Responding to peer reviews

Peer review is a key part of the publication process. Blind reviewing means that you will be treated as an equal member in the field and that your paper will be judged based on its merits only.

Taking charge of your response

Most good journals use a peer review process to make sure what they publish has gone through high levels of scrutiny from academics in a field of research. To your readers, this means that your paper has met the publication standards of the journal.

After your paper has been read by an editor and deemed suitable for the journal, it will be sent to several (usually two) academics in your field to be reviewed.

The peer review process can take anywhere from a few months to a year, sometimes longer, depending on the journal. When you receive your reviewers’ reports, you will need to respond to them demonstrating that you have taken their suggestions onboard or explaining why you’ve decided not to follow some suggestions.

Reviewers may differ widely in their views and ways of giving feedback. Some are encouraging, while others can be directly critical. However, most reviewers invest their time and effort in giving feedback that they think will be useful to writers.

When responding to reviewers' reports:

  • Try to take criticisms, even those you find challenging, as opportunities to develop as a writer and researcher. If you think some feedback is unfair or unhelpful, give reasonable explanations of what you have done instead of what was suggested.
  • Don’t get carried away by the commentary. Focus instead on picking out suggested changes, or actionable items. You might find it useful to create a simple table listing the reviewers’ suggested changes in one column and your responses to these in another, indicating the evidence of each change and its page number.

Responding to peer reviews is an opportunity for you to argue your case further. When you’re responding to critique, it’s easy to ask the reactive question ‘How can I defend my position?’ but a more useful question might be: ‘How can I strengthen my argument?’ You can then incorporate strengthening elements in your paper to make the most of the peer review process.

To be able to do all this, you may need support from your peers, supervisors or other people you trust to give you advice. It’s a good idea to talk to them early on to help you understand and respond to peer reviews effectively.

Deciding on big revisions

To decide how best to respond to suggestions for big changes, think about:

  • Scope: Is the suggested change within the scope I aim for?
  • Quality: Will making the suggested change significantly improve the quality of my paper?
  • Effort: What is an easier alternative to making the change suggested? E.g., can I add a few sentences to justify the methodology rather than changing it completely?

Final tip

Writing a paper for publication is a challenging but rewarding process, from finding and positioning your argument, planning and writing your paper through to responding to peer reviews. Reflecting on your learning along the way will help you develop as a researcher, writer and contributing member of your scholarly community.

For more information and support in your writing,
Explore: Academic Skills Graduate Research services

  • Osberg, D., & Biesta, G. (2010). The end/s of education: Complexity and the conundrum of the inclusive educational curriculum. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(6), 593–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802530684

    Patriotta, G. (2017). Crafting papers for publication: Novelty and convention in academic writing. Journal of Management Studies, 54(5), 747–759. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1111/joms.12280

    Raamsdonk, J. (2018). Mechanisms underlying longevity: A genetic switch model of aging. Experimental Gerontology, 107, 136–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2017.08.005

    Richardson, J., Gauert, A., Briones Montecinos, L., Fanlo, L., Alhashem, Z. M., Assar, R., Marti, E., Kabla, A., Härtel, S., & Linker, C. (2016). Leader cells define directionality of trunk, but not cranial, neural crest cell migration. Cell Rep, 15(9), 2076–2088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2016.04.067

    Shadiev, R., & Sintawati, W. (2020). A review of research on intercultural learning supported by technology. Educational Research Review, 31, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100338

    Steinbok, P. (1995). Ethical considerations relating to writing a medical scientific paper for publication. Child’s Nervous System, 11(6), 323–328.

    Stommel, W., & de Rijk, L. (2021). Ethical approval: None sought. How discourse analysts report ethical issues around publicly available online data. Research Ethics, 17(3), 275–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1747016120988767

    Thomson, P. (2018). Writing for publication—Some beginning strategies. Patter. https://patthomson.net/2018/06/18/writing-for-publication-some-generative-strategies%e2%80%8b-to-begin/

    Thomson, P., & Kamler, B. (2013). Writing for peer reviewed journals: Strategies for getting published. Routledge.