How to Use Track Changes for Peer Review Revisions
By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD ·
Quick Answer
- Enable Track Changes before editing your revised manuscript so every insertion, deletion, and formatting change is recorded for reviewers to see.
- Use a separate response letter to address each reviewer comment by number, referencing the exact location of your change in the revised file.
- Track Changes does not capture changes made to figures, tables, or equations, so document those revisions separately in your response letter.
Understanding the Peer Review Revision Workflow
Peer review revision is a structured process where authors respond to reviewer comments and resubmit a modified manuscript. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices establish that peer review depends on a shared commitment to integrity among authors, reviewers, and editors. Your revision is part of that system, and the way you present changes affects how reviewers and editors assess your responsiveness.
The revision workflow typically involves several stages. First, you receive the decision letter with reviewer comments. Second, you plan your response strategy. Third, you revise the manuscript using Track Changes. Fourth, you prepare a response letter. Fifth, you resubmit through the journal portal.
Each journal has specific requirements for how revisions should be submitted. Some journals require a clean version and a tracked version. Others require only a tracked version. Some journals ask you to upload the response letter as a separate file. The journal's submission guidelines are the authoritative source for these requirements, and you should read them before starting your revision.
The National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources provides access to biomedical books and research-method references that describe the scholarly communication process. These resources emphasize that transparent reporting is a core expectation in research. Track Changes is a practical tool that supports this transparency by showing exactly what you changed in response to reviewer feedback.
At a Glance
| Revision Task | Recommended Action | Common Mistake |
|---|---|---|
| Enable Track Changes | Turn on Track Changes in your word processor before making any edits | Forgetting to enable it and losing the revision history |
| Respond to each comment | Number your responses to match the reviewer comments | Grouping multiple comments into one vague response |
| Handle figures and tables | Describe changes in the response letter and note the file name | Assuming Track Changes will show figure edits |
| Check visibility | Review the document in All Markup view before submission | Sending a document with markup hidden |
| Save file versions | Save the tracked version with a clear file name | Overwriting the original manuscript file |
| Verify journal requirements | Read the journal's revision instructions | Following a generic template instead of journal rules |
Core Principles of Transparent Revision
Why Track Changes Matters
Track Changes is the standard tool for showing reviewers and editors exactly what you modified in your manuscript. When you revise a paper, the reviewer needs to see your edits to evaluate whether you addressed the comments. Without Track Changes, the reviewer cannot easily distinguish your new text from the original, which creates confusion and slows the review process.
The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices emphasize that peer review depends on trust and transparency. When you use Track Changes, you demonstrate that you are making honest, verifiable revisions. This is particularly important when you disagree with a reviewer comment. If you decline to make a change, you must explain why in the response letter, and the reviewer needs to see that the manuscript text remains unchanged in that area.
The Role of the Response Letter
The response letter is the companion document to your tracked manuscript. It lists each reviewer comment and your response to it. The letter should be organized by reviewer and by comment number. For each comment, you should state what you changed and where the change appears in the manuscript.
The response letter serves several purposes. It helps the editor understand the scope of your revision. It helps the reviewer locate your changes. It also provides a record of your decisions, including comments you chose not to accept. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices note that authors should be prepared to justify their decisions in the publication process.
The Role of Reporting Guidelines
The EQUATOR Network provides a library of reporting guidelines for different study types. These guidelines help you ensure that your manuscript includes all the information needed for a transparent and complete report. When you revise a manuscript, you should check whether the journal requires a specific reporting guideline and whether your revision addresses any checklist items the reviewers raised.
The EQUATOR Network is the primary resource for selecting the right reporting guideline for your study design. If a reviewer asks you to add information that is required by a reporting guideline, you should make that change and note it in your response letter. The reporting guideline also helps you identify missing information before the reviewers do.
Practical Workflow for Track Changes
Step 1: Read the Decision Letter and Comments
The decision letter from the journal editor tells you whether your manuscript is accepted, rejected, or invited for revision. If you are invited to revise, the letter will include the reviewer comments and any editorial requirements. Read the entire letter carefully before you start editing.
The decision letter may include a deadline for resubmission. Note this deadline and plan your revision schedule. The letter may also include specific instructions about how to submit the revised manuscript, such as whether to include a tracked-changes version, a clean version, or both.
Step 2: Organize the Reviewer Comments
Create a document that lists every reviewer comment. Number the comments sequentially. If there are multiple reviewers, keep their comments separate. This document will become the basis for your response letter.
