Introduction
Receiving reviewer feedback after submitting a research paper can be both exciting and intimidating. For many Indian PhD scholars and early-career academics, it is often their first encounter with formal academic criticism. But revisions are a normal and essential part of scholarly publishing — they help improve the clarity, quality, and impact of your work. This blog outlines how to navigate the revision process carefully and confidently.
Understand the Nature of the Feedback
Reviewer comments typically fall into three categories:
- Minor Revisions: These include small corrections such as typos, formatting, or clarification of specific terms or sentences.
- Major Revisions: These involve significant changes — reworking your methodology, adding data, revising analysis, or clarifying core arguments.
- Reject with Resubmission Option: In some cases, the paper is not accepted but the journal allows resubmission after substantial revisions.
The first step is to read the comments carefully. Don’t rush into editing. Understand what is being asked, and identify whether comments are mandatory, optional, or subjective.
Don’t Take It Personally
In Indian academic culture, feedback — especially critical feedback — may feel harsh. But in peer-reviewed journals, feedback is meant to improve the quality of your research. View it as an opportunity to refine your arguments, methods, and writing style.
Remember: reviewers are not attacking you. They are helping shape your work into something publishable and useful to the academic community.
Start with a Response Document
Always create a separate “response to reviewers” document. This helps the editor and reviewers understand how you have addressed each point.
Use a clear format:
- Copy each reviewer comment in bold or italics.
- Below it, write your response and mention exactly what changes you made in the manuscript.
- Use line numbers or section references if required.
For example:
Reviewer comment: The method section lacks justification for the chosen sampling technique.
Author response: We have now included a justification in Section 3.1, lines 85–90, explaining why purposive sampling was appropriate for our study objectives.
Be Polite but Firm
If you disagree with a reviewer’s comment, you are allowed to explain why you chose not to make a particular change — but do so respectfully.
For example:
Reviewer comment: Consider including a quantitative analysis.
Author response: We appreciate the suggestion. However, since our study was designed with a qualitative framework, adding a quantitative layer would go beyond the scope of our research objectives.
Being diplomatic yet assertive is key.
Revise Systematically
Don’t try to edit the entire manuscript at once. Address comments one by one:
- Minor issues first — grammar, spelling, references.
- Then structural or conceptual comments — arguments, methodology, findings.
- Check consistency across the document after major edits.
Keep backup versions of each revision round, so you can track what changes were made.
Highlight the Changes
Some journals require a “clean version” and a “marked version” of the revised manuscript. In the marked version, use track changes or highlight the revised text in a different color.
If no specific format is asked for, still make it easy for the editor to identify what’s new. This makes their job easier and shows your professionalism.
Don’t Delay Too Much
Journals typically give a timeline for revisions — often 2–4 weeks for minor and 4–8 weeks for major revisions. If you feel you need more time (especially if you’re balancing your PhD, teaching, or family obligations), write to the editor requesting an extension early. Be polite and specific.
Example:
“I am grateful for the opportunity to revise my manuscript. Due to ongoing coursework/teaching load, I kindly request a two-week extension to complete the revisions thoughtfully.”
Proofread Before Resubmission
After making all changes, don’t forget to proofread the entire document. Revised papers often become messy — with mixed tenses, repeated ideas, or awkward transitions. Reading it aloud or using peer support can help spot errors you may miss.
Keep Your Supervisor or Co-Authors Involved
For Indian PhD students, it is advisable to consult your supervisor or guide before submitting the revised version. They may offer suggestions on how to respond to reviewers more strategically or ensure your academic tone remains respectful and convincing.
Conclusion
Handling journal reviewer feedback is a critical step in your research journey. It tests not only your academic rigor but also your patience, professionalism, and ability to collaborate with the scholarly community. By approaching the revision process with care, clarity, and cultural sensitivity, Indian scholars can significantly increase their chances of publication success. Remember, even the best papers went through revisions — yours is no different.