5 Types of Reviewer Comments and How to Respond to Each
By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD ·
Quick Answer
- Peer review comments fall into five practical categories: experimental design, statistical analysis, clarity and presentation, missing context, and scope or ethics concerns, each requiring a distinct response strategy.
- Draft a point by point response letter that quotes each comment, states what you changed, and cites the exact location in your revised manuscript.
- A response letter cannot guarantee acceptance, and some reviewer requests may conflict with journal policy or reporting standards that you must follow.
Understanding Reviewer Comment Types
Peer review exists to improve the quality of published research through structured critique. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe peer review as a fundamental responsibility of journals, requiring fair and rigorous assessment by qualified reviewers. When you receive reviewer comments, you are participating in a process designed to catch errors, clarify methods, and strengthen evidence before work enters the permanent literature.
Reviewers write comments for different reasons. Some comments identify genuine flaws in your study design. Others ask for clarification because a passage is ambiguous. Some request additional analyses that may or may not be feasible with your existing data. A small number of comments may reflect a misunderstanding of your methods or scope. Your job is to sort these comments into categories and respond to each type with an appropriate strategy.
The five categories below cover the majority of comments you will encounter. Each category requires a different response approach, and many comments will fit more than one category. Learn to identify the primary intent of each comment before drafting your response.
At a Glance
| Comment Type | Primary Intent | Recommended Response | Common Mistake |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental Design | Identify flaws in methods, controls, or sampling | Acknowledge the limitation, justify your approach with citations, or add sensitivity analyses | Defending the original design without evidence |
| Statistical Analysis | Question choice of tests, power, or interpretation | Re-run analyses if appropriate, report effect sizes and confidence intervals, or explain constraints | Ignoring the comment because the test was pre-specified |
| Clarity and Presentation | Request clearer writing, figures, or structure | Rewrite the passage, add a schematic, or restructure the section | Arguing that the original text was already clear |
| Missing Context | Ask for background, related work, or justification | Add citations, expand the introduction or discussion, or state your assumptions | Adding citations without integrating them into your argument |
| Scope and Ethics | Raise concerns about claims, authorship, or compliance | Narrow your claims, consult journal policy, or contact the editor directly | Overpromising revisions that violate reporting standards |
Experimental Design Comments
Experimental design comments target the core logic of your study. Reviewers may question your sample size, your choice of control group, your blinding procedures, your inclusion criteria, or your outcome measures. These comments are often the most difficult to address because they may point to genuine limitations in work that is already complete.
How to Identify Design Comments
Design comments typically use language about what you did instead of how you wrote about it. A reviewer might write that your control group does not adequately account for a confounding variable, that your sample size appears too small to detect a meaningful effect, or that your outcome measure does not capture the construct you claim to study. These comments question the validity of your results, beyond the clarity of your prose.
Response Strategy for Design Comments
Start by determining whether the reviewer is correct. Read the comment carefully and compare it against your actual methods. If the reviewer identified a real limitation, acknowledge it directly in your response letter and in the revised manuscript. Explain what you did, why you did it, and what the limitation means for interpreting your results.
If the reviewer misunderstood your design, explain the design more clearly in the manuscript and in your response. Point to the specific section where the design is described and quote the relevant text. If the misunderstanding arises because the methods section is too brief, expand it with additional detail about your procedures.
When a reviewer requests a design change that you cannot implement, explain why. You cannot add a control group to a completed clinical trial. You cannot increase your sample size after data collection has ended. In these cases, acknowledge the limitation, explain the constraints, and describe how the limitation affects interpretation. The National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources provide background on study design considerations that can help you frame your response with appropriate methodological language.
When to Add Sensitivity Analyses
Some design comments can be addressed through sensitivity analyses that test whether your conclusions hold under different assumptions. If a reviewer questions your inclusion criteria, you might re-run your analysis with a broader or narrower set of participants. If a reviewer questions your outcome definition, you might analyze a secondary outcome or a continuous version of your primary measure.
Sensitivity analyses are most useful when they are pre-specified and clearly described. In your response letter, explain what analysis you added, why you added it, and what it showed. If the sensitivity analysis supports your original conclusion, state that explicitly. If it does not, report that result honestly and discuss the implications.
