Blog

Peer review is important for academic publishing, helping to maintain quality and trust in research. After your manuscript passes our editorial checks and is published on HRB Open Research, our in-house Editorial team will invite experts from your field to carefully review the paper before it receives the ‘approved’ peer review status on the Platform. These peer reviewers will often provide feedback and offer suggestions on how to improve your submission.

So, what should you do once you’ve received feedback and suggestions from peer reviewers? Read on for some valuable hints and tips to help navigate peer reviewer feedback and how to get the most out of the peer review process.

Understanding the peer review process at HRB Open Research

First, you must understand the peer review process to address the reviewer’s feedback. HRB Open Research uses an open peer review model, where reports are public, and the identities of authors and reviewers are known.

But what are the benefits of the open, post-publication peer review model used at HRB Open Research? One key benefit is its capacity to speed up publishing times and enhance research impact. Additionally, transparency in the peer review process enhances accountability and acknowledges the reviewers by publicising their names and reviews.   This transparency encourages constructive feedback. Authors are also aware of who is reviewing their articles, which can help build the author’s trust in the feedback they receive and confirm the reviewer’s expertise. Embracing this collaborative approach is essential for effectively addressing comments and improving the quality of your submission.

Review all comments carefully and make note of any revisions

Once you receive the reviewer comments, take the time to read them thoroughly and understand them. Often, reviewers provide both general feedback and specific comments or suggestions for improvement.

Once you have read the reviewer feedback, you should list all the changes the reviewers have requested. After identifying each suggestion, you should move it into a new document and use line numbers or bullet points to separate the feedback. Be sure to include a separate section for comments from each reviewer.

You can consider separating each comment into one of four main categories:

1.  Valid and essential suggestions: These comments highlight clear issues in your work or propose improvements that can significantly enhance the quality of your research.
2. Comments that require clarification: Occasionally, reviewers may misunderstand a point in your manuscript or seek additional information. In such instances, your response should aim to provide the necessary clarity.
3. Comments that can be politely declined: Not all reviewer comments hold equal validity or relevance. Some suggestions may not align with your research goals or may fall outside the scope of the study. In these situations, politely explain your rationale for not incorporating the suggested changes.
4. Comments about minor revisions in the manuscript: Such comments pertain to small changes and improvements that do not affect the overall conclusions of a paper. These can include missing references, data presentation, or typos and phrasing issues.

Highlight the changes on your document, and use “track changes” to visualise edits

Start planning where you’ll make the changes and what those changes should be. You can do so by making notes on your list of feedback or directly in your manuscript.

Copying the reviewer’s feedback into comments within your manuscript can help you understand where the edits should be placed and how the different suggestions relate to each other.

Be sure to turn on “track changes” to mark all changes. This will help you locate them later when writing your response letter, making it easier to respond to reviewers.

If reviewers misunderstand your work, take the opportunity to clarify your research further

If reviewers point out aspects you believe have already been explained in your paper, do not assume they lack understanding. If one person is confused, others may be as well. Instead, view this as an opportunity to clarify your point further. You can incorporate a few additional sentences or references to explain that part of your research further, ensuring it does not seem as though you have overlooked their feedback.

Think carefully about where changes can’t be made

You might decide not to revise your paper if it needs a lot more research or changes the focus of your work.

Remember, peer review is a discussion. If you have good reason, it’s okay to politely disagree with the reviewer. If there are changes you cannot make, explain this in your response letter.

Carefully craft a clear response letter

Start your response document with a brief introduction, thanking the reviewers for their feedback. Organise your letter with clear headings for each reviewer’s comments. Quote the reviewers directly and briefly explain your responses. Use examples and set revisions apart with italics or text boxes for emphasis.

A good response letter can be fairly long, but if you structure and format it nicely, it will be easy for others to read and follow. Keep your tone respectful and professional throughout. Thank the reviewers for their time and feedback and emphasise your commitment to improving your work based on their suggestions.

Be prepared for further feedback

After resubmitting to HRB Open Research, prepare for another round of peer review. Reviewers often ask for more revisions or clarifications after your initial changes. Approach these rounds with the same professionalism and commitment to improvement as before.

Remember that peer review is a collaborative effort aimed at advancing knowledge. Collaborating with reviewers to constructively build upon your research will improve the quality and impact of your work. Discover more about peer review at HRB Open Research here.

• Follow us on Twitter
• Sign up to our newsletter