How to Make Reasonable Assumptions About Vague Comments
By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD ·
Quick Answer
- Treat vague reviewer comments as requests for clarification, then document your interpretation in writing before making any change to your manuscript.
- Base each assumption on observable evidence from your own study records, the journal's stated scope, and the specific wording of the comment itself.
- A reasonable assumption is one you can defend to an editor, so record your reasoning and be prepared to revise if the reviewer clarifies differently.
Understanding Vague Reviewer Comments
Peer review comments arrive in many forms. Some are precise and actionable. Others are brief, ambiguous, or open to multiple interpretations. A comment like "This needs more discussion" could mean the reviewer wants deeper theoretical context, additional practical implications, or a clearer connection to prior work. A comment that says "The methods are unclear" might refer to the study design, the statistical analysis, or the data collection procedures.
Researchers commonly respond to vague comments in one of two ways. The first is to guess at the intended meaning and make changes without documenting the reasoning. The second is to ignore the comment entirely because the meaning seems too uncertain. Both approaches create problems. Guessing without documentation leaves you unable to explain your choices if the editor asks. Ignoring the comment risks a second round of revisions or rejection.
The practical middle path is to make a documented assumption, apply it carefully, and state your interpretation clearly in the response letter. This approach respects the reviewer's time while protecting your own work from unnecessary or incorrect changes.
Why Assumptions Are Necessary in Peer Review
Peer review operates through written communication between strangers who share only the manuscript and the journal's guidelines. Reviewers write quickly, often under time pressure, and they may assume background knowledge that you do not have. Editors expect authors to interpret comments in good faith and respond constructively.
The Committee on Publication Ethics describes peer review as a core practice in scholarly publishing, with expectations that both reviewers and authors engage in fair and rigorous assessment of research work. When a comment is vague, the author's responsibility is to engage with the comment seriously instead of dismiss it. A documented assumption is a form of engagement.
Assumptions also matter because reviewers cannot always be asked for clarification. Some journals allow author-reviewer communication, but many do not. Even when communication is possible, the process takes time and may delay your revision. In most cases, making a reasonable assumption and stating it clearly is faster and more practical than requesting clarification for every ambiguous point.
Core Principles for Making Defensible Assumptions
Principle 1: Anchor Every Assumption to the Manuscript Text
The first place to look for meaning is your own manuscript. A vague comment usually refers to a specific section, sentence, figure, or table. Identify the exact location the reviewer likely means. Read that passage carefully and ask what a reader might find confusing, incomplete, or insufficiently supported.
For example, if a reviewer writes "This is not convincing," locate the claim that precedes the comment. Consider whether the claim lacks evidence, contradicts another part of the manuscript, or fails to address a known alternative explanation. Your assumption should name the specific weakness you believe the reviewer identified.
Principle 2: Consider the Reviewer's Likely Expertise
Reviewers are selected for their knowledge of specific fields. A comment about statistical methods probably comes from someone with statistical expertise. A comment about clinical relevance probably comes from someone with practical experience. Use the nature of the comment to infer the reviewer's perspective.
If the comment concerns study design, the reviewer likely wants to see more detail about how you controlled for confounding variables. If the comment concerns interpretation, the reviewer likely wants a more cautious or more nuanced conclusion. Match your response to the expertise the comment implies.
Principle 3: Use the Journal's Scope and Guidelines
Every journal publishes a statement of scope and author guidelines. These documents tell you what the journal values and what its readers expect. When a comment is vague, the journal's stated priorities can help you decide which interpretation is most likely.
A journal focused on clinical translation will value practical implications. A journal focused on basic science will value mechanistic explanation. A journal with strict reporting requirements will value methodological transparency. The EQUATOR Network provides access to reporting guidelines that many journals follow, and these guidelines can help you understand what reviewers expect to see in specific types of studies.
Principle 4: Document Your Reasoning in Writing
Write down your interpretation of each vague comment before you make any changes. State the comment verbatim, then write one or two sentences explaining what you believe the reviewer means and why. This documentation serves two purposes. It forces you to think clearly about your assumption, and it provides material for your response letter.
Keep this documentation in a revision log that tracks each comment, your interpretation, the change you made, and the location of the change in the revised manuscript. This log becomes your defense if the editor questions your choices.
