A practical guide for responding to peer review: strategies for authors navigating the editorial process
Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, with its main objective being to enhance the quality and reliability of manuscripts. After an initial editorial review, meritorious manuscripts typically undergo external peer review, which assists editors in deciding whether to accept, reject, or request revisions. Authors must accurately interpret the type and extent of revisions requested—whether minor or major—and tailor their responses accordingly. A systematic approach is recommended, classifying comments as favorable, minor, or major, and addressing each with clarity, diligence, and appreciation. All responses should comply with the journal’s instructions and formatting guidelines. They should be concise, clear, and gender-neutral. When major revisions are requested, authors should balance the feasibility of completing the revisions against the likelihood of acceptance. If specific comments cannot be implemented or addressed, authors must provide well-reasoned explanations for refuting the reviewer’s requests. Special circumstances, such as unclear, rude, or ethically concerning comments, should be handled carefully, ideally with editorial guidance. Questions concerning data accuracy or study novelty must be addressed meticulously. A respectful, transparent, and well-organized response to reviewers ultimately increases the likelihood of manuscript acceptance.
Source: Science Editing
DOI: 10.6087/kcse.387
Author: Sameh Hany Emile
Language: English
Subfield: History and Philosophy of Science
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W7124684352