How to Reply Effectively to Journal Editors and Reviewer Suggestions

How To Use and Reply to Journal Editor and Reviewer Suggestions

What To Do When Requested Revisions Could Compromise Your Scholarship

Receiving a decision on a journal article can produce very different emotions. An outright acceptance is welcome but relatively uncommon. A rejection can be disappointing, particularly after months of waiting. Somewhere between these outcomes lies the extremely common decision of revision: the editor is interested in the paper but wants changes before making a final decision.

In many cases, requested revisions are genuinely useful. Reviewers may notice ambiguities that escaped the authors, identify relevant literature, detect inconsistencies between methods and results or suggest a clearer way to organise the argument. Good peer review can substantially improve a manuscript.

Problems arise when an author believes that a requested change would make the article weaker rather than stronger. A reviewer might ask for an analysis that the available data cannot support, recommend removing an argument that is central to the paper, suggest interpreting findings in a way the evidence does not justify or request methodological changes that could only have been implemented before the research was conducted.

At that point, authors face a delicate question: Should you make the requested change to maximise your chances of publication, or should you resist it to protect the integrity of your scholarship?

The answer is rarely to accept everything automatically or reject criticism defensively. Instead, successful revision requires careful evaluation, professional communication and a willingness to distinguish between your attachment to the manuscript and genuine scholarly reasons for preserving particular choices.

1. Do Not Respond Immediately

The first principle is simple: avoid making important decisions while reacting emotionally to the review.

Even politely written criticism can feel severe when it concerns research to which you have devoted months or years. A reviewer may question a method you carefully selected, challenge an interpretation you consider important or describe a section as unclear when you thought it was one of the strongest parts of the article.

Your first reaction might be:

• “The reviewer has completely misunderstood the paper.”
• “They obviously do not know this literature.”
• “If I make this change, the whole argument will collapse.”
• “I should withdraw the article immediately.”

Sometimes those reactions will ultimately prove justified. Often, however, they become less convincing after a day or two.

Read the decision letter once, then give yourself some distance before beginning the formal response. When you return to it, read the editor's comments and each reviewer report carefully from beginning to end. Separate the emotional experience of receiving criticism from the intellectual task of evaluating it.

2. Understand Exactly What the Editor Has Decided

Before focusing on individual reviewer comments, establish what the editorial decision actually means. Terms vary between journals, and labels such as minor revision, major revision and revise and resubmit do not necessarily have identical meanings everywhere.

Pay particular attention to the editor's own message. The editor may prioritise some reviewer comments, indicate that others are optional or explicitly tell you how competing recommendations should be handled.

For example, Reviewer 1 might request an entirely new analysis while Reviewer 2 considers the existing analysis appropriate. If the editor specifically asks you to undertake the additional analysis, that request carries more weight than if the editor simply forwards both reports without comment.

Identify:

• the formal decision;
• the deadline for revision;
• any comments made directly by the editor;
• changes the editor describes as essential;
• files required for resubmission; and
• whether the revised paper is likely to return to the same reviewers.

If the decision or a crucial instruction is genuinely ambiguous, a short, courteous request for clarification is appropriate.

3. Treat Detailed Feedback as a Positive Sign

Long reviewer reports can initially feel discouraging, but detailed comments often indicate substantial engagement with your work. An editor and several reviewers may already have spent many hours reading, assessing and discussing the manuscript.

If the journal had no interest in the research, the paper could simply have been rejected without extensive guidance. An invitation to revise usually means that the journal sees potential, even when considerable work remains.

This does not mean acceptance is guaranteed. A major revision can still be rejected. It does mean, however, that the comments deserve careful consideration.

Approach each suggestion initially with the question:

“What problem is the reviewer trying to solve?”

This is often more useful than asking whether the reviewer's proposed solution is correct.

For instance, a reviewer who asks you to remove three pages of theoretical discussion may actually be signalling that the argument feels unfocused. You might disagree with deleting the material but still solve the underlying problem by restructuring and shortening it.

4. Create a Point-by-Point Revision Plan

Do not revise randomly while moving backwards and forwards between the manuscript and several reviewer reports. Turn the feedback into an organised plan.

Copy every editor and reviewer comment into a separate response document and number the comments. Then classify them.

A practical classification might be:

• Accept: the suggestion is correct and can be implemented.
• Accept with modification: the concern is valid, but another solution is preferable.
• Clarify: no fundamental change is needed, but the manuscript should explain the point more clearly.
• Disagree: the requested change would be inaccurate, inappropriate or damaging to the research.
• Cannot implement: the suggestion may be reasonable in principle, but the required data, resources or study design are unavailable.

