After submitting a well-written research paper to your chosen journal, it is highly likely that you will have to wait anxiously for weeks or even months before receiving the journal editor’s decision on the paper. The journal’s decision and the peer review’s recommendations are not difficult to deal with if you are prepared to deal with them effectively. Tips for Answering Peer Review As an author, you may dread receiving suggestions from peer reviewers asking you to make major revisions. Reworking a paper that took a lot of effort to write is indeed intimidating. But don’t give up. In most cases, the end result of publication is worth the effort. Here are some ways on how to answer review suggestions: ● Take a break: it is natural to be irritated at first. Take a break and then re-read the review proposal carefully and objectively to make sure you fully understand the reviewer’s point of view. ● Respond line by line: Number the reviewer’s suggestions and respond to them in order. Use headings such as “Reviewer 1” followed by “Recommendation 1”. It is important to ensure that all points raised by the peer reviewer or journal editor are answered. Provide evidence of good reasoning: if you disagree with the reviewer’s recommendation, you should answer it honestly. However, it is important not to simply state that you have a different opinion. As much detailed information as necessary should be provided to help the reviewer understand your argument. If possible, cite published research to support your argument. ● Attention to detail: detail is important when describing how you approach various proposals. For example, if the reviewer feels that you need to add/reinterpret data, you can elaborate on the trials you have engaged in and the results you have obtained, and explain where you have added this information. You should be very thoughtful and may even paste specific sentences that you have added or changed in your paper based on the reviewer’s suggestions, as this saves the editor/reviewer the trouble of alternating between papers. ● Watch your tone: remember that the reviewer is commenting on your paper, not you. Your responses should not reflect a sense of complaint. If you disagree with some of the suggestions, you should present them honestly and with humility, and use sound scientific explanations to support your points, citing references as arguments if possible. ● Acknowledge the work of peer reviewers: peer reviewers invest their own time in reviewing your paper without any compensation. In most cases, the purpose of their review is to help authors improve their own research. Their suggestions should be fully utilized. In fact, a long and detailed list of review recommendations usually means that the reviewers have spent a lot of time to evaluate your research and provide constructive feedback suggestions. It is important to show appreciation for the reviewer’s advice and dedication. Is peer review always the right thing to do? Peer reviewers are basically experts in their fields. However, this does not mean that their recommendations should be taken as truth. Evaluate the merits of each reviewer’s recommendation. You should not agree with a reviewer’s recommendation just for the sake of agreeing, or because you hold a one-sided view that the journal editor wants to accept all of the reviewer’s recommendations. In fact, it is your research and reputation that will ultimately make the difference. You may also receive conflicting feedback from reviewers. One reviewer may be happy with the research methodology, while another may find it inappropriate. Nuances of opinion are natural, but such diametrically opposed views can be confusing. Identify which reviewer you agree with more and follow their advice, and provide the editor with the basis for your decision. Alternatively, you can ask the journal editor to provide you with a third-party perspective. In the end, the journal editor must decide how to resolve the conflict. Providing well-reasoned arguments can be decisive in helping your paper get published. Handling requests for major revisions ● Reducing the word count: Sometimes, your paper may be accepted for publication, but the journal editor asks you to reduce your paper, e.g., by one-third. This seemingly unreasonable request is usually quite normal, as journal editors are often faced with a lack of space when they need to publish a high-quality paper quickly. You certainly have no choice but to fulfill such requests. ● Requests for additional data or text: Reviewers may suggest that you make all kinds of changes, from tweaking individual sentences to making entire paragraph changes. Sometimes, you may be asked to provide a large amount of data or add multiple pages of text. If the suggested changes are within the scope of the paper and you agree with them, you will first need to consult with the journal editor to determine whether data and text additions can be made due to space constraints. Conclusion Suggestions from peer reviewers are often an excellent opportunity to improve the quality of your paper. Handled correctly, these suggestions will at least improve the chances of the paper being published in other journals, even if the journal does not publish it.