How to Handle a Reviewer Who Doesn't Respond to Clarification Requests

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-28

Quick Answer

• When a reviewer ignores clarification requests, contact the journal editor directly and ask for guidance on how to proceed with the revision.
• Document every attempted contact with dates, methods, and content so you can show the editor a clear record of your good-faith efforts.
• Do not guess what the reviewer meant without first exhausting reasonable contact options, because acting on a misread comment can create new problems in the revision.

Understanding the Reviewer Silence Problem

Peer review depends on a back-and-forth exchange between authors and reviewers. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe peer review as a process where journals have responsibilities to both authors and reviewers, including the expectation that reviewers will provide constructive and timely feedback. When that exchange breaks down, the author is left with a manuscript in revision and no clear path forward.

Reviewer silence happens for many reasons. A reviewer may have accepted the invitation during a busy period and then lost track of the deadline. Personal circumstances, travel, or workload can pull attention away. Some reviewers simply do not prioritize follow-up correspondence once they have submitted their initial comments. In rare cases, a reviewer may have moved institutions or changed email addresses, making your messages undeliverable.

The practical problem is the same regardless of the cause. You have a set of comments, some of which are unclear or contradictory, and the person who wrote them is not answering your questions. Your revision clock is running, and the journal expects a response.

Your first instinct may be to interpret the comments yourself and proceed. That approach can work, but it carries risk. If you misread a comment, you may make changes that do not address the reviewer's actual concern. The editor then has to decide whether to send the manuscript back again or make a judgment call. Either outcome costs time.

A better approach treats the editor as your ally. The editor assigned the reviewer, knows the review timeline, and has authority to make decisions about how the process proceeds. When a reviewer goes silent, the editor is the person who can intervene, extend deadlines, find a new reviewer, or make a judgment about whether your response is sufficient.

The Editor as Your Primary Contact

Journal editors manage the peer review process and have the authority to resolve disputes and communication breakdowns. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices state that journals should have policies for handling peer review and should take reasonable steps to ensure the process is fair and timely. This means the editor is not a passive bystander when a reviewer stops responding.

Your first message to the editor should be factual and concise. State that you have a revision in progress, that you have attempted to contact the reviewer directly, and that you have not received a response. Attach or summarize the specific comments that need clarification. Ask the editor how they would like you to proceed.

Editors have several options when a reviewer is unresponsive. They can contact the reviewer themselves, which often produces a faster response than an author's message. They can extend your revision deadline to give the reviewer more time. They can find an additional reviewer to assess the specific points in question. They can also instruct you to proceed with your best interpretation and note the ambiguity in your response letter.

The editor's decision will depend on the journal's policies and the stage of the review process. Some journals have formal procedures for reviewer nonresponse, while others handle it case by case. Your job is to give the editor the information needed to make a good decision.

Documenting Your Contact Attempts

Before you contact the editor, build a clear record of your attempts to reach the reviewer. This record serves two purposes. It shows the editor that you have made good-faith efforts to resolve the issue directly. It also protects you if questions arise later about whether you tried to contact the reviewer.

Your documentation should include the date and time of each attempt, the method used, and the content of your message. If you sent an email through the journal's submission system, note the date and the message text. If you sent a direct email, keep a copy. If you called the editorial office, record the date and the name of the person you spoke with.

Keep this documentation in a single file that you can share with the editor if asked. A simple table or log works well. You do not need to write a formal report, but you should be able to show a timeline of your efforts.

The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources provide general guidance on research documentation practices, and the same principle applies here. Good records make it possible to reconstruct what happened and why decisions were made. In the context of reviewer communication, your contact log is the evidence that you acted responsibly.

How Long to Wait Before Escalating

There is no universal rule for how long to wait before contacting the editor about a silent reviewer. The right timing depends on the journal's stated revision timeline, the complexity of the comments, and how much time you have already spent waiting.

A reasonable approach is to give the reviewer a defined window after your initial clarification request. One week is a common minimum, though two weeks may be more appropriate if the journal's review process is slow. If you have not heard back within that window, send one follow-up message. If another week passes without a response, contact the editor.

Your revision deadline matters in this calculation. If you have only two weeks left to submit the revision, you cannot afford to wait three weeks for a reviewer response. In that case, contact the editor earlier and explain the time pressure.

The editor may have information you do not. The reviewer may have told the editor about a delay or a personal issue. The editor may know that the reviewer has stopped responding to other authors as well. By contacting the editor, you gain access to that context.

