Respond to reviewer english needs improvement

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

Quick Answer

• Treat a reviewer language comment as a request for clarity and precision, not as a demand for perfection or a mandatory paid editing service.
• Build a self-directed revision plan that prioritizes structural clarity, technical accuracy, and readability using free tools and peer feedback before considering paid help.
• The most important limitation is that language comments often signal deeper problems with logic, flow, or argumentation that simple grammar fixes will not resolve.

Understanding Reviewer Language Comments

Reviewer comments about English quality range from specific corrections to vague statements like "the manuscript needs language improvement." These comments rarely mean the reviewer cannot understand your work at all. More often, they signal that the writing creates unnecessary friction for the reader, making the science harder to evaluate.

Language comments from reviewers typically fall into several categories. Some reviewers point to specific grammatical errors or awkward phrasing. Others describe broader readability problems, such as long sentences that are difficult to follow or paragraphs that lack clear topic sentences. A third category involves technical clarity, where the reviewer cannot tell what method was used or what result was found because the wording is ambiguous.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe peer review as a process that should help authors improve their work. Reviewers who comment on language are usually trying to help you communicate your findings more effectively. Their comments are part of the scholarly conversation, not a rejection of your research itself.

When you receive a language comment, your first step is to determine what type of comment it is. A specific correction, such as "change 'comprised of' to 'comprises,'" is straightforward. A general comment, such as "the writing needs significant improvement," requires you to diagnose the problem yourself. A comment that combines language with content, such as "the methods section is confusing and poorly written," may point to both writing problems and structural problems.

Assessing the Scope of the Language Problem

Before you revise anything, you need to understand the scope of the problem. Read the reviewer comment carefully and look at the surrounding context. If the reviewer flagged a specific section, focus your attention there. If the comment is general, you need to assess the entire manuscript.

Start by reading your manuscript aloud. This simple step helps you identify sentences that are too long, awkward phrasing, and places where the flow breaks down. You can also ask a colleague to read the manuscript and tell you where they get confused. A fresh reader who is not familiar with your research will often identify problems that you cannot see because you know the material too well.

The National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources offer guidance on how to structure research reports clearly. These resources emphasize that good scientific writing follows a logical structure where each section has a clear purpose. If your manuscript lacks this structure, language fixes alone will not solve the problem.

Distinguishing Language Problems from Structural Problems

Language problems are about word choice, grammar, and sentence construction. Structural problems are about how the manuscript is organized, whether the argument flows logically, and whether each section does its job. These two types of problems often appear together, but they require different fixes.

A language problem might be a sentence that is too long, a word used incorrectly, or a paragraph that lacks a clear topic sentence. A structural problem might be a methods section that does not explain the study design, a results section that presents data without context, or a discussion that repeats the introduction instead of interpreting the findings.

To distinguish between the two, ask yourself whether the problem is at the sentence level or the section level. If you can fix the problem by rewriting a sentence, it is a language problem. If you need to move paragraphs, add new content, or reorganize sections, it is a structural problem.

Building Your Revision Plan

Once you understand the scope of the problem, create a revision plan. A plan helps you work systematically instead of trying to fix everything at once. Your plan should include the following steps:

1. List every language comment from the reviewer.
2. Categorize each comment as specific, general, or structural.
3. Prioritize fixes that affect reader comprehension first.
4. Set a timeline for completing the revision.
5. Identify the tools and people you will use for feedback.

Prioritizing What to Fix First

Not all language problems are equally important. Some problems affect the reader's ability to understand your research, while others are cosmetic. Prioritize the problems that affect comprehension.

The most important fixes are those that make your methods and results clear. If a reader cannot understand what you did or what you found, the manuscript has failed its primary purpose. Fix these problems first. Next, address problems that affect the flow of the argument, such as missing transitions or paragraphs that do not follow a logical order. Finally, address cosmetic problems such as word choice and style.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines that can help you ensure your manuscript includes all the necessary elements. These guidelines are designed to make research reporting transparent and complete. Using a reporting guideline can help you identify missing information that a reviewer might describe as a language problem when the real issue is incomplete reporting.

At a Glance: Language Comment Decision Table

Practical Revision Workflow

A practical revision workflow helps you move from the reviewer comment to a revised manuscript. The workflow below is designed for authors who want to improve their English without relying on expensive editing services.

Step 1: Read the Reviewer Comment in Context

Go back to the original reviewer report and read the language comment in context. Look at the sentences and paragraphs that the reviewer is referring to. If the reviewer did not specify a location, look for the most likely places where language problems would occur, such as the methods section, the results section, and the discussion.

Step 2: Identify the Specific Problem

For each language comment, identify the specific problem. Is the sentence too long? Is the word choice incorrect? Is the paragraph missing a topic sentence? Is the passive voice making the text hard to follow? Write down the specific problem so you know what you are fixing.

