What are the best practices for responding to reviewers' comments in a respectful and constructive way?

Handling reviewers' comments is more about constructive collaboration than a battle of opinions. Approach it with an open mind, acknowledging the differences in perspectives. Respond respectfully and be open to finding common ground through thoughtful discussion. Furthermore, maintain a calm and objective demeanor, express gratitude for their input, and address each comment individually with clear and concise responses.

When we understand that the work of editors and reviewers is pro bono and they do not receive any compensation for their efforts, we act respectfully and value every comment and piece of feedback they provide. It is as simple as that!

Approach the decision letter and reviewer comments with transparency. Recognize criticism as a constructive force for personal and academic growth. Remember, the reviewer doesn't know you personally and isn't aiming to attack you. Dispel the notion that the reviewer deems your research useless; it's a misconception. By setting emotions aside, you'll understand that the reviewer's comments serve to improve your manuscript's clarity and visibility. A subtle shift in perception can significantly enhance your perspective on the invaluable role of constructive feedback in refining your work. #reviewercomments #academicpublishing

Many of us view the review process a battle between reviewers and authors, therefore we get defensive in responding to review comments, but this should not be so. As a peer reviewer myself, I have noticed that the process, despite its criticisms, also assists us as authors to gain more clarity on our findings. We need to keep a positive perspective, think of it as your manuscript passing through a rigorous assessment by independent experts in the field with the sole aim of improving its quality and appropriateness for the journal. With this mindset, read the review comments carefully and try to understand from the reviewers’ perspective what they are requesting for. Then address their concerns, explaining your answers in a respectful way.

1. Take time to read and process the comments before responding. 2. Maintain a professional and respectful tone throughout your response. 3. Express appreciation for the reviewers' feedback. 4. Address each comment individually and provide clear explanations. 5. Be receptive to criticism and acknowledge any weaknesses or shortcomings. 6. Offer specific revisions or counter arguments based on evidence or reasoning. 7. Seek clarification if needed to fully understand the reviewers' perspective. 8. Keep your responses focused, concise, and on-topic. 9. Proofread and edit your response for clarity, tone, and professionalism.

That's the part I like the most as it comes when you have completed the most challenging work: the point by point response. Remember reviewers are likely very busy people: conciseness is desirable, get straight to the point. I also see it as a "diplomatic" exercise: courtesy, gratefulness don’t increase any cost! If it's your first time drafting a cover letter and you don't know where to start, don't look too far, it's likely that one of your coauthors is more experienced (even a reviewer hopefully); ask them to assist by sharing a real sample cover letter.

When it comes to drafting our response letter, it is imperative to first acknowledge the time, effort and advice given by the reviewer wholeheartedly. We may then summarize (briefly) what changes we have made, especially those critical comments that explain our "near-misses" and why we think that the revised version is all "inclusive and interesting" enough to merit a publication opportunity.

2 Draft a cover letter The second step is to draft a cover letter that summarizes how you have revised your manuscript in response to the reviewers' comments. The cover letter should be polite, concise, and informative. Start by thanking the editor and the reviewers for their constructive feedback and the opportunity to resubmit your work. Then, briefly explain the main changes that you have made to your manuscript, highlighting how they address the reviewers' concerns and improve the quality and clarity of your research. Finally, indicate that you have attached a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers'

The mindset is important while answering the reviewers comments. Remember they are not enemies but friends giving a helpful hand to make your work much appreciated by your target audience. My second point is that the reviewers are experts in the field, but you are the expert in your personal work. You don't necessarily have to agree with all their points but be prepared to provide proper justification. Make sure your responses address the reviewers questions/comments as completely as possible and are as clear as possible. If the journal has guidelines for point by point responses, make sure you fully adhere to them. Last but not least, it's mandatory to address/answer all questions, comments, suggestions.

When we try to address critical feedback, it is essential that we create a comprehensive checklist to detail what amendments have to be made for queries, how we decide to make such amendments following the rules of "Relevance, Reason and Review Best Practices) without compromising on the "Rigor". Such planning helps us to meticulously address the reviewer's concern, summarize our amendments rationale and present the revision in a clear and coherent manner.