Writing an Effective Clarification Request

The quality of your initial clarification request affects how likely the reviewer is to respond. A vague message such as "Can you clarify your comment?" gives the reviewer little to work with. A specific message that identifies the exact point of confusion and offers your current interpretation is more likely to get a useful reply.

When you write to a reviewer, include the following elements. Quote the reviewer's comment exactly so there is no ambiguity about which comment you mean. Explain what you have tried to understand about the comment and where you are stuck. Offer one or two possible interpretations and ask the reviewer to confirm which one is correct. State that you are happy to proceed with their guidance and that you appreciate their time.

Keep the message brief. Reviewers are volunteers who are often reviewing multiple manuscripts. A long message with extensive background may not get read carefully. A focused message that respects their time is more likely to get a response.

Send the message through the journal's submission system if that is how the journal handles reviewer correspondence. This creates a record within the system that the editor can see. If the journal does not have a messaging feature, use the email address provided in the review invitation or decision letter.

Making a Reasoned Assumption When Necessary

If the editor instructs you to proceed with your best interpretation, or if the editor is also unable to get a response, you will need to make a reasoned assumption about what the reviewer meant. This is a normal part of the revision process, and editors expect authors to exercise professional judgment when comments are ambiguous.

The key is to make your assumption explicit and to document it clearly in your response letter. State which comment you are addressing, what you assumed the reviewer meant, and why that interpretation seemed most reasonable. This transparency allows the editor to check your reasoning and to correct you if you have misread the comment.

When you make an assumption, consider the context of the comment. What is the reviewer's overall tone? What other comments did they make? What is the state of the literature on this point? Your interpretation should be consistent with the reviewer's other feedback and with the standards of your field.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines that can help you understand what reviewers in your field typically expect. If a reviewer's comment seems to relate to a reporting standard, consulting the relevant guideline can help you infer what they want. For example, a comment about methods reporting may reflect the expectations of a specific reporting guideline, and following that guideline is a reasonable response even if the reviewer did not name it.

The Response Letter as Your Defense

Your response letter is the most important document in the revision process. It is where you show the editor and the reviewers how you addressed each comment. When a reviewer has not responded to clarification requests, the response letter becomes your opportunity to explain your reasoning and to demonstrate that you acted in good faith.

Organize your response letter by reviewer comment. For each comment, include the original text, your response, and a description of the changes you made to the manuscript. If you made an assumption about an unclear comment, state that assumption clearly and explain your reasoning.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices emphasize the importance of transparency in the publication process. A response letter that openly acknowledges ambiguity and explains your interpretation is consistent with that principle. It shows that you are not trying to hide uncertainty but are instead dealing with it honestly.

For comments that you could not fully address because the reviewer did not respond, state that you attempted to contact the reviewer and did not receive a response. Note that you have proceeded with your best interpretation and invite the editor to provide guidance if your interpretation is incorrect.

What to Do When the Reviewer Never Responds

Sometimes the reviewer never responds, even after the editor intervenes. The editor may decide to proceed with the revision based on your response letter alone, or they may send the manuscript to a new reviewer for additional assessment. Either way, your job is to submit the best revision you can and to make your reasoning transparent.

If the editor sends the manuscript to a new reviewer, that reviewer will see your response letter and the original reviewer's comments. Your response letter becomes the record of how you handled the situation. A clear, well-organized letter that addresses each comment and explains your assumptions will help the new reviewer understand your decisions.

If the editor decides to proceed without additional review, your revision will be evaluated based on the original comments and your responses. The editor will make a judgment about whether you have adequately addressed the concerns. Your documentation of contact attempts and your transparent response letter give the editor the information needed to make that judgment.

In either case, do not let the reviewer's silence derail your revision. Focus on making the manuscript as strong as possible and on documenting your decisions. The editor is the decision-maker in the process, and the editor has the authority to resolve the situation.

At a Glance

Practical Steps for Handling a Silent Reviewer

The following sequence gives you a concrete path from the moment you realize a reviewer is not responding to the point where you submit your revision.

Step 1. Identify the specific comments that need clarification. Read through the reviewer's comments and mark every point where you are uncertain about what is being asked. Do not assume you understand a comment just because it is written in complete sentences. If you cannot state in your own words what the reviewer wants, you need clarification.

Step 2. Draft a focused clarification request for each unclear comment. Group related comments together if they seem to address the same issue. Keep the total message short enough that a busy reviewer can read it in a few minutes.