The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the responsibilities of authors in the peer review process. These responsibilities include responding to reviewer comments in a timely and professional manner. Organizing the comments before you start editing helps you respond to each one and avoid missing a comment.
Step 3: Enable Track Changes
Open your manuscript in your word processor. Enable Track Changes before you make any edits. In Microsoft Word, this is under the Review tab. In Google Docs, this is under Tools and then Track Changes. In LibreOffice, it is under Edit and then Track Changes.
Once Track Changes is enabled, every insertion, deletion, and formatting change is recorded. The word processor will show your changes in a different color or with a different underline style. You can also add comments to the manuscript to explain a change or to ask a question for the editor.
Step 4: Revise the Manuscript
Work through the reviewer comments one at a time. Make the changes in the manuscript using Track Changes. For each change, you should be able to connect it to a specific reviewer comment. If you make a change that is not connected to a comment, you should note it in the response letter so the editor understands why you made it.
When you revise, you should also check the manuscript for consistency. The EQUATOR Network reporting guidelines can help you identify sections that need to be updated. For example, if you add a new analysis, you may need to update the abstract, the methods, the results, and the discussion.
Step 5: Prepare the Response Letter
The response letter is a separate document from the manuscript. It should be organized by reviewer and by comment. For each comment, you should provide a response that states what you changed and where the change is located.
The response letter should be written in a professional tone. You should not argue with the reviewer or dismiss their comments. Instead, you should state what you did and why. If you disagree with a comment, you should explain your reasoning and provide evidence for your position.
Step 6: Check the Tracked Document
Before you submit, review the tracked document in the All Markup view. This view shows all the changes that are recorded. Check that the changes are visible and that the document is not corrupted. You should also check that the document is not too large to upload to the journal submission system.
Step 7: Submit the Revision
Follow the journal's submission instructions. Upload the tracked manuscript and the response letter. Some journals also require a clean version of the manuscript. The journal instructions will tell you which files to upload.
Handling Figures, Tables, and Equations
Figures
Track Changes does not record changes to figures. If you replace a figure, the word processor will show the old figure being deleted and the new figure being inserted, but it will not show the details of the change. The reviewer will only see that the figure has changed.
To handle figure changes, you should describe the change in the response letter. State which figure was changed and what the change was. For example, you might write that Figure 2 was updated to include the new data from the revised analysis. You should also upload the new figure file separately if the journal requires it.
Tables
Tables are similar to figures. Track Changes will show the table being deleted and reinserted, but it will not show the individual cell changes. If you change a single value in a table, the reviewer will see the entire table as a change.
To handle table changes, you should describe the specific change in the response letter. For example, you might write that Table 1 was updated to correct the standard deviation for the control group. This helps the reviewer find the change without comparing the entire table.
Equations
Equations are also not tracked in detail. If you change an equation, the Track Changes will show the old equation being deleted and the new equation being inserted. The reviewer will not see the individual symbols that changed.
To handle equation changes, you should describe the change in the response letter. For example, you might write that Equation 3 was corrected to include the missing term. You should also check that the equation is formatted correctly in the manuscript.
Options and Tradeoffs in Track Changes
Track Changes vs. Clean Manuscript
Some journals require a tracked-changes version of the manuscript. Others require a clean version. Some require both. The journal's submission guidelines will tell you which version is required.
A tracked-changes version shows the reviewer exactly what you changed. A clean version shows the final manuscript without any markup. The tradeoff is that a tracked-changes version can be difficult to read, especially if you made many changes. A clean version is easier to read but does not show the reviewer what you changed.
Track Changes vs. Response Letter
The response letter is the document that explains your changes. The Track Changes shows the changes themselves. Both are necessary for a complete revision. The response letter provides the context and the reasoning, while the Track Changes provides the evidence.
Track Changes vs. Comments
Track Changes records the changes you make to the text. Comments are notes that you attach to the manuscript. You can use comments to explain a change or to ask a question. Comments are not part of the manuscript text, and they are not included in the final published version.
Records and Measurements for Your Revision
What to Record
You should keep a record of your revision process. This record includes the reviewer comments, your response letter, and the tracked manuscript. You should also keep a version history of the manuscript, so you can see the changes you made over time.
The National Institutes of Health Grants and Funding website provides official policy and application context for NIH-funded research. If your research is funded by NIH, you should be aware of the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy. This policy requires you to plan for data management and sharing, and it may affect how you handle your research records.