Step 3: Fix the Problem

Rewrite the sentence or paragraph to fix the problem. Read the revised text aloud to check that it flows well. Make sure the revised text says exactly what you mean. Do not change the meaning of the text to make it sound better.

Step 4: Check for Consistency

After you have fixed the specific problems, check the entire manuscript for consistency. Are the terms used consistently throughout? Is the tense consistent? Are the abbreviations defined and used consistently? Consistency makes the manuscript easier to read and reduces the chance of further language comments.

Step 5: Get Peer Feedback

Ask a colleague or a peer to read the revised manuscript. Ask them to focus on clarity and to tell you where they struggle to understand. Peer feedback is valuable because it gives you a fresh perspective on your writing.

Step 6: Prepare Your Response Letter

Write a response letter that addresses each reviewer comment. For language comments, explain what you changed and how you changed it. If you disagree with a comment, explain why you believe the original text was correct. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices emphasize that peer review should be a respectful and constructive process, and your response letter should reflect this.

Using Free Tools for Language Improvement

You do not need to pay for an editing service to improve the English in your manuscript. Several free tools can help you identify and fix language problems.

Word Processing Tools

Most word processors include a spelling and grammar checker. These tools can catch common errors such as misspelled words, incorrect verb tense, and punctuation problems. They are not perfect, but they are a good first step.

Read Aloud Tools

Many word processors and web browsers have a read-aloud feature. Listening to your manuscript can help you identify sentences that are too long or awkward. If you stumble when reading a sentence aloud, the reader will likely stumble too.

Peer Feedback

Peer feedback is one of the most valuable tools you have. A colleague who is not familiar with your research can tell you where they struggle to understand. This feedback is free and often more useful than a professional editing service because it focuses on comprehension instead of style.

Reporting Guidelines

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for many types of research. These guidelines tell you what information your manuscript should include. If your manuscript is missing information, a reviewer may comment on the language when the real problem is incomplete reporting. Using a reporting guideline helps you identify and fix these problems.

Common Failure Patterns in Responding to Language Comments

Authors often make the same mistakes when responding to language comments. Knowing these patterns can help you avoid them.

Pattern 1: Fixing Only the Specific Sentences

When a reviewer points to a specific sentence, it is tempting to fix only that sentence. However, the reviewer may have pointed to one example of a larger problem. If the reviewer says "the methods are unclear," they may have pointed to one sentence, but the entire section may need revision. Fix the example, but also check the rest of the section for the same problem.

Pattern 2: Overcorrecting the Language

Some authors respond to a language comment by rewriting the entire manuscript in a more formal or complex style. This often makes the manuscript worse. The goal is clarity, not complexity. Write in a direct, simple style that is easy to follow.

Pattern 3: Ignoring the Structural Problem

A reviewer may say the language needs improvement when the real problem is that the manuscript is missing important information. For example, if the methods section does not describe the statistical analysis, the reviewer may say the section is unclear. Fixing the language will not solve this problem. You need to add the missing information.

Pattern 4: Arguing with the Reviewer

Some authors respond to language comments by arguing that the reviewer is wrong. This is rarely productive. Even if you believe the reviewer is wrong, you should consider whether the comment points to a real problem. If the reviewer could not understand your manuscript, the manuscript needs improvement, even if the reviewer's specific suggestion is not the best fix.

Pattern 5: Not Using the Response Letter Effectively

The response letter is your opportunity to show the reviewer how you have addressed their comments. A vague response, such as "we have revised the manuscript," does not give the reviewer confidence that you have taken their comments seriously. Instead, explain what you changed and why.

Records and Measurements for Your Revision

Keeping records of your revision process helps you track your progress and respond to the reviewer. The following records are useful:

A Comment Response Table

Create a table with the following columns: reviewer comment, your response, the location of the change, and the date. This table helps you track every comment and ensures you have not missed any.

A Revision Log

Keep a log of the changes you make. This log should include the date, the section of the manuscript, and a brief description of the change. This log is useful if you need to refer back to a change later.

A Consistency Checklist

Create a checklist of terms, abbreviations, and numbers that you use in the manuscript. Check the manuscript against this list to ensure consistency.

Common Failure Patterns in the Revision Process

Beyond the response patterns, there are common failures in the revision process itself.

Failure to Diagnose the Problem

The most common failure is to start fixing sentences before you understand the problem. If the reviewer says the manuscript is unclear, you need to diagnose why it is unclear before you start fixing. This diagnosis may involve reading the manuscript aloud, asking a peer to read it, or checking the manuscript against a reporting guideline.

Failure to Prioritize

Another common failure is to try to fix everything at once. This approach is overwhelming and often results in a manuscript that is not improved. Prioritize the fixes that affect comprehension first, and then address the cosmetic problems.