Statistical Analysis Comments
Statistical comments question the numerical logic of your study. Reviewers may ask about your choice of statistical test, your handling of missing data, your adjustment for multiple comparisons, or your interpretation of p-values and confidence intervals. These comments require careful attention because statistical decisions directly affect the credibility of your conclusions.
How to Identify Statistical Comments
Statistical comments often reference specific tests, distributions, or thresholds. A reviewer might ask whether your data meet the assumptions of a parametric test, whether you corrected for multiple comparisons, or whether your effect size is clinically meaningful. These comments may also request additional information such as confidence intervals, effect sizes, or raw data.
Response Strategy for Statistical Comments
Begin by reviewing your statistical analysis plan. If you pre-specified your analysis approach in a protocol or registration document, reference that document in your response. If the reviewer requests an analysis that is consistent with your pre-specified plan, run it and report the results. If the request conflicts with your plan, explain the conflict and justify your original approach.
When a reviewer asks for additional statistical information, provide it if you can. Add confidence intervals to your results tables. Report effect sizes alongside p-values. Describe your missing data handling in the methods section. These additions strengthen your manuscript and demonstrate responsiveness.
If a reviewer suggests a different statistical test, evaluate whether the suggestion is appropriate. Some tests are interchangeable and will produce similar results. Others are fundamentally different and may or may not be appropriate for your data structure. If you believe your original test is correct, explain your reasoning with reference to your data structure and research question. If the reviewer's suggestion is better, re-run the analysis and report the new results.
Handling Requests for Raw Data
Some reviewers will ask to see raw data or request that you make data available. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for data sharing in NIH-funded research, including the development of a data management plan and the deposition of data in appropriate repositories. Even if your study is not NIH-funded, making data available when possible demonstrates transparency and facilitates verification.
If you cannot share data because of privacy concerns, contractual restrictions, or ethical obligations, explain those constraints in your response. Describe what data can be shared, under what conditions, and through what mechanism. Some journals require data availability statements, so check the journal's author guidelines and prepare the appropriate statement.
Clarity and Presentation Comments
Clarity comments focus on how your manuscript communicates instead of what it contains. Reviewers may ask you to rewrite a confusing passage, reorganize a section, improve a figure, or define a term. These comments are often the easiest to address, but they require careful attention because unclear writing can obscure otherwise sound research.
How to Identify Clarity Comments
Clarity comments use language about comprehension and presentation. A reviewer might write that a paragraph is difficult to follow, that a figure legend does not explain the key finding, or that the discussion repeats material from the introduction. These comments ask you to improve communication, not to change your science.
Response Strategy for Clarity Comments
Address each clarity comment by revising the specific passage or element mentioned. If a reviewer says a paragraph is confusing, rewrite it with a clearer topic sentence and logical progression. If a figure is unclear, revise the figure or its legend. If a term is undefined, define it at first use.
In your response letter, quote the original text, describe what you changed, and point to the revised passage. Keep your description brief and factual. You do not need to explain why the original was unclear. You only need to show that you have addressed the concern.
Improving Figures and Tables
Figures and tables often receive clarity comments because they are dense with information. Reviewers may ask for larger fonts, clearer labels, or additional annotations. They may request that you separate a complex figure into multiple panels or combine related data into a single table.
When revising figures, prioritize the message you want the reader to take away. Each figure should have one clear purpose. If a figure attempts to show too much, consider splitting it into two figures or moving some content to supplementary materials. Ensure that figure legends describe the key finding and define all abbreviations.
Missing Context Comments
Missing context comments ask you to situate your work within the broader literature. Reviewers may request additional citations, a more thorough discussion of related work, or a clearer statement of how your study advances the field. These comments reflect the expectation that published research engages with existing knowledge.
How to Identify Context Comments
Context comments often reference the introduction or discussion sections. A reviewer might write that you have not cited a relevant body of work, that your introduction does not establish the importance of the research question, or that your discussion does not compare your findings with those of similar studies. These comments ask you to connect your work to the wider conversation.
Response Strategy for Context Comments
When a reviewer requests additional citations, evaluate whether the suggested work is genuinely relevant. If it is, add the citation and integrate it into your argument. Do not simply append citations to a sentence. Explain how the cited work relates to your study and what it adds to your reasoning.
