response to reviewers without showing it to the other authors, and on reading it I have seen the response hasn’t fully addressed the reviewers which has then led to another round delaying paper submission. Some papers have loads of authors and you, with their support, may not need all of them to comment, but they should have sight prior to submission and at least the 1st and senior authors should have fully reviewed.

Learn lessons for when you are reviewing in the future

My final point is that this is a great learning opportunity, not just on the subject matter, but on what and what not to do when you are reviewing papers, grants etc. I always try to review and write comments in a way that is clear and actionable for those receiving the comments, in a way that I would like to receive them if the submission was mine. I also think it is so important to consider what should and should not be included in your review. Most journals, for instance, want to know whether the level of writing is good enough for publication but I would never cross the line into making comments about the English skills of the authors, I personally don’t feel that’s appropriate, for me, I’m there to comment on the science. It’s crucial to consider what it constructive and what is not as part of this process. When writing a review it is so important to think ‘is it helpful?’ ‘is it kind?’.

I hope all of this helps you when you are thinking about the best way to take onboard comments as they come in. I would also plea that you aim to see them as an opportunity to improve and learn rather than something that puts you into a spiral and causes you distress. Just getting the opportunity to respond is a success after all!

All opinions in this blog are my own