Failure to Get Feedback

Some authors revise the manuscript in isolation and do not get feedback. This is a mistake. A peer can identify problems that you cannot see because you are too close to the work.

Failure to Check the Final Manuscript

After you have made your revisions, you need to check the entire manuscript. This check should include reading the manuscript aloud, checking for consistency, and verifying that the changes have not introduced new errors.

Limitations of Self-Directed Language Revision

Self-directed language revision has limitations. You cannot see your own writing problems as clearly as a reader can. You may also be too close to the research to recognize when the writing is unclear.

When to Seek Professional Help

If you have revised the manuscript and the reviewer still says the language is unclear, you may need to seek professional help. This does not necessarily mean a paid editing service. You could ask a colleague with strong writing skills to review the manuscript, or you could ask a mentor for help.

When to Consider a Paid Editing Service

A paid editing service may be appropriate if you have a deadline and you do not have access to a colleague who can help. However, you should be aware that a paid editing service will not fix structural problems. The service will fix the language, but you still need to ensure that the manuscript is complete and well organized.

The Role of the Author

The author is ultimately responsible for the manuscript. Even if you use a paid editing service, you are responsible for the content and the accuracy of the manuscript. You should check the edited manuscript carefully to ensure that the editor has not changed the meaning of your research.

The Response Letter

The response letter is a critical part of the revision process. It is your opportunity to show the reviewer that you have taken their comments seriously and that you have improved the manuscript.

Structure of the Response Letter

The response letter should be organized by reviewer comment. For each comment, you should provide the following:

1. The reviewer's comment, quoted or paraphrased.
2. Your response to the comment.
3. A description of the change you made to the manuscript.

Tone of the Response Letter

The tone of the response letter should be respectful and professional. You should not argue with the reviewer, but you can explain why you disagree with a comment. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices emphasize that peer review should be a constructive process, and your response letter should reflect this.

Responding to Language Comments

When responding to a language comment, you should explain what you changed and why. For example, you might say, "We have revised the methods section to clarify the statistical analysis. We have also added a description of the statistical software used." This response shows the reviewer that you have addressed the comment.

The Role of Reporting Guidelines

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for many types of research. These guidelines are important because they help you ensure that your manuscript includes all the necessary information. If your manuscript is missing information, the reviewer may say the language is unclear when the real problem is incomplete reporting.

Using a Reporting Guideline

To use a reporting guideline, you should first identify the type of research you are reporting. Then, find the appropriate guideline on the EQUATOR Network website. Use the guideline to check your manuscript for completeness.

Reporting Guidelines and Language

Reporting guidelines do not directly address language, but they help you ensure that the manuscript is complete. A complete manuscript is easier to read and less likely to receive language comments.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I respond to a reviewer who says my English needs improvement?

Treat the comment as a request for clarity. Read the manuscript aloud, ask a peer to review it, and prioritize fixes that affect comprehension. Use the EQUATOR Network to check that your manuscript follows the relevant reporting guideline.

What is the best way to write a reviewer response letter?

Organize the letter by reviewer comment. For each comment, quote or paraphrase the comment, explain your response, and describe the change you made. Keep a respectful and professional tone, as emphasized by the Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices.

Should I use a paid editing service to fix my English?

A paid editing service may be appropriate if you have a deadline and no access to a colleague who can help. However, a paid service will not fix structural problems. You are still responsible for the content and accuracy of the manuscript.

How can I improve the English in my manuscript for free?

Use the spelling and grammar checker in your word processor, use read-aloud tools to identify awkward sentences, and ask a colleague to review the manuscript. The National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources can help you structure your research report clearly.

What should I do if the reviewer says my methods section is unclear?

Check the methods section against the relevant reporting guideline from the EQUATOR Network. If the guideline reveals missing information, add that information. If the section is still unclear, ask a peer to read it and tell you where they struggle.

How do I know if a language comment is actually a structural problem?

Ask yourself whether the problem is at the sentence level or the section level. If you can fix the problem by rewriting a sentence, it is a language problem. If you need to move paragraphs, add new content, or reorganize sections, it is a structural problem.

What should I do if I disagree with a reviewer's language comment?

You can explain why you disagree in your response letter, but you should also consider whether the comment points to a real problem. If the reviewer could not understand your manuscript, the manuscript needs improvement, even if the reviewer's specific suggestion is not the best fix.

How do I check my manuscript for consistency after revision?

Use a consistency checklist of terms, abbreviations, and numbers. Check the manuscript against this list to ensure consistency. Read the manuscript aloud to identify any remaining awkward sentences or flow problems.

Using the Evidence

Related Articles

• Common Limitations in Research: Examples and How to Address Them
• Methodology Limitations in Research: How to Identify and Address Them
• Clinical Research Coordinator Interview Questions and How to Answer Them
• Genome Editing
• Rna Editing

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.