In my experience, when faced with such situations, I have learned to balance acknowledging the reviewer's viewpoint while respectfully expressing my own position. It is important to avoid outright disagreement or disregarding their comments. Instead, I have discovered that offering alternative solutions can be a powerful approach, serving as a bridge towards finding common ground. For instance, when faced with comments on the text, I have found that supplementing my arguments with visually impactful illustrations or diagrams can effectively convey my point and facilitate better understanding. Finally, that has been always part of the journey to achieve the best outcome.

In my opinion, clearly explaining the process of addressing comments is crucial. If the author’s writing is not comprehensible to the reviewer, this indicates that the process lacks defined criteria. A step-by-step approach delineates: Numbering each comment Referencing the section or page number Explaining the content with which you agree and the content with which you do not fully agree. Justify the reasons for disagreement and explain the approach you have taken Indicating that you have followed the comment if you agree. This entire process requires the use of language that reflects an academic writing style, rather than a formal or creative one. The tone of the response should be devoid of emotional nuance."

3 Respond to each comment The third step is to respond to each comment that the reviewers made, following the order and numbering that they used. For each comment, you should acknowledge it, explain how you have revised your manuscript accordingly, and provide a reference to the relevant section or page number in your revised manuscript. If you partially agree, you can explain what aspects of the comment you have incorporated and why you have decided not to make other changes. If you disagree, you can respectfully provide your rationale and evidence for your position, and request the editor's opinion if necessary. Avoid being rude, dismissive, or sarcastic in your responses, and try to use positive and constructive language.

The person who wrote the response may miss their own mistakes such as typos, grammar errors, or formatting issues. It's advisable to have your response checked by trusted individuals like your research mentor or co-scholars for thorough proofreading and formatting. Additionally, AI tools can be utilized, with proper declaration of their usage, to further ensure accuracy and correctness.

The fourth step is to proofread and format your cover letter and point-by-point response. Ensure there are no spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors, and that your tone is consistent and professional. Use clear headings, bullet points, and indentation to organise your responses and make them easy to follow. Follow the journal's guidelines for formatting, length, and file type of your documents. If possible, ask a colleague or a friend to check your documents for clarity and accuracy before you submit them. This additional review can provide valuable feedback and help catch any errors you might have missed, ensuring your submission is polished and professional.

Your point by point response has excerpts from your manuscript and spelling, grammar, and punctuation errors are not acceptable in the manuscript. If you're not fluent in the journal's language, then you should seek professional editing services. In addition, communication (writing and sending letters or emails) peppered with spelling, grammar and punctuation errors is unprofessional and disrespectful. It shows you don't care; there are so many AI writing applications available!

4 Proofread and format The fourth step is to proofread and format your cover letter and your point-by-point response. Make sure that there are no spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors, and that your tone is consistent and professional. Use clear headings, bullet points, and indentation to organize your responses and make them easy to follow. Follow the journal's guidelines for formatting, length, and file type of your documents. If possible, ask a colleague or a friend to check your documents for clarity and accuracy before you submit them.

5 Submit and follow up The fifth step is to submit your revised manuscript, your cover letter, and your point-by-point response to the journal editor through the online submission system or by email. Keep a copy of your documents for your own records. After you submit, you should receive a confirmation email from the journal. If you don't, you can contact the editor to make sure that they have received your resubmission. Depending on the journal's policy and the extent of the revisions, your manuscript may undergo another round of peer review or be accepted for publication. Be patient and respectful while you wait for the final decision, and be prepared to address any further comments or queries that may arise.

Every submission is an opportunity to not just affirm good work but also identify perspectives and feedback that may add to the experience and empowerment of scholars to greater possibilities. Even the most critical feedback including "desk rejections" provide ideas and advice for further examination and check our work for rigour, relevance and reader captivity. Academic writing is both an art and science. It's time consuming and yet a rewarding one when we choose to "give ourselves time, embrace due diligence, continuously learn on subject matter (methods too), embrace a coachee mindset" as we embrace scholastic pursuits. Reading helps a lot too. Setting realistic goals will save ourselves from needless disappointments.

6 Learn and improve The sixth step is to learn and improve from the reviewers' feedback, regardless of the outcome of your resubmission. Whether your manuscript is accepted or rejected, you can use the reviewers' comments as an opportunity to enhance your writing and research skills, identify your strengths and weaknesses, and discover new perspectives and insights. You can also use the feedback to revise your manuscript for another journal or for future projects. Be grateful for the reviewers' contribution to your academic development, and strive to provide constructive feedback to others when you act as a reviewer yourself.