Sally L. Grapin, Montclair State University
Receiving a decision of “revise and resubmit” on a manuscript is cause for celebration but also a signal to authors that follow-up work is needed. At times you may find that reviewer feedback is straightforward and readily addressed; at others, this may not be the case. This blog post describes some common scenarios in which addressing reviewer feedback can be challenging. It also considers possible approaches to tackling this feedback as well as issues regarding oppressive publishing practices.
General Tips
Authors are often given substantial time to resubmit their papers (often anywhere from 1 to 3 months for a major revision), so take some time to process any challenging feedback you receive. Doing so may allow time for any difficult emotions (e.g., worry, frustration) to dissipate while also affording you space to develop constructive and targeted responses. When you are ready to respond, you might start by jotting down some preliminary reactions, thoughts, or possible approaches to addressing some of the more challenging comments and then refining and organizing your responses throughout the revision process. In fact, you may think of several different ways to respond to the feedback before deciding on one that feels right.
Aim to respond constructively to all feedback. Reviewers participate in the peer review process on a volunteer basis and generally aim to provide helpful suggestions for improving your paper regardless of whether they ultimately recommend publication. By fully considering all reviewer comments and responding thoughtfully and thoroughly, you increase the potential for constructive dialogue while also providing a more well-developed rationale for your work.
Scenario 1: When a reviewer recommends that you add content to your literature review or discussion but you’re questioning its relevance
Give thoughtful consideration to the feedback you receive. While you may not immediately see a connection between the recommended revisions and the contents of your manuscript, some further reading and research may help you understand how they are linked. Are there changes you can make that would indeed improve the manuscript? If so, make those changes and describe them in your response letter.
Sometimes it may not be disruptive to the flow of the paper to briefly address a point raised by a reviewer. If this is the case, you might consider incorporating the feedback. However, in other cases, you may feel the edits would negatively impact the flow or meaning of the manuscript. In this case, you might note this concern in your response letter. Moreover, if journal submission guidelines preclude such changes (e.g., you are at the top of your word limit and cannot find other places to trim your manuscript), you can note this as well:
We appreciate this feedback and agree that [AREA OF LITERATURE SUGGESTED] is an important area. However, we believe that this area is not as directly relevant to [FOCUS OF STUDY] as the other areas addressed in the review. Moreover, we are aware that the journal does not permit submissions that exceed 8,000 words. Given that a number of revisions were required for this manuscript, our word count will exceed this limit if we add more content to our literature review. Of course, we are open to further feedback from the reviewers and the action editor on this matter.
Scenario 2: When a reviewer requests a major overhaul of your study design/analyses
In some cases, a reviewer may recommend major changes to your study design or analyses. For instance, a reviewer might recommend the collection of additional data and/or a methodological approach that would require you to redo your analyses. As always, maintain a stance of openness to all feedback.
In determining whether to pursue the reviewer’s recommendations, you might first ask yourself, “Are the changes feasible at this point in time?” If they are not (and you feel your current approach is robust), you might respond to the reviewer by noting that their suggestion reflects a limitation of your study or an important direction for future research. A response such as the following may be appropriate:
Thank you for this feedback. While we were unable to [NOTE REVISION REQUESTED], we believe our findings have important implications for [BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF STUDY IMPLICATIONS]. However, we agree that this is a noteworthy limitation of our study and an important direction for future research. Thus, we have made changes to our discussion section to note the importance of this issue in future work.
If the changes are feasible, you might ask yourself some additional questions, such as: (a) Do I agree that these changes are warranted, and will they substantially improve the quality of my work? and (b) Do I or any of my co-authors have the necessary expertise to complete the revisions and/or bandwidth to complete them within the revision window? Should the answer to the first question be “no,” you might explain in your response letter why you feel the changes are not warranted. Alternatively, if the changes are warranted but you do not have the expertise or time to address them within the review window, you might consider reaching out to the action editor about adding a co-author with the necessary expertise (if that individual would be making contributions that warrant authorship) and/or extending your resubmission due date.
Scenario 3: When reviewers’ comments conflict with one another
This can be a tricky situation, particularly when the action editor does not encourage you to prioritize one reviewer’s comments over another’s. In this case, you might choose to pursue one of the reviewers’ feedback or address the issue in a way that seeks common ground between the reviewers’ recommendations. If you choose to pursue one of the reviewer’s suggestions, you might note in your response to the other reviewer that the overall feedback you received contained conflicting recommendations.