This process prevents minor comments from becoming mixed up with major methodological concerns and helps ensure that nothing is accidentally ignored.

5. Make the Easy and Helpful Changes First

Many reviewer suggestions will be straightforward improvements. These might involve:

• correcting unclear terminology;
• defining an abbreviation;
• adding a missing reference;
• improving a figure caption;
• shortening a repetitive paragraph;
• clarifying inclusion criteria;
• correcting inconsistencies in tables; or
• improving grammar and sentence structure.

Unless there is a good reason not to do so, make these changes. There is little value in resisting a revision simply because the original wording was yours.

Implementing reasonable changes also demonstrates to the editor that you have engaged seriously with the review process. This becomes particularly important when you later need to disagree with one or two more substantive suggestions.

6. Distinguish Between Protecting Your Scholarship and Protecting Your Ego

This distinction is difficult but essential.

Authors sometimes resist comments because a reviewer has genuinely misunderstood the research. At other times, resistance arises because criticism is uncomfortable.

Ask yourself:

• Would this revision make the argument more accurate?
• Does the reviewer's interpretation expose ambiguity in my writing?
• Am I defending this section because the evidence supports it or because I invested considerable time in writing it?
• Would an independent specialist consider the requested change reasonable?
• Can I support my position with data, established methodology or published scholarship?

A trusted colleague, supervisor or co-author can be invaluable at this stage. Someone who understands the field but is less emotionally attached to the manuscript may recognise that a supposedly unreasonable comment actually identifies a real weakness—or confirm that the requested revision would indeed compromise the study.

7. When a Reviewer Has Misunderstood Your Argument

Authors frequently say, “The reviewer misunderstood what we meant.” Sometimes this is entirely true. However, misunderstanding itself can provide valuable information.

If a knowledgeable reviewer has interpreted your text incorrectly, other readers may do the same. The best response is therefore rarely:

A stronger response acknowledges the communication problem:

This approach preserves your argument while improving the manuscript.

8. When a Requested Methodological Change Is Impossible

One of the most challenging situations arises when a reviewer requests additional data collection, a different experimental design or information that was not collected during the original study.

Suppose a reviewer asks you to include a twelve-month follow-up when your study ended after six months. You cannot retrospectively create data that do not exist. Nor should you imply that you did.

Instead:

• acknowledge why the additional information would be useful;
• explain clearly why it cannot be provided;
• avoid defensive excuses;
• modify claims if the limitation affects their strength;
• add the issue to the limitations section where appropriate; and
• identify the suggestion as a valuable direction for future research.

This is far more persuasive than simply writing, “We cannot do this.”

9. When the Requested Revision Would Distort Your Findings

You should be particularly cautious when a requested change would encourage you to claim more—or something different—than your data justify.

For example, a reviewer might encourage stronger causal language in an observational study, ask you to describe a non-significant result as evidence of “no effect” or recommend removing qualifications that are necessary because of methodological limitations.

Your responsibility to the scholarly record takes priority over the convenience of acceptance. Never make a statement you believe to be inaccurate merely because you think a reviewer wants to see it.

Explain the problem respectfully and support your position with methodological reasoning.

10. How To Disagree with a Reviewer Professionally

Disagreement is acceptable. Hostility is not.

Useful phrases include:

• “We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion; however…”
• “We agree that this is an important issue, although we have addressed it differently because…”
• “After careful consideration, we have retained the original analysis for the following reasons…”
• “We respectfully disagree with this interpretation because…”
• “We believe implementing this suggestion would introduce X problem…”

Then provide evidence. A disagreement supported by data, methodological principles or appropriate literature is a scholarly response. A disagreement based on “we prefer our version” is much less persuasive.

11. Address the Concern Even When You Reject the Proposed Solution

This is one of the most useful principles in responding to peer review. A reviewer may identify a genuine problem but suggest a solution that is unsuitable. In that situation, do not simply reject the comment. Address the underlying concern in another way.

For example, suppose a reviewer asks you to remove an entire theoretical framework because they believe it distracts from the results. You may consider that framework essential to the paper. Instead of deleting it, you might shorten the section, move some material to supplementary information and clarify why the framework is necessary for interpreting the findings.

This type of response demonstrates flexibility without sacrificing intellectual coherence.

12. Deal Carefully with Conflicting Reviewer Suggestions

Reviewer reports do not always agree. One reviewer may want considerably more background while another insists that the introduction is too long. One may recommend adding a table that another wants removed. One may argue that your interpretation is too cautious while another believes it is too strong.

