blog

Peer review can be a confusing process at times, so to help cut out all the jargon and make it as simple as possible, we have developed the ‘Peer Review Experts’ blog series. We’ll be bringing you top tips on a wide range of peer review subjects, straight from the experts; our very own peer-review team at F1000Research. This week, Charlie Vickers, Senior Editorial Assistant, will take us through why it is important to respond to your reviewers and the different ways of doing so.

As Editorial Assistants, a question we are often asked by our authors is whether they should respond to their peer review reports, and if so, how? This is especially important with our commitment to transparency, as all author responses are openly published alongside the article (and along with peer review reports). With this in mind, I thought it would be helpful to offer some advice here as to what our reviewers are looking for in terms of an author response.

Our two types of response

When a new version of an article is submitted, we ask that authors give us a 300-word summary of the changes between versions, so this can be displayed under the abstract. However, this is primarily for readers of the article, rather than the reviewers, as 300 words often aren’t enough to detail all the changes to the reviewers. We also ask that authors leave an individual response to each peer reviewer, which can contain a more personalised response. This can be done by clicking the ‘Respond to this Report’ button, as shown here.

In 2019, we changed the way peer review reports are displayed on our site, making it easier for everyone to follow a report as you read the article. When an author now personally responds to a report, not only is it published openly below the peer review report, but it is also highlighted in the ‘Amendments’ text of a new version, making it easier for all readers to find.

Behind the scenes, when the editorial team process your comment, they will often do so to make sure that it does not appear alongside the article until the new version of the article is published. This is so that readers are not confused by being pointed to new sections or information which is yet to be published.

One thing to bear in mind is to make sure you are signed into the account you originally used to submit your article. This will notify the editorial team that an author response has been submitted and makes it a lot easier for us to notice that it is an author response, and not a reader comment.

Writing your personal responses

As there is no uniform way of writing a peer review report, we wouldn’t expect there to be one right way of responding to them! However, peer review reports tend to come in two general categories, so I’ve focussed on how to respond to those, as well as offering some broader tips.

General tips for responding

One thing that is always important to consider when responding to peer reviewers, regardless of the journal model, is the tone of your response. We realise that you may encounter a situation where you think a reviewer has overlooked something in your article, but this is normal as no one is perfect! If this does happen, we think the best way or dealing with it is to point out to them that they may have overlooked it when reviewing the manuscript. Our response system is a chance for scientific dialogue to start between you and the reviewers, so please use this opportunity! The peer review community is large and mainly works for free, allowing all scientific publishing models to continue, so they should always be treated with respect.

If a reviewer has asked you to alter a table, add a reference or something along these lines, make sure you point this out to them and make it obvious! Reviewing an updated version of a manuscript can be a time-consuming task, so the easier you make it to follow your changes, the quicker the reviewers are likely to submit an updated report. For example, if you have added extra data, highlight this and make it clear where the reviewers should look.

On the other hand, if a reviewer has asked that you expand on a section and it is beyond the scope of this manuscript, let them know this. They would much prefer to know that than to think that you have just ignored some feedback that they’ve given you.

One of the best ways of making sure your response has the right tone and doesn’t miss any points raised by the reviewers, is to look over it with a colleague. They don’t have to have been part of the paper, but we think a fresh set of eyes is always helpful in these situations.

Text reports  – example

These are reports which tend to be a block of text, almost written as prose for the authors to digest, and may be the most difficult to respond to. One way to respond that works well is to divide the report into sections that logically fit together, and either write a response in prose or divide it into a list as you go along. This may also make it easier for you to respond to, so that you don’t miss any points as you go through the report. Alternatively, you might find it easier to copy the entire report and respond in-line, making it clear (for example with asterisks or italics) which text is from the original report, and which is your response.

Point by point or Section reports – example

As their name suggests, these are peer review reports which are divided into bullet points or sections; either as the article is written (abstract, introduction, etc) or into specific points which the reviewer has highlighted as requiring work to be done. The best way of responding to these is by following the same format that the reviewer has chosen, sticking to the same structure and responding to each section in turn, even if it is just to express that you have taken their advice into consideration, but it doesn’t fall under the scope of this particular manuscript.

This may seem a long process at first, but by systematically going through each point raised by a reviewer, you ensure that you miss nothing from their report, and are able to respond in full. Further to this, we know that reviewers really appreciate it when each point has been considered and responded to, making them feel as if their time has been valued.

Invest in people who invest in you

The most important thing to take away from this is that any response is better than nothing! And the more diligent you are in responding to the points your reviewers have raised, the greater appreciation you show them for their contribution to improving your article. Not only this, but a detailed response makes reviewing an updated version easier and hopefully will make the whole process quicker overall.