We appreciate this feedback. However, we would like to note that it conflicts with Reviewer 1’s feedback that we should [BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF REVIEWER 1’s POINT]. Given these different viewpoints, we chose to [DESCRIPTION OF REVISION] because [REASON FOR YOUR CHOICE]. We welcome any further feedback you may have as well as any input from the action editor about this issue.
Scenario 4: When a you suspect a reviewer misinterpreted or missed details in your manuscript
As an author, you have likely been steeped in your study for quite some time; reviewers, on the other hand, are just reading your study for the first time and may be unfamiliar with its context, design, and other features. Because reviewers have quite a bit of new information to process in evaluating your work, there are times when a reviewer’s comments may not reflect the content of your study or manuscript.
As an example, a reviewer might request that you perform member checking in a qualitative study even though you have already done so and reported it in your manuscript. In this case, you might first ask yourself “Was my writing clear? Can it be strengthened?” If you can make changes to improve the clarity of your writing, you might consider a response such as the following:
Thank you for this comment. We would like to note that we did perform member checking (as described on p. # of the manuscript). We realize that we could have been clearer in describing our procedures and thus have made the following changes. [INSERT BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF HOW YOU MADE CHANGES TO MAKE YOUR WRITING CLEARER].
If you do not feel that you can improve the clarity of your work and suspect that the reviewer may have misread or missed relevant content, you might respectfully point this out while still conveying openness to further changes. A response such as the following may be appropriate:
We agree about the importance of member checking for this study and thus have described procedures for this process on p. #. We are open to any further feedback you may have about our methods.
Scenario 5: When a reviewer falls in an entirely different theoretical camp than you
Again, always give thoughtful consideration to the feedback you receive. Even if (and perhaps especially when) a reviewer clearly falls in a different theoretical camp than you do, thinking through their comments and arguments can serve to strengthen your manuscript and possibly even your future work.
If you ultimately disagree with the reviewer’s feedback and are considering how to respond, you might ask: “How have other authors whose approach is similar to mine addressed these types of issues in the past?” Reading articles in your area that address similar types of arguments may help you think about how to respond to the reviewer’s comments.
We appreciate this perspective and have given thoughtful consideration to your points. While we agree that [DESCRIBE ANY COMMON GROUND YOUR AUTHOR TEAM MIGHT HAVE WITH THE REVIEWER], we ultimately/also believe that [DESCRIBE YOUR STANCE] because [DESCRIBE RATIONALE FOR YOUR STANCE.] However, we are open to any additional feedback you may have.
In addition, you might acknowledge directly in your manuscript that scholars have offered different theoretical perspectives in this area and briefly describe those perspectives; you can then note these revisions in your response letter.
To provide readers with some background on the range of perspectives on this issue, we have added some text describing [REVIEWER’S STANCE] while also describing [YOUR STANCE] as well. We are open to any additional feedback you may have.
A Note on Oppressive Publishing Practices
Peer-reviewed journals have a long history of marginalizing historically minoritized groups as well as modes of knowledge-building that diverge from Eurocentric standards. Such marginalization can and does show up in reviewer feedback. Importantly, “constructive” and “professional” responding does not involve indulging feedback that intentionally or unintentionally perpetuates discrimination and marginalization. In fact, it is quite the opposite; constructive responding involves contributing to inclusive academic spaces and challenging harmful norms that devalue the identities of scholars and communities from marginalized backgrounds.
It is never the job of reviewers or authors from minoritized backgrounds to uproot norms in peer review practices that contribute to their own marginalization. Rather, those who hold privileged identities are responsible for this work (e.g., white scholars are responsible for undoing racism in academic publishing). For those who have experienced marginalization in the course of the peer review process, safeguarding one’s well-being is critical (and may look different for different scholars). Consulting with trusted mentors and colleagues may also be helpful for support. Overall, scholars with privileged identities (especially those in roles of power, such as action editors) must focus on dismantling oppressive practices in academic publishing, including the peer review process. To this end, several helpful resources are provided below.
Resources for Further Reading
Buchanan, N. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, I. B. (2021). Upending racism in
psychological science: Strategies to change how science is conducted, reported, reviewed, and disseminated. American Psychologist, 76(7), 1097–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000905
Fallon, L., Grapin, S., Newman, D. S., & Noltemeyer, A. (2022). Promoting equity and social
justice in the peer review process: Tips for reviewers. School Psychology International, 43(1), 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343211070165
Malone, C. M. (2024). Moving school psychology beyond the clouds of Injustice: A Blue Sky
Discussion. School Psychology Review, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2024.2330111
Settles, I. H., Jones, M. K., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2021). Epistemic exclusion:
Scholar(ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(4), 493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000174