If a reviewer asks for a broader discussion of related work, expand the relevant section. Compare your findings with those of similar studies. Explain where your results agree and where they differ. Discuss possible reasons for discrepancies, such as differences in study population, methods, or outcome measures.
Using Reporting Guidelines
Reporting guidelines provide a structured approach to ensuring that manuscripts include all necessary context and methodological detail. The EQUATOR Network maintains a comprehensive collection of reporting guidelines for different study types, including randomized trials, observational studies, systematic reviews, and qualitative research. Selecting the appropriate guideline for your study type and following its checklist can prevent many context and clarity comments before submission.
If a reviewer asks for information that is required by a reporting guideline, add it to your manuscript and reference the guideline in your response. If a reviewer asks for information that is not required by the relevant guideline, use your judgment about whether the addition strengthens the manuscript.
Scope and Ethics Comments
Scope and ethics comments raise questions about the boundaries of your claims or the conduct of your research. Reviewers may ask you to soften an overstatement, acknowledge a conflict of interest, or address an ethical consideration. These comments require careful handling because they touch on the integrity of the published record.
How to Identify Scope and Ethics Comments
Scope comments question whether your conclusions are supported by your evidence. A reviewer might write that your abstract overstates the findings, that your title promises more than the study delivers, or that your discussion generalizes beyond the study population. Ethics comments may reference authorship, data integrity, conflicts of interest, or compliance with regulations.
Response Strategy for Scope Comments
When a reviewer identifies an overstatement, revise the claim to match your evidence. This may involve softening language in the abstract, title, or discussion. It may also involve adding caveats about the limitations of your study. In your response letter, acknowledge the overstatement, describe the revised language, and explain how the new wording better reflects your findings.
Response Strategy for Ethics Comments
Ethics comments require you to consult the relevant policies and standards. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices address authorship, peer review, data handling, conflicts of interest, and misconduct. If a reviewer raises an authorship concern, review the journal's authorship policy and the COPE guidance. If a reviewer questions data integrity, review your raw data and analysis code to verify your results.
For conflicts of interest, ensure that all relevant financial and non-financial interests are disclosed. The NIH Grants and Funding pages describe conflict of interest policies for NIH-funded research, but journal requirements may differ. Check the journal's disclosure requirements and update your conflict of interest statement as needed.
When to Contact the Editor
Some ethics comments are best addressed through the editor instead of through the response letter. If a reviewer raises a serious allegation of misconduct, if there is a dispute about authorship, or if a reviewer requests something that violates journal policy, contact the editor directly. Explain the situation and ask for guidance. Do not attempt to resolve serious ethics concerns solely through the response letter.
Building Your Response Letter
The response letter is the primary document you submit alongside your revised manuscript. It serves two purposes: it shows the editor and reviewers that you have taken their comments seriously, and it provides a clear record of what you changed and why. A well-organized response letter can significantly improve the chances of a favorable decision.
Structure of a Response Letter
Organize your response letter by reviewer and by comment number. Quote each comment in full or in part, then provide your response beneath it. Number your responses to match the reviewer's numbering system. If the journal does not provide numbered comments, create your own numbering system and use it consistently.
For each comment, state clearly what you did. Use phrases such as "We have revised the methods section to clarify our inclusion criteria" or "We have added a sensitivity analysis using a mixed effects model." If you disagree with a comment, explain your reasoning respectfully and provide evidence for your position.
Distinguishing Changes from Responses
Some authors confuse the response letter with the manuscript revision. The response letter describes what you changed. The manuscript contains the actual changes. Make sure that every change you describe in the response letter is actually present in the revised manuscript. Reviewers will check.
When you revise the manuscript, use track changes or highlight the revised text so that reviewers can easily identify what has changed. Some journals require a clean version and a marked version. Check the journal's submission guidelines and follow the required format.
Handling Multiple Reviewers
When multiple reviewers comment on the same issue, address the issue once and note that you have responded to both reviewers. For example, you might write, "Both Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 raised concerns about our statistical approach. We have addressed this concern by adding a permutation test, as described below." This approach avoids duplicating your response and shows that you have integrated feedback across reviewers.
Practical Implementation Steps
Follow these steps when you receive reviewer comments to ensure a systematic and complete response.