How to Measure Your Progress
You can measure your progress by tracking the number of reviewer comments you have addressed. The response letter should list each comment and your response. As you complete each response, you can mark it as done. This helps you ensure that you have addressed every comment.
The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy
The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy requires researchers to submit a Data Management and Sharing Plan with their grant applications. This policy is relevant to the revision process because it may require you to update your plan if your research changes. The policy is described in detail on the NIH sharing website.
Common Failure Patterns in Track Changes
Failure to Enable Track Changes
The most common failure is forgetting to enable Track Changes before editing. If you edit the manuscript without Track Changes, you will not have a record of your changes. You will have to redo the edits or reconstruct the changes manually.
Failure to Respond to Every Comment
Another common failure is missing a reviewer comment. This can happen if you do not organize the comments before you start editing. The reviewer will notice the missing response and may be frustrated.
Failure to Describe Figure and Table Changes
As noted above, Track Changes does not capture figure and table changes. If you do not describe these changes in the response letter, the reviewer will not know what you changed.
Failure to Check the Final Document
A final common failure is submitting a document that does not show the tracked changes. This can happen if you turn off Track Changes before saving the final version. The reviewer will not see your changes and will not be able to evaluate your revision.
Limitations of Track Changes
Track Changes Does Not Show the Reasoning
Track Changes shows what you changed, but it does not show why you changed it. The response letter is the place to explain your reasoning. Without the response letter, the reviewer cannot understand your decisions.
Track Changes Does Not Show the Context
Track Changes shows the changes in the context of the manuscript, but it does not show the context of the reviewer comments. The reviewer must refer to the response letter to understand the connection between the comments and the changes.
Track Changes Does Not Show the Final Version
Track Changes shows the changes, but it does not show the final version of the manuscript. The reviewer must accept the changes to see the final version. This can be inconvenient for the reviewer.
Professional Escalation Criteria
When to Ask for Help
If you are unsure about how to use Track Changes or how to prepare the response letter, you should ask for help. Your supervisor, a colleague, or the journal's editorial office can provide guidance. The journal's editorial office is the best source for questions about the journal's specific requirements.
When to Contact the Editor
If you have a question about a reviewer comment, you should contact the editor. The editor is the intermediary between you and the reviewers. If you do not understand a comment, the editor can clarify it.
When to Seek Institutional Support
If you are a student or a postdoctoral researcher, you may need to seek support from your institution. Your institution may have a research office or a writing center that can help you with the revision process.
Building a Revision Decision Log to Track Every Change
A revision decision log is a structured record that connects each reviewer comment to your response, the specific manuscript change, and the rationale behind your decision. This log is distinct from the response letter because it is an internal working document that you maintain during the revision process, not a document you submit to the journal. The log helps you manage complex revisions, avoid missed comments, and provide a clear audit trail if questions arise later.
Why You Need a Decision Log
The response letter is the final product that reviewers see, but the decision log is the working tool that helps you build that letter. When you have multiple reviewers, each with several comments, the volume of information can become difficult to manage. A decision log organizes this information in one place and lets you track your progress as you work through the revision.
The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the responsibilities of authors in the peer review process, including responding to reviewer comments in a professional manner. A decision log supports this responsibility by ensuring that every comment receives a deliberate decision. It also helps you identify patterns in the comments, such as multiple reviewers raising the same issue, which may indicate a more fundamental problem with the manuscript.
Setting Up Your Decision Log
Create a table with columns for the reviewer number, comment number, the full text of the comment, your decision, the location of the change, and the status of the response. You can use a spreadsheet, a table in a word processor, or a dedicated reference manager. The format does not matter as long as you can sort and filter the entries.
For each reviewer comment, record the following information:
- Reviewer number and comment number
- The full text of the comment
- Your decision, such as accepted, partially accepted, or declined
- The specific location in the manuscript where you made the change
- The status of the response, such as pending, in progress, or complete
The National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources provides access to biomedical books and research-method references that describe the scholarly communication process. These resources emphasize the importance of maintaining clear records in research. The decision log is a practical application of this principle to the revision process.
Using the Log to Make Decisions
When you receive the decision letter, copy each reviewer comment into the log. Then work through the comments one at a time. For each comment, decide whether you will accept the change, partially accept it, or decline it. Record your decision and the reasoning behind it.