Trying to satisfy contradictory requests literally can leave the manuscript worse than before.

When comments conflict:

• check whether the editor has indicated which recommendation should take priority;
• identify the concern underlying each suggestion;
• look for a compromise that improves the manuscript without creating inconsistency;
• explain openly in the response letter how you balanced the competing requests; and
• invite the editor's guidance if the conflict cannot reasonably be resolved.

This reassures both reviewers that their comments were considered rather than selectively ignored.

13. Know When to Ask the Editor to Adjudicate

The editor is responsible for the final publication decision and can help when reviewer requests are irreconcilable or when a requested revision appears outside the reasonable scope of the manuscript.

You might seek editorial guidance when:

• reviewers make directly contradictory requests that cannot both be accommodated;
• a reviewer demands a completely new study rather than a revision;
• a requested change appears inconsistent with the journal's own policies;
• a reviewer asks repeatedly for citation of their own work without clear relevance;
• a comment raises ethical concerns; or
• the scope of the requested revision would transform the manuscript into a fundamentally different paper.

Do not use the editor as a weapon against a reviewer. The tone should remain neutral and focused on resolving the manuscript rather than proving someone wrong.

14. Do Not Fabricate Analyses, Data or Explanations to Satisfy Reviewers

Pressure to publish must never lead to unethical revision. If reviewers ask questions your study cannot answer, say so clearly.

Never:

• invent missing observations;
• imply that measurements were collected when they were not;
• change the original protocol retrospectively without disclosure;
• omit inconvenient results merely because they complicate the argument;
• describe exploratory analyses as if they had been planned from the beginning; or
• alter conclusions solely to create a more dramatic result.

It is entirely acceptable for a revision to include additional exploratory analyses if these are methodologically justified. The important point is transparency. Explain what was added in response to review and distinguish exploratory work from prespecified analyses where that distinction matters.

15. Protect the Central Contribution of the Paper

Revision can improve a paper enormously, but repeated attempts to satisfy every preference can gradually strip away what made the study original.

After completing substantial revisions, step back and ask:

• Is the central research question still clear?
• Does the paper still make the contribution we intended?
• Do the revised methods and conclusions accurately represent the study?
• Has the article become fragmented because too many local changes were added?
• Have concessions introduced contradictions elsewhere?

A useful technique is to reread the entire manuscript as though it were a new paper rather than checking only the altered sentences. Reviewer-driven edits can create repetition, inconsistent terminology and structural imbalances that are difficult to notice when revisions are made comment by comment.

16. Rewrite Rather Than Patch When Necessary

One danger of revision is the “patchwork manuscript.” Authors add one sentence for Reviewer 1, another paragraph for Reviewer 2 and three qualifications requested by the editor until the original prose becomes awkward and repetitive.

If several comments affect the same section, it is often better to rewrite that section as a whole.

For example, if reviewers independently raise concerns about:

• the clarity of your research gap;
• the organisation of the literature review; and
• the relationship between the introduction and hypotheses,

do not necessarily solve these issues with three isolated additions. Reconstructing the final paragraphs of the introduction may produce a far clearer solution.

Your response letter can explain that several related comments prompted a broader revision.

17. Write a Clear Point-by-Point Response Letter

The response letter is almost as important as the revised manuscript. It acts as a map showing the editor and reviewers how you addressed their concerns.

A strong response usually begins with a brief paragraph thanking the editor and reviewers and summarising the most important revisions.

Then reproduce or summarise each comment and provide your answer immediately beneath it.

Each response should generally do three things:

1. acknowledge the comment;
2. state what you did or why you did not make the requested change; and
3. identify exactly where the manuscript was altered.

For example:

This structure makes the reviewer's task significantly easier.

18. Be Precise When Describing Your Revisions

Avoid vague statements such as:

“This has been corrected.”

Instead, say what was corrected and where:

“We have replaced the term ‘caused’ with ‘was associated with’ throughout the Results and Discussion to reflect the observational design, including pages 12, 15 and 17.”

Similarly, if you add new material, provide page and line references. If the journal requests tracked changes, make sure the response letter accurately matches the tracked manuscript.

19. Explain Disagreement in Enough Detail

A reasoned disagreement usually requires more explanation than an accepted suggestion. The aim is to demonstrate that you considered the point seriously rather than dismissing it.

A useful structure is:

1. thank the reviewer or acknowledge the importance of the issue;
2. state that you have considered the suggestion carefully;
3. explain the methodological, theoretical or evidential reason for not implementing it;
4. cite supporting literature where helpful; and
5. describe any alternative revision you made to address the underlying concern.