Step 1: Read All Comments Before Responding
Read every comment from every reviewer before drafting any responses. This gives you a complete picture of the revisions required and helps you identify overlapping concerns. Take notes on which comments are similar, which are contradictory, and which require additional data or analysis.
Step 2: Categorize Each Comment
Assign each comment to one of the five categories described above. Some comments will fit multiple categories. In those cases, choose the primary category and note the secondary category. This categorization will help you allocate your time and effort appropriately.
Step 3: Assess Feasibility
For each comment, determine whether you can fully address it, partially address it, or cannot address it. Full responses involve making the requested change. Partial responses involve making a related change that addresses the underlying concern. Inability to respond means the request cannot be fulfilled because of data, resource, or policy constraints.
Step 4: Draft Responses in Order
Draft your responses in the order the comments appear in the review. This makes it easy for reviewers to follow your response letter. For each comment, quote the comment, state your response, and describe the specific change you made.
Step 5: Revise the Manuscript
Make all manuscript revisions before finalizing your response letter. This ensures that your response letter accurately describes the changes. As you revise, keep a list of changes so that you can reference them in your response letter.
Step 6: Verify Completeness
Before submission, check that you have responded to every comment. Create a checklist with each comment and mark whether you have addressed it. Verify that every change described in the response letter appears in the revised manuscript.
Records and Measurements
Maintain organized records throughout the revision process. These records protect you if questions arise later and help you track your progress.
Revision Tracking Table
| Comment ID | Category | Feasibility | Action Taken | Manuscript Location | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1C1 | Experimental Design | Full | Added sensitivity analysis | Methods, page 4 | Complete |
| R1C2 | Clarity | Full | Rewrote discussion paragraph | Discussion, page 12 | Complete |
| R2C1 | Statistical | Partial | Added confidence intervals | Results, Table 2 | Complete |
| R2C2 | Missing Context | Full | Added three citations | Introduction, page 2 | Complete |
| R3C1 | Scope | Full | Softened abstract claim | Abstract | Complete |
Documentation to Keep
Keep a copy of the original submission, the reviewer comments, your response letter, and the revised manuscript. If you run additional analyses, keep the analysis code and output files. If you add citations, keep the full reference information. This documentation supports your response and provides a record of the revision process.
Tracking Response Time
Note the date you received the reviewer comments and the journal's deadline for resubmission. Work backward from the deadline to create a revision schedule. Allocate time for reading, analysis, writing, and manuscript revision. If you need more time, request an extension from the editor before the deadline passes.
Common Failure Patterns
Authors make predictable mistakes when responding to reviewer comments. Recognizing these patterns can help you avoid them.
Defensive Responses
The most common failure is responding defensively. Authors sometimes argue with reviewers, dismiss their concerns, or explain why the reviewer is wrong without making any changes. Even when a reviewer is mistaken, a defensive response damages your credibility. Instead, acknowledge the concern, explain your reasoning, and make changes where possible.
Ignoring Comments
Some authors skip comments they disagree with or find difficult. This is a serious mistake. Reviewers notice when their comments are ignored, and editors may return the manuscript without review. Respond to every comment, even if your response is to explain why you cannot make the requested change.
Overpromising Revisions
Some authors agree to revisions they cannot complete. They promise additional experiments, new analyses, or major restructuring that they do not deliver. Reviewers check whether promised changes appear in the revised manuscript. If you cannot complete a requested revision, explain why in your response letter instead of promising it and failing to deliver.
Superficial Changes
Some authors make minimal changes that do not address the underlying concern. For example, a reviewer asks for a clearer explanation of a statistical method, and the author adds a single sentence that does not clarify anything. Superficial changes are easy to detect and may lead to another round of revision or rejection.
Failing to Integrate Citations
When reviewers request additional citations, some authors add references without integrating them into the text. The citations appear in the reference list but are not discussed in the manuscript. This fails to address the reviewer's concern about context. Integrate each new citation into your argument and explain its relevance.
Welfare and Safety Context
Peer review exists to protect the integrity of the scientific record and the welfare of research participants and animals. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors in maintaining ethical standards. When you respond to reviewer comments, you are participating in this system of quality control.