Step 3. Send the clarification request through the journal's submission system. If the system does not support direct messaging, use the email address provided in the decision letter. Save a copy of the message and note the date you sent it.

Step 4. Wait a defined period. One week is a reasonable minimum. If your revision deadline is tight, you may need to shorten this window.

Step 5. Send one follow-up message. Reference your original message and ask again for clarification. Keep the follow-up brief and polite. Do not express frustration or accuse the reviewer of ignoring you.

Step 6. If you still have no response within another week, contact the editor. Provide your documentation of contact attempts and ask how the editor wants you to proceed.

Step 7. Follow the editor's instructions. If the editor asks you to wait longer, wait. If the editor tells you to proceed with your best interpretation, do so and document your reasoning.

Step 8. Prepare your response letter with full transparency. For each comment, state what you did and why. For comments where you made an assumption, explain your reasoning and note that the reviewer did not respond to your clarification request.

Step 9. Submit your revision before the deadline. If you need more time because of the delay, request an extension from the editor before the deadline passes.

Records and Measurements to Keep

Your documentation should be systematic enough that you can reconstruct the timeline if questions arise later. The following records are worth keeping for every revision where a reviewer is unresponsive.

Keep a contact log with the date, method, and content of each message you sent to the reviewer. Include the date you sent your initial clarification request, the date of your follow-up, and the date you contacted the editor. Note any responses you received, even if they came from the editorial office instead of the reviewer.

Keep a copy of every message you sent. If you used the journal's submission system, the system may retain a copy, but you should also save your own. If you used email, save the sent message and any replies.

Keep a list of the specific comments that needed clarification and your interpretation of each one. This list becomes the basis for your response letter and helps you stay consistent across multiple rounds of revision.

Keep a record of any guidance you received from the editor. If the editor told you to proceed with your best interpretation, note the date and the substance of that instruction. This record is useful if the editor changes or if questions arise about the process.

The National Institutes of Health Data Management and Sharing Policy emphasizes the importance of planning for data management and documentation. While that policy applies to research data instead of correspondence, the underlying principle is the same. Good documentation practices make your work transparent and defensible.

Common Failure Patterns

Several patterns tend to emerge when authors deal with silent reviewers. Recognizing these patterns can help you avoid the mistakes that make the situation worse.

The first pattern is waiting too long before escalating. Authors sometimes assume the reviewer will eventually respond and keep waiting past the point where escalation is practical. By the time they contact the editor, the revision deadline is close and the editor has limited options. Contact the editor as soon as you have made reasonable contact attempts and received no response.

The second pattern is making assumptions without documenting them. An author who interprets an unclear comment and proceeds without explaining the interpretation in the response letter creates a hidden decision that the editor cannot evaluate. Always state your assumptions explicitly.

The third pattern is expressing frustration to the editor or the reviewer. A message that complains about the reviewer's unresponsiveness or demands action is less likely to get a helpful response than a factual message that states the situation and asks for guidance. Keep your tone professional and neutral.

The fourth pattern is ignoring the revision deadline while waiting for a response. The deadline is a commitment to the journal, and missing it without requesting an extension creates a separate problem. If you are waiting for a reviewer response and the deadline is approaching, request an extension from the editor before the deadline passes.

The fifth pattern is treating the reviewer's silence as permission to skip the comment. Even if the reviewer never responds, you are still expected to address their comments in your revision. Skipping a comment because the reviewer did not clarify it is not acceptable. Make your best effort and document your reasoning.

Limitations of the Escalation Approach

Escalation to the editor is not a guaranteed solution. The editor may also be unable to reach the reviewer, and the editor may not have the time or inclination to resolve every ambiguity in the comments. In some cases, the editor will simply tell you to do your best and submit.

The editor's authority is also limited by the journal's policies. Some journals have formal procedures for reviewer nonresponse, while others leave the decision to the editor's discretion. You cannot force the editor to take a particular action, and you should not expect the editor to rewrite the reviewer's comments for you.

Your documentation is only as useful as the editor's willingness to review it. A busy editor may skim your message and make a quick decision. Keep your communication concise and put the most important information at the top.

Finally, the escalation approach assumes that the editor is responsive. In rare cases, the editorial office itself may be slow to respond or may not provide clear guidance. If you cannot get a useful answer from the editor, you may need to make your best judgment and proceed, documenting your reasoning as clearly as possible.

Welfare and Professional Context

Peer review is a professional obligation that carries ethical weight. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe peer review as a process that journals should manage fairly and that reviewers should conduct constructively. When a reviewer does not respond to clarification requests, the process is not working as intended, and the author is left to manage the consequences.