The Assumption Checklist
Use this checklist before you act on any vague comment. Each item requires a yes or no answer, and each item should be supported by evidence from the manuscript, the journal, or your study records.
| Checklist Item | What to Verify | Evidence Source |
|---|---|---|
| Location identified | You know which section or sentence the comment targets | Manuscript text and comment placement |
| Interpretation stated | You can write one clear sentence explaining the assumed meaning | Your revision log |
| Journal alignment | The interpretation fits the journal's scope and guidelines | Journal author instructions and EQUATOR reporting guidelines |
| Evidence available | Your study records support the change you plan to make | Raw data, analysis scripts, laboratory notebooks |
| Alternative considered | You can name at least one other possible interpretation and explain why you rejected it | Your revision log |
| Response drafted | You have written a polite explanation of your interpretation for the response letter | Response letter draft |
If you cannot answer yes to every item, pause before making the change. The missing item tells you where your assumption is weak.
Practical Workflow for Responding to Vague Comments
Step 1: Read All Comments Before Acting
Read the full set of reviewer comments before you change anything. Comments often relate to each other. A vague comment in one section may be clarified by a more specific comment elsewhere. Reading everything first prevents you from making changes that conflict with other requested revisions.
Step 2: Sort Comments by Type
Create three categories for the comments you received. The first category contains specific, actionable comments that require no interpretation. The second category contains vague comments that need an assumption. The third category contains comments you believe are based on a misunderstanding of your work.
Handle the first category immediately. Handle the second category using the checklist above. For the third category, draft a polite explanation that clarifies the misunderstanding without being defensive. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices emphasize respectful and constructive communication in the publication process.
Step 3: Draft Your Interpretation for Each Vague Comment
For each vague comment, write a short paragraph that includes the original comment, your interpretation, and the evidence supporting that interpretation. Keep this paragraph in your revision log. You will adapt it for the response letter later.
Step 4: Make the Change or Decide Not To
Apply your interpretation to the manuscript. If the change requires new analysis, run the analysis and record the results. If the change requires additional text, write it in the style of the existing manuscript. If you decide the comment does not require a change, document why and prepare to explain that decision to the editor.
Step 5: Track Every Change in a Revision Log
Create a table with columns for comment number, original comment, your interpretation, action taken, and manuscript location. Update this table as you work. The table becomes the backbone of your response letter and your record of the revision process.
Step 6: Write the Response Letter
For each comment, restate the comment, describe your interpretation, and explain what you changed. If you did not change anything, explain why. Use the same numbering system as the revision log so the editor can follow your responses easily.
What to Do When the Comment Is Too Vague To Interpret
Some comments resist reasonable interpretation. A comment that says only "This is wrong" without identifying what is wrong gives you little to work with. A comment that says "The whole paper needs rewriting" is too broad to act on directly.
In these cases, your best option is to make the most conservative assumption that still addresses the comment. For "This is wrong," review the immediately preceding text and look for factual errors, unsupported claims, or logical gaps. For "The whole paper needs rewriting," focus on the most obvious weaknesses in structure, clarity, and evidence presentation.
If you genuinely cannot identify a reasonable interpretation, state this in your response letter. Explain what you considered, what you changed, and what you could not change because the comment lacked sufficient specificity. Ask the editor for clarification if the comment blocks your ability to complete the revision. This approach is honest and demonstrates good faith engagement with the review process.
Common Failure Patterns in Making Assumptions
Failure Pattern 1: Overinterpreting the Comment
Some researchers read too much into a vague comment. A reviewer who writes "This section is too long" may simply want the section shortened. The author might assume the reviewer wants a complete reorganization, new subsections, or additional content. Overinterpretation leads to unnecessary changes that can introduce new problems.
The fix is to choose the smallest change that plausibly addresses the comment. If shortening the section solves the problem, do that first. Add larger changes only if the smaller change does not satisfy the concern.
Failure Pattern 2: Underinterpreting the Comment
The opposite failure is treating a vague comment as if it requires no action. A comment like "The discussion could be stronger" is easy to dismiss as a preference instead of a requirement. But reviewers rarely write comments without expecting some response. Underinterpreting risks leaving the reviewer unsatisfied and facing another round of revisions.
The fix is to assume the comment requires at least one concrete change. Strengthen the discussion by adding a paragraph that addresses limitations, alternative interpretations, or practical implications. Document what you added and why.