Protecting Research Participants
If your study involved human participants, reviewer comments may address informed consent, privacy, or data protection. Respond to these comments by describing your ethical approval, your consent procedures, and your data handling practices. If a reviewer identifies a gap in your ethical documentation, address it in the manuscript and explain the correction in your response letter.
Protecting Animal Subjects
For animal research, reviewer comments may address housing conditions, sample sizes, or refinement opportunities. The National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources provide background on research methods that can help you respond to these comments with appropriate scientific language. Describe your animal care protocols, your efforts to minimize suffering, and your justification for the sample size used.
Maintaining Data Integrity
Reviewer comments about data integrity require careful attention. If a reviewer questions your results, re-examine your raw data and analysis code. Verify that your analyses are correct and that your reported results match your actual findings. If you find errors, correct them in the revised manuscript and explain the correction in your response letter.
Professional Escalation Criteria
Most reviewer comments can be addressed through the revision process. However, some situations require escalation to the editor or to external authorities.
When to Contact the Editor
Contact the editor when a reviewer makes inappropriate or unprofessional comments, when there is a dispute about authorship, when a reviewer requests access to confidential data, or when you believe the review process has been unfair. Describe the situation factually and ask for guidance. The editor has the authority to make decisions about the review process.
When to Contact Your Institution
Contact your institution's research integrity office if you suspect research misconduct, if you are accused of misconduct, or if you need assistance responding to an allegation. Your institution has policies and procedures for handling these situations. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the responsibilities of institutions in investigating allegations of misconduct.
When to Withdraw Your Manuscript
In rare cases, you may decide to withdraw your manuscript instead of complete the revisions. This may be appropriate if the revisions require data you cannot obtain, if the reviewer requests changes that would compromise the integrity of your research, or if you believe the journal is not a good fit for your work. If you withdraw, inform the editor in writing and explain your reasons.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long should my response letter be?
Your response letter should be as long as necessary to address every comment thoroughly. A typical response letter runs several pages. There is no maximum length, but every response should be substantive. Avoid padding your responses with unnecessary detail or repetition.
Should I respond to every comment even if I disagree?
Yes. Respond to every comment, including those you disagree with. For comments you disagree with, explain your reasoning respectfully and provide evidence for your position. Ignoring a comment or failing to respond suggests that you have not taken the review seriously.
Can I push back on a reviewer's request?
You can push back when a request is not feasible, is not appropriate for your study, or conflicts with journal policy. Explain your reasoning clearly and provide evidence. Reviewers and editors generally respect well-reasoned disagreement. The key is to be respectful and to demonstrate that you have considered the comment carefully.
What if two reviewers give contradictory comments?
When reviewers give contradictory comments, address each comment separately and explain your reasoning. If the comments conflict on a substantive issue, you may need to make a judgment call about which approach is more appropriate. Explain your decision in your response letter and note that you have considered both perspectives.
How do I respond to a rude or unprofessional comment?
Respond professionally to every comment, regardless of tone. Address the substance of the comment and ignore the tone. If a comment is genuinely inappropriate or unprofessional, you may contact the editor separately to express your concern. Do not respond in kind.
Should I thank the reviewers in my response letter?
A brief acknowledgment at the start of your response letter is appropriate. Thank the reviewers for their time and for their constructive comments. This sets a positive tone and demonstrates professionalism. Keep the acknowledgment brief and sincere.
How do I handle a request for a new experiment I cannot run?
Explain why you cannot run the experiment. Describe the constraints, such as lack of resources, loss of samples, or the passage of time. Acknowledge the limitation and describe how it affects interpretation. Offer alternative analyses or sensitivity checks that address the underlying concern.
What if the editor asks for revisions that go beyond the reviewer comments?
Follow the editor's instructions. The editor has authority over the revision process and may request additional changes beyond those suggested by reviewers. If you have concerns about an editor's request, you may ask for
Related Articles
- Responding to Peer Review: A Structured Revision and Response Process
- Types Of Statistical Analysis
- Types Of Statistical Errors
- Statistical Parameter: Definition, Types, and Estimation
- Experimental Errors: Types, Sources, and How to Minimize Them
References and Further Reading
- Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
- EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
- Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
- NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
- ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
- Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
- NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
- PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.