Advice for responding to reviewers

I was taught that when responding to reviewer criticism, there are two valid strategies: (1) new data, or (2) references to papers. When reviewers stray from these two strategies, they are on thin ice. Authors get away with it anyways sometimes, but not because they are clever.

The reviewer is your best friend. Get in this mindset. I give this advice to all of my trainees. When getting a challenging question after a talk, reading a harsh paper review, or receiving other types of critical evaluations, recognize that the reviewer is a friend. In a way. They might not be perfectly fair, and maybe even unconstructive, but they took the time to digest what you put out and think about it. And they did so for free. It’s natural to be instinctively defensive, but you have to overcome this. You are more than your data. Relax, disconnect from it, and work to see things from the reviewer’s perspective, and try to be a partner in addressing their concerns. Reviewers want to see that the paper got better. They cared enough to spend time reviewing it and making suggestions. Show them that you stepped up. Don’t tell them that they messed up or wrote a bad review. Be friends with them.

Look for validity in all criticisms, and hold yourself accountable. There are indeed some criticisms that are unfair. It happens. Commonly. But most of the time it’s best to take criticism to heart and try to respond constructively. Sometimes criticisms are poorly worded or overly broad or harsh. Try to find a kernel that you can address, and do so effectively.

Give direct answers, even if they’re not completely satisfying. Reviewers have been there. No experiment is perfect. Sometimes people need to leave lab and follow up experiments are not feasible. Reviewers understand that. It might not be a sufficient response, but being brief, direct, and honest can play better than trying to argue with the reviewer that their concern is invalid. The goal is to have the reviewers look at the revision and QUICKLY and CONFIDENTLY conclude that the paper is improved and their concerns have been addressed. So don’t write long wordy responses. Get to the point quickly.

Be humble. There are sometimes genuine misunderstandings with reviewers. Be gentle and humble in suggesting that possibility. Because it might be you who is mistaken. Or, you could at least be more likely to win the approval of the reviewer if you avoid coming across as an arrogant jerk.

Who cares how long the response is? Longer is not better. It is not impressive. It is not persuasive. If you need some space to make your point, take it. Just know that length alone isn’t impressive. More often than not, it means that the short and direct answer is weak and the authors are trying to avoid stating it plainly. Sometimes authors wage a war of attrition and try to wear reviewers down with long-winded, verbose, wordy, rambling, loquacious, prolix responses that are ultimately unsatisfying. Sometimes it works, and maybe that’s why some people still do it. But it is not rigorous or constructive, and it can backfire. I don’t recommend it. That said, if you need the space take it. Add figures if you like. As both a reviewer and an author, I love Reviewer Figures. Aim for one round of revisions. Be prepared to do a massive amount of work, including new experiments.

Don’t get bogged down. Maybe there’s a reviewer comment that is very upsetting, and you don’t have a great response to it. Move on and get the rest of the response drafted and done. Then ask a coauthor or even a non-author colleague to give their input. A fresh pair of eyes can work wonders. The manuscript is your baby and your judgement can be off. Let someone else help guide you to a good response.

It’s a dialog. You can ask questions. Ideally there isn’t too much back and forth, but if you’re really stuck, try to be constructive. Ask for clarification. Ask what might be sufficient. Offer something, while acknowledging that it might not completely satisfy the reviewer.

More tips:

• Assume the reader is very rushed and wants to get this off their desk as fast as possible. Make it easy to skim and find information.
• Make the reviewer comments single-spaced and in a lighter color of text. That text is just for reference. It doesn’t need to be read in detail. The reviewers and editors should have already read them in prior documents. What is new is our responses. Make those double-spaced in black text.
• Start with a brief overview of what revision have been made. There are three main types: new experiments, new analysis, and text changes. Categorize your changes, and list them in an organized outline or bullet list. 
• For text edits, if it’s a small portion of text (~one paragraph or less) just paste it into the response (put it in quotes and italics so that’s it’s obviously a quote from the revised manuscript). When the edit is too long, indicate the page number that the edit appears on, and possibly the line number where it starts, or the section name, or the range of line numbers it appears on. Make it easy to find.
• Share the reviews ASAP, but then let everyone digest for a bit before taking action. Sleep on it. Don’t make any decisions until at least 24 hours after reading the reviews. If your mind is racing, go ahead and type up some text to get your thoughts down in words, but don’t send it to anyone (including coauthors). A day (or 2 or 3) can bring a better perspective. I’ve gotten reviews that I thought were awful at first, and then a few days later I thought were manageable.
• Make a plan. Make a to-do list. Then knock out items as you can.
• Treat every single point as valid. If it’s off-the-mark, then we didn’t explain things clearly enough and now we have an opportunity to do that.
• Thank the reviewers in the beginning, but don’t try to thank them and flatter them on every point.
• The editor is part of your audience. Write responses to satisfy the reviewer, but also write in a dispassionate and clear and plain way so that a third party (the editor) can see that you’re being reasonable and fair. This is especially helpful when dealing with a bad reviewer: if the editor can see by your tone that you’re being more reasonable than the reviewer, that can help.
• Never use emotional or forceful language in the response.
• It’s common to guess who reviewers were. Don’t take the guesses too seriously. We’re often wrong. Sometimes our friends write challenging reviews and our rivals are sympathetic. Just keep your response professional.

Some items above are from Michael Breakspear https://twitter.com/DrBreaky/status/1273842646377566214