If you accept the comment, make the change in the manuscript with Track Changes enabled and record the location of the change in the log. If you partially accept the comment, make the part of the change you agree with and record what you did not change and why. If you decline the comment, record your reasoning. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices note that authors should be prepared to justify their decisions, and the log provides the evidence for that justification.
Tracking Progress and Identifying Gaps
The decision log also helps you measure your progress. As you complete each response, mark the status as completed. At any point, you can see how many comments remain and which ones are still pending. This is especially useful when you are working on a tight deadline and need to prioritize your time.
The log also helps you identify gaps in your revision. For example, if you add a new analysis in response to a reviewer comment, you may need to update the abstract, the methods, the results, and the discussion. The log can include a checklist of related sections that need to be updated, so you do not miss a section.
Common Failure Patterns in Decision Logs
One common failure is creating the log but not updating it as you work. The log is only useful if it is current. Set aside time after each editing session to update the log with your progress.
Another common failure is using the log as a substitute for the response letter. The log is a working document, not a submission document. The response letter should be written in a professional tone and organized for the reviewer to read. The log can be more informal and detailed, but it should not be submitted in place of the response letter.
A third failure is not recording declined comments in enough detail. If you decline a comment, you need to explain why in the response letter. The log should capture that reasoning while it is fresh in your mind, so you can write the response letter later without having to reconstruct your thinking.
Integrating the Log with Your Submission
When you finish the revision, use the log to build the response letter. The log provides the raw material for the letter, including the comment text, your decision, and the location of the change. You can then rewrite this material in a professional tone for the journal.
The log also serves as a record of your revision process. If the editor asks you to clarify a decision or if a reviewer questions a change, you can refer to the log to recall what you did and why. This is particularly useful when the revision process takes several weeks and you need to remember the details of your decisions.
When to Escalate from the Log
If you find that you cannot make a decision on a comment, you may need to escalate the issue. For example, if a reviewer asks for a change that conflicts with the journal's reporting guidelines, you should contact the editor for clarification. The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for different study types, and you can use these guidelines to support your decision.
If you are unsure about how to respond to a comment, you should also consider seeking help from a colleague or your supervisor. The decision log can help you identify the comments that need additional input, so you can ask for help efficiently.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I enable Track Changes in Microsoft Word?
Open the manuscript in Microsoft Word and go to the Review tab. Click the Track Changes button to turn it on. The button will be highlighted when Track Changes is active. You can also use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+Shift+E to turn Track Changes on or off.
How do I enable Track Changes in Google Docs?
Open the document in Google Docs and go to the Edit menu. Select the Track Changes option. Google Docs will show your changes in a different color. You can also use the keyboard shortcut Ctrl+Shift+E to turn Track Changes on or off.
How do I see the tracked changes in my manuscript?
In Microsoft Word, go to the Review tab and select the Markup view. This view shows all the changes that were made. In Google Docs, the changes are shown in the document with a different color. You can also use the Comments panel to see the changes.
How do I accept or reject the tracked changes?
In Microsoft Word, go to the Review tab and use the Accept and Reject buttons. You can accept or reject changes one at a time or all at once. In Google Docs, you can accept or reject changes from the Comments panel.
How do I handle changes to figures and tables?
Track Changes does not track changes to figures and tables. You must describe the changes in the response letter. For example, you might write that Figure 2 was updated to include the new data. You should also upload the new figure or table file separately if the journal requires it.
How do I write a response letter?
The response letter should be organized by reviewer and by comment. For each comment, you should state what you changed and why. You should also state if you did not make a change and explain why. The response letter should be professional and respectful.
How do I know if the journal requires a clean version?
The journal's submission guidelines will tell you which files to upload. Some journals require a clean version, some require a tracked version, and some require both. Read the guidelines carefully before you submit.
What should I do if I miss a reviewer comment?
If you miss a reviewer comment, you should address it in your response letter. You can state that you missed the comment and that you have now addressed it. The reviewer will appreciate your honesty and your effort to address the comment.
Using the Evidence
| Source | Best use in this topic | Important limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Research Methods Resources | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
| EQUATOR Network | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
| Core Practices | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements |
Related Articles
- Peer Review Metrics: What They Are and How to Use Them
- Responding to Peer Review: A Structured Revision and Response Process
- Protein Synthesis Step By Step
- Meta-Analysis vs Peer Review: Understanding the Differences
- Protein Synthesis: A Step-by-Step Guide to Transcription and Translation
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.