This kind of response is difficult to dismiss because it shows both flexibility and methodological reasoning.

20. Avoid Defensive or Confrontational Language

Even when a reviewer is mistaken, phrases such as these are rarely helpful:

• “The reviewer clearly failed to read the manuscript.”
• “This criticism makes no sense.”
• “The reviewer is wrong.”
• “We already explained this perfectly well.”

Replace them with language focused on the manuscript:

• “We recognise that the original explanation was not sufficiently clear.”
• “We interpret the evidence differently for the following reasons.”
• “We have clarified this point to reduce the possibility of misunderstanding.”
• “The requested analysis would not be appropriate for these data because…”

Professional tone matters because the editor must decide whether continued dialogue with the authors is likely to be productive.

21. Do Not Ignore Minor Comments

Authors understandably devote most attention to substantial criticisms, but minor comments must also be addressed. A reviewer who has carefully identified a typographical error, inconsistent abbreviation or missing reference expects some indication that the point was considered.

A short answer is sufficient:

Responding to every point helps demonstrate care and completeness.

22. Check Whether One Revision Affects Other Parts of the Paper

A change requested in one section often has consequences elsewhere. If you modify the main objective, for example, you may also need to revise:

• the abstract;
• the introduction;
• the methods;
• table headings;
• the discussion; and
• the conclusion.

If you change terminology from “efficacy” to “association,” check the entire manuscript for inconsistent uses. If you modify the participant number after discovering an exclusion, update every table, figure and percentage that depends on that denominator.

A revision should leave the paper more internally consistent, not less.

23. Distinguish Between Reviewer Preference and Journal Requirement

Some comments reflect individual stylistic preference rather than an objective problem. One reviewer may prefer passive voice, another active voice. One might dislike a particular subheading structure or want references presented in a style that differs from the journal's instructions.

Where a reviewer preference conflicts with journal policy, the journal's requirements normally take priority. Explain this politely if necessary.

This is another situation in which referring to an external standard can resolve disagreement without appearing argumentative.

24. Request More Time When Thorough Revision Requires It

Substantial revisions can involve additional analyses, consultation among co-authors, redrawing figures or obtaining clarification from a statistician. If the journal's deadline is unrealistic, request an extension before it expires.

Keep the request short and specific:

An early, reasonable request is preferable to submitting rushed work or missing the deadline without explanation.

25. Coordinate Responses Among Co-Authors

For multi-author papers, reviewer responses should not be written in isolation by one author and submitted without discussion. Substantive changes may affect interpretations, authorship responsibilities and methodological claims.

A useful workflow is to assign comments according to expertise—for example:

• statistical questions to the analyst;
• methodological concerns to the researcher responsible for the protocol;
• specialist literature questions to the relevant subject expert; and
• overall integration to the corresponding author.

One person should then harmonise the complete response so that tone, terminology and formatting are consistent.

26. Proofread the Response Letter as Carefully as the Manuscript

The response letter represents you directly to the editor. Errors, contradictory page references or careless wording can weaken an otherwise excellent revision.

Before resubmission, check that:

• every comment has a response;
• all page and line numbers are correct;
• quoted reviewer comments have not been altered unfairly;
• the manuscript contains every change you claim to have made;
• tables, figures and supplementary files agree with the revised text;
• new references appear in the bibliography;
• tracked and clean copies are consistent; and
• the tone remains courteous throughout.

Because revisions are often completed under pressure, this final consistency check is particularly important.

27. When Should You Refuse a Requested Change?

There are several defensible reasons for declining a reviewer suggestion. These include situations where the requested change would:

• misrepresent your data;
• violate the approved research protocol;
• introduce inappropriate statistical methods;
• create ethical or legal problems;
• contradict established evidence without justification;
• remove an element essential to answering the research question;
• require unavailable data that cannot legitimately be recreated; or
• transform the paper into a fundamentally different study.

The stronger the reason, the more comfortable you should be explaining it clearly.

However, “I do not like the suggestion” is not enough. The response must demonstrate why retaining your approach is better for the accuracy, coherence or integrity of the research.

28. When It May Be Better to Withdraw and Submit Elsewhere

Occasionally the gap between what a journal wants and what you believe the paper should remain becomes too large.

You may reach a point where:

• the editor insists on an interpretation you cannot support;
• the requested revisions would effectively create a different article;
• the journal's conceptual orientation is incompatible with your research;
• the review process repeatedly demands work far beyond the stated scope; or
• the publication would no longer represent scholarship you are willing to defend.

If so, publication in another journal may be the better outcome.