Failure Pattern 3: Ignoring the Journal's Context
A comment that makes sense in one journal might mean something different in another. A reviewer for a methods-focused journal who writes "More detail needed" probably wants additional technical specification. A reviewer for a clinical journal who writes the same words probably wants more practical guidance. Ignoring the journal's scope leads to responses that miss the mark.
The fix is to check the journal's author guidelines and recent published articles before interpreting any vague comment. See how other authors in that journal handle similar topics and what level of detail the published papers include.
Failure Pattern 4: Making Changes Without Documentation
Some researchers make the change, forget the comment, and then struggle to explain their choices when the editor asks. This failure is common when revisions happen under time pressure. The fix is to maintain the revision log from the start and update it as you work.
Failure Pattern 5: Responding Defensively
A vague comment can feel like an attack on your work. Responding defensively in the response letter creates tension and can damage your relationship with the editor. The fix is to treat every comment as a request for clarification, not a personal criticism. Thank the reviewer for the feedback, state your interpretation, and describe your response.
Records and Measurements for the Revision Process
What to Record
Keep a revision log that captures the following information for every comment you receive. This log is your primary record of the revision process and your defense if questions arise later.
| Record Field | Purpose | Example Entry |
|---|---|---|
| Comment number | Tracks the comment through the process | R1-C3 |
| Original comment text | Preserves the exact wording for reference | "The analysis seems incomplete" |
| Your interpretation | States the assumed meaning in one sentence | Reviewer wants additional sensitivity analysis |
| Evidence for interpretation | Names the manuscript section or data that supports your reading | Results section, Table 2, no sensitivity analysis reported |
| Action taken | Describes the specific change you made | Added sensitivity analysis excluding outliers, reported in new Table 3 |
| Manuscript location | Identifies where the change appears in the revised version | Results section, paragraph 4, page 12 |
| Response letter text | Contains the explanation you sent to the editor | Adapted from interpretation and action fields |
How To Use the Records
Use the revision log to check your work before submission. Confirm that every comment has an entry, every entry has an action, and every action appears in the revised manuscript. This check catches comments you might have missed and changes you forgot to make.
The revision log also helps you write the response letter efficiently. Instead of drafting responses from memory, you adapt the interpretation and action fields into complete sentences. This saves time and ensures consistency between what you say you did and what you actually did.
Quality Controls for Your Assumptions
Internal Consistency Check
After making your changes, read the revised manuscript from start to finish. Confirm that the changes fit the surrounding text and do not contradict other sections. A change made to satisfy one comment should not create inconsistencies elsewhere.
External Consistency Check
Compare your revised manuscript against the journal's reporting guidelines. The EQUATOR Network provides a searchable collection of reporting guidelines for different study types. If your study type has a guideline, check that your revision addresses the items the guideline covers. This check helps you catch missing information that reviewers might request in the next round.
Peer Check
If possible, ask a colleague to read the vague comments and your interpretations without seeing the original manuscript. Ask whether your interpretations seem reasonable. A fresh reader can spot assumptions that are too creative or too narrow.
Safety and Ethical Context
Research Integrity
Making assumptions about reviewer comments is a normal part of the revision process, but the assumptions must stay within ethical boundaries. You may interpret a comment and choose how to respond, but you may not misrepresent what you did in your study or fabricate results to satisfy a reviewer. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices address research misconduct, including fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Your response to a reviewer must accurately describe your study and your data.
Data Management
If a vague comment leads you to reanalyze your data, follow your institution's data management practices. The National Institutes of Health data management and sharing policy describes expectations for planning and sharing research data. Even if your study is not NIH-funded, the principles of organized data storage, clear analysis documentation, and reproducible methods apply to any reanalysis you perform in response to review.
Authorship and Acknowledgment
If your revision requires substantial new analysis or writing, consider whether the work changes the contributions of the research team. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices address authorship standards. If a team member performs major new work during revision, discuss whether authorship or acknowledgment should be updated. Do not make this decision alone.
Researcher Identity
Maintain an accurate record of your research contributions. ORCID provides a system for researchers to maintain a persistent identifier and link their research activities. Keeping your ORCID record current ensures that your work on revisions and publications is properly attributed to you.
When To Escalate to the Editor
Most vague comments can be handled with a documented assumption. Some situations require direct communication with the editor.
