Abstract
The vast majority of articles appearing in refereed journals have been submitted, reviewed, revised by the authors based on the reviewers’ feedback, resubmitted with explanations of how the reviewers’ comments were addressed, reexamined by the initial reviewers, and finally accepted for publication. It is very rare for an article to be accepted during the first review, without suggestions provided by reviewers for aspects that need clarification, areas where additional information or explanation would be useful to readers, or other items presented for the author to consider addressing. It is important for the author to deal appropriately with the feedback obtained from the reviewers, because the author’s approach to this process can be the tipping point leading to either a positive or negative publication decision.
In reaction to reviewers’ comments, an author initially may be defensive when faced with criticism, and/or overwhelmed with the prospect of reconciling multiple sets of comments, and/or dismayed, wondering how it can be possible to meet the reviewers’ requests. It may be difficult for the author to remember that the reviewers’ comments were provided to make the paper better, although most authors eventually do realize this by the end of the revision process.
Some useful advice for negotiating this process successfully is to read the comments once, and then put them away for a few days, to “Allow yourself a couple of days to grind your teeth and grumble. After you shed any initial irritation, try a second, more dispassionate reading” (Cummings & Rivara, 2002, p. 105-106). Authors should remember that when the opportunity to revise is provided, it is because the reviewers and editors believe that the manuscript has potential for eventual publication!
Once the time has come to begin revising, a good approach is to start with the easiest suggestions first, such as additional details that can be added readily or clarifications that can be made easily. Next, more difficult aspects may be tackled, such as adding to the literature review, reconsidering the analyses, reducing the number of tables and figures, providing stronger implications for teaching and learning, and so forth. During the revision process, the author should keep track of the changes made, in preparation for the response to each of the reviewers’ comments that must be provided upon resubmission.
How should it be handled if reviewers disagree, or make contradictory recommendations? In such cases, the author must, “Decide which suggestion seems more valid, note your change in your response letter to that reviewer, and note in your response to the other reviewer that you received conflicting advice and made what you hope is the best choice” (Cummings & Rivara, 2002, p. 106). It always is possible to consult with the editor during the revision process to help sort out responses to conflicting reviews, or address other issues or questions that may arise.
Sometimes reviewers will make suggestions that the author cannot accomplish, or with which the author does not agree. In those instances, the author should provide a convincing explanation for the decision not to comply. It also is not unusual for a reviewer to make general comments about the study that are not directly tied to specific recommendations. These may be positive, in which case it is appropriate to respond with “thank you,” but if the statement is a general criticism, or demonstrates some confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the reviewer, the author may respectfully disagree, and again, provide an explanation. Even though a specific suggestion for revision may not have been provided with this sort of comment, the author would be wise to address the issues raised in the manuscript revision, and not just in the “private” response that only the reviewers and editor will see. If one reader responded to the paper in such a way, it is likely that other readers might, too, so taking a proactive approach by addressing, explaining, or resolving the issue directly in the article itself, even using “some of the wording and logic you used to respond to the reviewer” (Annesley, 2011, p. 552), can be an effective practice (several recent interactions with young researchers have lead me to believe that some authors may not realize that making revisions that were not requested explicitly is quite permissible, as long as they are reported in the response document).
In all cases, responses to reviewers should be polite and respectful. But, what if the author believes that a reviewer’s comment was wrong? Annesley (2011) described this situation and its resolution well:
…even if a reviewer appears wrong, that does not mean you are right. You, the author, could be the source of the reviewer’s misdirected comment. If the reviewer is confused or misjudges something in the paper, they might have unintentionally identified something you did not explain with the proper clarity, forgot to include, or failed to emphasize sufficiently. So, look first at what you can do to improve the paper and satisfy the reviewer, not explain to the reviewer how he or she is wrong. (p. 552)
Reviewers and editors are sincere, well-meaning individuals; volunteers who take very seriously the service they are providing to authors and to the profession. They spend many hours reading manuscripts, weighing their responses carefully, and striving to help ensure that every article that is published presents the research, and thus the researchers, in the very best manner possible. The JRME reviewers understand that even when their responses indicate that a manuscript has too many problems to be revised successfully for publication in this highly selective journal, their feedback is useful to authors for creating a revision to submit for publication in a different venue, or as guidance for future research projects. Blind peer review is an important and valuable part of the research publication process, and authors should do their best to consider the feedback provided in the constructive spirit with which it was intended.