This does not mean the review process was wasted. Detailed criticism can reveal weaknesses you can correct before sending the manuscript elsewhere. A rejected or withdrawn paper often becomes considerably stronger when the authors use the best reviewer suggestions while declining those that would distort the work.

29. Use Rejection Constructively

When an editor ultimately rejects the manuscript despite revision, avoid immediately sending exactly the same version to another journal.

Review the reports once again and ask:

• Which criticisms remain valid?
• Which sections could still be clarified?
• Did several reviewers identify the same problem?
• Would another journal expect a different framing?
• Does the title or abstract accurately represent the paper?

Reviewer feedback is valuable professional advice even when the publication outcome is disappointing. Taking advantage of it can increase the chance that the next submission succeeds.

30. A Practical Response-to-Reviewers Checklist

Before submitting your revision, confirm the following:

• Every editor and reviewer comment has been addressed.
• Easy and constructive changes have been made wherever appropriate.
• Disagreements are explained with evidence rather than emotion.
• Requests that cannot be fulfilled are acknowledged and justified.
• Alternative changes have been offered where possible.
• New analyses are described transparently.
• No data or methodological details have been invented to satisfy reviewers.
• Claims remain proportionate to the evidence.
• Conflicting reviewer comments have been reconciled or referred to the editor.
• Page and line references in the response letter are accurate.
• All revised sections remain internally consistent.
• The manuscript still reflects the central purpose and contribution of the research.
• The final response is courteous, clear and concise.

Conclusion: Revision Is Scholarly Negotiation, Not Automatic Compliance

Comments from editors and peer reviewers are among the most valuable forms of feedback an academic author can receive. They frequently reveal weaknesses, ambiguities and missed opportunities that authors themselves cannot see after working closely with a manuscript for months or years. Taking that feedback seriously is therefore essential.

Taking criticism seriously, however, does not mean accepting every recommendation without question. Authors remain responsible for the truthfulness of their methods, the accuracy of their results and the defensibility of their conclusions. If a requested change would undermine those responsibilities, it is entirely appropriate to explain why you cannot make it.

The most successful responses combine openness with scholarly independence. Make reasonable changes generously. Clarify anything a reviewer has misunderstood. Recognise genuine limitations. Add useful analyses where they can be conducted properly. When you disagree, explain your reasoning calmly and support it with evidence. Where possible, offer an alternative that addresses the reviewer's underlying concern.

Editors do not necessarily expect unquestioning obedience. They do expect evidence that you have listened, reflected and responded professionally.

Sometimes that process will end in acceptance. Sometimes it will reveal that another journal is a better home for the work. Either way, thoughtful engagement with reviewer and editor suggestions can improve your manuscript and sharpen your own understanding of the research.

The ultimate objective should never be publication at any cost. It should be publication of the strongest, clearest and most defensible version of your scholarship.

Why Our Editing and Proofreading Services?

At Proof-Reading-Service.com we offer the highest quality journal article editing, dissertation proofreading and online proofreading services via our large and extremely dedicated team of academic and scientific professionals. All of our proofreaders are native speakers of English who have earned their own postgraduate degrees, and their areas of specialisation cover such a wide range of disciplines that we are able to help our international clientele with research editing to improve and perfect all kinds of academic manuscripts for successful publication.

Many of the carefully trained members of our manuscript editing and proofreading team work predominantly on articles intended for publication in scholarly journals, applying painstaking journal editing standards to ensure that the references and formatting used in each paper are in conformity with the journal's instructions for authors and to correct any grammar, spelling, punctuation or simple typing errors. In this way, we enable our clients to report their research in the clear and accurate ways required to impress journal editors and achieve publication.

Our scientific proofreading services for the authors of a wide variety of scientific journal papers are especially popular, but we also offer manuscript proofreading services and have the experience and expertise to proofread and edit manuscripts in all scholarly disciplines, as well as beyond them.

We have team members who specialise in medical proofreading services, and some of our experts dedicate their time exclusively to dissertation proofreading and manuscript proofreading, offering academics the opportunity to improve their use of formatting and language through the most exacting PhD thesis editing and journal article proofreading practices.

Whether you are preparing a conference paper for presentation, polishing a progress report to share with colleagues or facing the demanding task of revising a manuscript after peer review, a qualified member of our professional team can provide invaluable assistance and give you greater confidence in your written work.

If you are in the process of preparing an article for an academic or scientific journal, responding to reviewers or planning a submission for the near future, you may also be interested in our Guide to Journal Publication, which is available on our Tips and Advice on Publishing Research in Journals website.