Escalation Criterion 1: The Comment Blocks Completion
If a vague comment prevents you from completing the revision because you cannot identify what the reviewer wants, contact the editor. Explain the comment, describe your attempts to interpret it, and ask for clarification. Editors prefer to receive this request early instead of after a missed deadline.
Escalation Criterion 2: The Comment Requests Something Impossible
If a comment appears to request something that your study cannot provide, such as data you do not have or an analysis that is not appropriate for your study design, contact the editor. Explain the limitation and propose an alternative response. The editor can help you craft a response that addresses the reviewer's concern without compromising your study's integrity.
Escalation Criterion 3: The Comment Raises Ethical Concerns
If a comment asks you to misrepresent your data, omit relevant findings, or engage in any practice that violates research integrity standards, contact the editor immediately. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices provide a framework for handling such situations. Do not comply with unethical requests, and do not ignore them. Bring them to the editor's attention.
Escalation Criterion 4: Multiple Vague Comments Block Progress
If several comments are vague and you cannot make reasonable progress, contact the editor before submitting your revision. Explain the situation and ask whether the editor can provide additional context or facilitate communication with the reviewer. Some journals have processes for this situation.
Limitations of the Assumption Approach
You Cannot Always Be Right
No matter how carefully you document your assumptions, you may misinterpret a comment. The reviewer might have meant something entirely different from what you assumed. This risk is inherent in written communication. Your defense is not certainty but reasonableness. If your interpretation is supported by the manuscript text, the journal's scope, and your study records, you have done what you can.
The Reviewer May Not Respond
Some journals do not allow reviewers to see the author response letter. In these cases, the editor decides whether your responses are adequate. You will not have the opportunity to clarify your interpretation if the reviewer disagrees. This limitation makes careful documentation even more important because the editor is your audience.
The Editor Has Final Authority
The editor decides whether your revision is acceptable. Even a well-documented assumption may not satisfy the editor if the editor believes you misunderstood the comment. Your response letter should acknowledge this possibility and invite further guidance. A respectful tone and a clear explanation of your reasoning give the editor the information needed to make a fair decision.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I know if my assumption about a vague comment is reasonable?
A reasonable assumption is one you can support with evidence from the manuscript text, the journal's scope, and your study records. Write down your interpretation and check it against these three sources. If you can explain why your interpretation is more likely than the alternatives, your assumption is defensible.
Should I ask the editor for clarification when a comment is vague?
Ask for clarification only when the comment blocks your ability to complete the revision. Most vague comments can be handled with a documented assumption. If you ask too often, you risk appearing unable to work independently. If you never ask, you risk making major changes based on a wrong guess.
What should I write in the response letter for a vague comment?
Restate the comment, state your interpretation, and describe the change you made. If you did not make a change, explain why. Keep the response brief and respectful. The goal is to show the editor that you engaged seriously with the comment and made a reasonable decision.
Can I ignore a vague comment if I cannot understand it?
Ignoring a comment is risky because reviewers expect a response to every comment they write. If you cannot understand a comment, make your best documented assumption and respond to that. If the comment is truly impossible to interpret, explain your difficulty to the editor and ask for guidance.
What if my assumption turns out to be wrong?
If the editor or reviewer indicates that you misunderstood a comment, acknowledge the misunderstanding and ask for clarification. Revise your response accordingly. A wrong assumption is not a failure if you documented your reasoning and responded in good faith.
How detailed should my revision log be?
Your revision log should contain enough detail that someone else could understand your reasoning without asking you. Include the original comment, your interpretation, the evidence for that interpretation, the action you took, and the location of the change. More detail is better than less because you cannot predict what the editor might ask about later.
Does the journal's scope really matter for interpreting comments?
Yes. Journals have different priorities, audiences, and standards. A comment that means one thing in a basic science journal can mean something different in a clinical journal. Check the journal's author guidelines and recent articles to understand what the journal values before you interpret a vague comment.
What should I do if a reviewer asks me to do something that violates research ethics?
Contact the editor immediately. Do not comply with requests to fabricate data, misrepresent findings, or engage in other misconduct. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices provide a framework for handling ethical concerns in publication. The editor has the authority to address the situation.
Related Articles
- The Role of the Research Ethics Committee: What Researchers Need to Know
- Conducting a Study: A Practical Checklist for Life Science Researchers
- Open Access Practices for Researchers: A Guide
- Understanding the t-Test: Meaning, Assumptions, and Applications
- Epidemiological Study Designs: An Overview 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.