Blog

Peer review is important for academic publishing, helping to maintain quality and trust in research. After your manuscript passes our editorial checks and is published on Wellcome Open Research, the F1000 Editorial Team will invite experts from your field to carefully review the paper. These peer reviewers will provide feedback and will most likely offer suggestions on how to improve your submission. While feedback enhances quality and impact, responding correctly to reviewer comments is also important.  

So, how should you apply and respond to feedback? Read on for some valuable hints and tips to make this process easier. 

Understanding the peer review process at Wellcome Open Research 

First, you must understand the peer review process to address the reviewer’s feedback. Wellcome Open Research uses an open peer review model, where reports are public, and the identities of authors and reviewers are known. This transparency encourages constructive feedback. Embracing this approach is essential for effectively addressing comments and improving your submission’s quality. 

But what are the benefits of open peer review? One key benefit of post-publication peer review for academic research is its capacity to speed up publishing times and enhance research impact. Transparency in the peer review process enhances accountability and acknowledges the reviewers by publicising their names and reviews.  Authors are also aware of who is reviewing their articles, which can help build the author’s trust in the feedback they receive and confirm the reviewer’s expertise. 

Review all comments carefully and make note of any revisions

Once you receive the reviewer comments, take the time to read them thoroughly and understand them. Often, reviewers provide both general feedback and specific comments or suggestions for improvement. 

After reviewing reviewer feedback, you should list all the changes the reviewers have requested. After identifying each suggestion, you should move it into a new document and use line numbers or bullet points to separate the feedback. Be sure to include a separate section for comments from each reviewer. 

You can consider separating each comment into one of four main categories: 

1.  Valid and essential suggestions: These comments highlight clear issues in your work or propose improvements that can significantly enhance the quality of your research. 

2. Comments that require clarification: Occasionally, reviewers may misunderstand a point in your manuscript or seek additional information. In such instances, your response should aim to provide the necessary clarity. 

3. Comments that can be politely declined: Not all reviewer comments hold equal validity or relevance. Some suggestions may not align with your research goals or may fall outside the scope of the study. In these situations, politely explain your rationale for not incorporating the suggested changes. 

4. Comments about minor revisions in the manuscript: Such comments pertain to small changes and improvements that do not affect the overall conclusions of a paper. These can include missing references, data presentation, or typos and phrasing issues. 

Highlight the changes on your document, and use “track changes” to visualise edits 

Start planning where you’ll make the changes and what those changes should be. You can do so by making notes on your list of feedback or directly in your manuscript. 

Copying the reviewer’s feedback into comments within your manuscript can help you understand where the edits should be placed and how the different suggestions relate to each other. 

Be sure to turn on “track changes” to mark all changes. This will help you locate them later when writing your response letter, making it easier to respond to reviewers. 

Reviewers may misunderstand your work, so take the opportunity to clarify your research further

If reviewers point out aspects you believe have already been explained in your paper, do not assume they lack understanding. If one person is confused, others may be as well. Instead, view this as an opportunity to clarify your point further. You can incorporate a few additional sentences or references to explain that part of your research further, ensuring it does not seem as though you have overlooked their feedback. 

Think carefully about where changes can’t be made

You might decide not to revise your paper if it needs a lot more research or changes the focus of your work. 

Remember, peer review is a discussion. If you have good reason, it’s okay to politely disagree with the reviewer. If there are changes you cannot make, explain this in your response letter. 

Carefully craft a clear response letter

Start your response document with a brief introduction, thanking the reviewers for their feedback. Organise your letter with clear headings for each reviewer’s comments. Quote the reviewers directly and briefly explain your responses. Use examples and set revisions apart with italics or text boxes for emphasis.  

A good response letter can be fairly long, but if you structure and format it clearly, it will be easy for others to read and follow. Keep your tone respectful and professional throughout. Thank the reviewers for their time and feedback and emphasise your commitment to improving your work based on their suggestions. 

Be prepared for further feedback

After resubmitting to Wellcome Open Research, prepare for another round of peer review. Reviewers often ask for more revisions or clarifications after your initial changes. Approach these rounds with the same professionalism and commitment to improve your manuscript as before. 

Remember that peer review is a collaborative effort aimed at advancing knowledge. Collaborating with reviewers to constructively build upon your research will improve the quality and impact of your work. Discover more about peer review at Wellcome Open Research here.