Introduction
Receiving reviewer comments can be intimidating, especially for first-time authors. However, peer review is not an attack—it is a collaborative step toward improving your paper. Knowing how to respond with professionalism, clarity, and academic maturity can significantly increase your chances of acceptance. This blog explains how Indian PhD students and scholars can respond to reviewer feedback effectively and confidently.
Understand Before Reacting
Before crafting a reply, read the reviewer comments carefully. Take at least 24 hours to process the feedback. Do not react defensively. Even if the tone feels harsh or unfair, remind yourself that the purpose is to enhance your work—not to reject it unnecessarily.
Key tip: Translate technical or critical feedback into actionable tasks. For example, “The methodology is unclear” means you should revisit the section and explain it in simpler, more structured terms.
Prepare a Response Document
Almost all journals expect a structured response document alongside your revised manuscript. This is where many Indian authors go wrong—either by replying too briefly or by being overly apologetic. Instead, use a table or point-wise list.
For each reviewer comment, include:
- Reviewer’s Comment (quoted as-is)
- Your Response (detailed and respectful)
- Changes Made (with line/page numbers if possible)
Maintain a calm and scholarly tone. Do not say “we disagree” harshly.
Instead, use phrases like:
- “We respectfully acknowledge the concern…”
- “We have revised the section to provide clarity…”
- “While we understand the suggestion, we have retained the original approach for the following reasons…”
Prioritise Clarity and Evidence
When addressing reviewer points, be factual and supportive. If the reviewer misunderstood your work, consider that your writing may need clarification. Strengthen weak areas using proper references, data, or examples. Avoid emotional language or justifications without evidence.
Example:
Reviewer Comment: “The conclusion feels speculative.”
Your Response: “We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. We have revised the conclusion section to remove speculative language and added citations to support our final argument (see page 15, lines 7–18).”
Dealing with Conflicting Reviewer Suggestions
Sometimes, reviewers suggest opposite changes—one asks to remove a section, another wants it expanded. This is common. In such cases, explain your choice clearly in your response:
“We noted that Reviewer 1 suggested shortening the discussion, while Reviewer 2 requested a deeper analysis of the same section. We have taken a balanced approach by reducing redundancy but expanding key insights (see page 12).”
Most journals understand that you cannot satisfy all reviewers perfectly. The goal is to show that you’ve considered all views seriously.
What If You Disagree?
It is acceptable to disagree—but do so with solid academic reasoning. Never ignore a comment completely. Even if you retain your original content, address the concern by justifying your decision politely.
Example:
“We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. However, we believe that retaining the original analytical method is important for consistency with prior literature. We have clarified this rationale in the revised manuscript (page 6, paragraph 3).”
Journals appreciate authors who engage thoughtfully with criticism rather than those who accept everything passively.
Tone and Language Matter
Use clear, professional language throughout. Even if reviewers were blunt or incorrect, do not take a confrontational approach. Avoid phrases like “as we already said” or “clearly explained earlier.”
Instead, use constructive phrases:
- “We have now made this clearer…”
- “To address this, we have added…”
- “As suggested, we revised…”
Make All Revisions Visible
In your manuscript, highlight or track all changes made. If the journal doesn’t require tracked changes, consider using bold or colored text to show edits. This helps editors and reviewers verify that you have addressed the concerns properly.
Also, mention in your response document that changes are highlighted for easy reference.
Final Check Before Resubmission
Before resubmitting:
- Proofread both the manuscript and response document.
- Make sure all reviewer comments are addressed, even minor ones.
- Be consistent in referring to page/line numbers.
- Include a short summary at the beginning of your response, thanking the editor and reviewers.
Sample Opening Line:
“We are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive feedback. We have revised the manuscript in response to each comment and provide a detailed summary of the changes below.”
Conclusion
Responding to reviewer comments is a crucial academic skill—especially in the Indian PhD context, where journal publications are tied to promotions, fellowships, and research recognition. Instead of fearing feedback, see it as a chance to sharpen your scholarship. With clear responses, polite tone, and justified revisions, you can turn most “major revisions” into “accepted with minor changes.”