Take the Stress Out of Responding to Peer Reviews of Your Manuscript

Tia Stitt
PharmD, PGY-2 Oncology Pharmacy Resident
Augusta University Medical Center
University of Georgia College of Pharmacy
Augusta, Georgia

You have submitted your manuscript and finally received the long-awaited response from the editorial staff... only to find that you have more work to do! Don’t worry; nearly all manuscripts require at least some, if not substantial, revisions before they are accepted for publication. So, how do you successfully navigate this scenario? I hope this article supplies you with helpful tips and tricks based on my own and recent personal experience of responding to reviewers’ feedback.

Real-Life Experience Navigating Peer Reviews

My Post-Graduate Year 1 (PGY1) Residency project manuscript was rejected by the first journal I approached for publication. The next journal I approached for publication did not reject it, but they did respond with many suggested revisions. When I received comments from peer reviewers, addressing them all in a timely and complete manner seemed like a daunting task. I was aware the responses I provided would have a major impact on the final acceptance or rejection of my manuscript, which made the process even more intimidating.

The peer review process is simply constructive criticism present­ed in a way that many are not accustomed to, especially pharmacy residents attempting to publish their first manuscript. Importantly, viewing the experience as a learning opportunity, and even free mentoring, can decrease your anxiety throughout the process. A few highlights from my recent experience responding to peer reviewer comments include:

Formatting

The first step is to use a standard format, such as a formal letter, which includes an introductory paragraph thanking the reviewers and denoting how changes can be seen (e.g., track changes, journal’s online system, etc.) followed by your responses.

• Don’t make more work for yourself! You can copy each reviewer’s comments and suggestions, then bullet your response below each comment/suggestion.
• Remember to cite the manuscript page(s) and line number(s) at the start of each response to aid the reviewers in finding your response.
• Regarding references, try to avoid formatting issues. If the journal requires you to use track changes, turn this setting off while making changes in auto-referencing (i.e. EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley, etc.) If not, you may run the risk of issues arising in the formatting of your document. Denote these reference changes in your response letter and via the track changes comment function in the manuscript so the reviewers can still follow.

Timeline
Most journals will specify a turnaround time to respond to com­ments. If the journal does not specify, give yourself a turnaround time of no more than 3-4 weeks as some journals may not accept re­sponses after that time. If you require additional time, correspond with the editorial team upfront (generally via their online portal “email” function, including your manuscript number).

Once you have determined the final date, set mini deadlines for yourself and be sure to include co-authors to allow ample time for their responses. Send all co-authors the entire reviewer comment list, ideally denoting if a specific co-author should focus on an item in particular (e.g., biostatistician may be tasked to respond to a question on methodology). Some comments may take more time than others to address, and keep in mind that your co-authors are not on the same schedule as you. Peer review can be a disrupting added workload for everyone involved, so do not get frustrated if some cannot respond by your mini deadlines! Reminder emails or deadline appointments on calendars can be helpful to keep every­one on track.

How to Respond
Determining how to respond can seem overwhelming at first, espe­cially if the reviewers leave many points that need to be addressed in the manuscript. When planning your responses be direct, clear, and concise. If you need to insert statements into your manu­script, there is no need to copy the entire new statement into your response letter. To keep it brief, you can cite the page and lines for that addition. Be respectful in how you respond to the review­ers, but this does not mean that you always have to agree with or change something based on their comments. If this is the case, you MUST justify why you did not agree or chose not to make the change.

How can you politely say no? Here are few examples:

• You no longer have access to the data set or a specific variable ➔ Say “data unavailable, unable to provide requested additional analysis.” Consider adding a statement in your limitations on this item, if appropriate, and denoting this in your reply to the reviewer.
• Reviewer asked for something already there ➔ Nicely denote the page and line of its location.
• Reviewer misinterprets and asks for change ➔ Nicely denote why error and location of correct information.
• Reviewer asks for a change which contradicts journal format­ting ➔ Denote this discrepancy, decline to change but offer to editorial staff to do so if they agree with reviewer’s comment.
• Reviewer makes a comment, but does not ask for a change ➔ Depending on comment, response can be to add to manuscript to address the item (e.g., a limitation comment in discussion) or simply reply to reviewer and ask if a change is recommended, denoting you are willing to make the change, but are unclear about the suggestion. Editors can reach back to the reviewer for clarification if warranted.

Find Your Process
Overall, establishing a set process will ensure consistency and ease of review throughout your career. If you are stuck or not sure where to begin, start by addressing the easy items first. This can help get your process flowing, provide a sense of accomplishment, and allow you time to figure out how to address other areas without getting behind overall. As you start reaching the more difficult comments, be sure to address any items that are requested outside the main manuscript file (e.g., figures, tables, images, etc.). They can be easy to forget, but very important to include. You may find it helpful to use track changes or the highlight function within your draft response letter when corresponding with co-authors or for pending tasks for you to complete. Lastly, always have all co-authors review the final letter and new documents to “sign off,” just like your origi­nal manuscript.

Once you find a process that works, stick with it. I hope these things that I learned through my peer review experience make yours easier to navigate. Good luck!