Your responsibility as an author is to act in good faith. You should make reasonable efforts to understand the reviewer's comments, document your attempts to get clarification, and proceed transparently when clarification is not possible. You should not use the reviewer's silence as an opportunity to avoid addressing difficult comments or to reinterpret feedback in a way that suits your preferences.

The editor's responsibility is to manage the process fairly. If you believe the editor is not handling the situation appropriately, you can raise your concern through the journal's formal complaint process if one exists. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices state that journals should have procedures for handling complaints about the publication process.

Your professional reputation is also at stake. How you handle a silent reviewer says something about how you manage difficult situations. A response letter that is transparent, thorough, and respectful will be viewed more favorably than one that is defensive or dismissive, regardless of whether the reviewer ever responds.

Professional Escalation Criteria

You should escalate to the editor when you have made reasonable contact attempts and received no response. The following criteria can help you decide when escalation is appropriate.

Escalate when you have sent an initial clarification request and a follow-up, and at least two weeks have passed without a response. This timeframe gives the reviewer a reasonable opportunity to respond while still leaving you time to complete the revision.

Escalate when your revision deadline is approaching and you cannot complete the revision without clarification. If you have only a few weeks left and the unclear comments affect substantial portions of the manuscript, you cannot afford to wait indefinitely.

Escalate when the unclear comments are central to the manuscript's acceptance. If a comment questions the validity of your methods or the interpretation of your results, guessing wrong could lead to a rejection or a request for major additional work. The editor needs to know about this risk.

Escalate when you have reason to believe the reviewer is no longer active. If the reviewer has not responded to multiple messages over several weeks, they may have stepped away from the review process entirely. The editor needs to know so they can find an alternative.

Escalate when the editor has not been copied on your earlier messages. If you have been communicating directly with the reviewer and the editor is unaware of the situation, the editor cannot help until you inform them.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long should I wait before contacting the editor about a silent reviewer?

A reasonable approach is to wait one week after your initial clarification request, send a follow-up, wait another week, and then contact the editor. If your revision deadline is tight, shorten these windows and contact the editor earlier. The editor needs time to act, so do not wait until the last minute.

Can I make assumptions about what the reviewer meant if they do not respond?

Yes, but only after you have made reasonable contact attempts and have either received the editor's permission or determined that waiting longer is not practical. When you make an assumption, state it explicitly in your response letter and explain your reasoning. The editor can then evaluate whether your interpretation is reasonable.

What should I include in my message to the editor about a silent reviewer?

Include the reviewer's specific comments that need clarification, a summary of your contact attempts with dates, and a clear question about how the editor wants you to proceed. Keep the message concise and factual. Do not express frustration or demand a particular outcome.

Will the editor find a new reviewer if the original reviewer does not respond?

The editor may decide to find a new reviewer, but this is not guaranteed. The editor may instead instruct you to proceed with your best interpretation and submit the revision. The decision depends on the journal's policies, the stage of the review, and the editor's judgment about whether additional review is needed.

How should I handle a comment in my response letter when the reviewer did not clarify it?

Quote the original comment, state that you attempted to contact the reviewer for clarification and did not receive a response, explain your interpretation and the changes you made, and invite the editor to provide guidance if your interpretation is incorrect. This transparency gives the editor the information needed to evaluate your response.

What if the editor also does not respond to my messages?

If the editor is unresponsive, send a follow-up message to the editorial office and consider using the journal's formal contact channels. If you still cannot get a response, make your best judgment about how to proceed, document your reasoning, and submit your revision before the deadline. You can also note the communication difficulties in your response letter.

Does reviewer silence affect my chances of acceptance?

Reviewer silence itself does not determine the outcome. What matters is how you handle the situation. A revision that addresses the comments transparently and documents your reasoning is more likely to be accepted than one that ignores unclear comments or makes undocumented assumptions. The editor will evaluate your response letter and the quality of your revision.

Should I mention the reviewer's silence in my response letter?

Yes. State that you attempted to contact the reviewer for clarification and did not receive a response. This information helps the editor understand why you made certain assumptions and shows that you acted in good faith. Do not use the silence as an excuse for incomplete work, but do be transparent about the situation.

Using the Evidence

Related Articles

• Responding to Peer Review: A Structured Revision and Response Process
• Who Discovered Dna
• Open Access Practices for Researchers: A Guide
• Epidemiological Study Designs: An Overview for Researchers
• Open Science Practices: A Guide for Researchers

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.