How to Respond to Peer Review
Daniel Ha · Seoul National University PhD StudentOrganize every reviewer comment into a table by type and difficulty, then
write a point-by-point response letter that addresses each one without
exception. Agree and describe exactly what you changed with page and line
numbers, or disagree politely with supporting evidence. Remember that a
revision request is not a rejection but an opportunity to publish.
What Types of Peer Review Decisions Are There?
There are five types: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Revise & Resubmit, and Reject. You typically receive the review decision 1-3 months after submission. The result will be one of five types.
| Decision | Meaning | Response |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Accepted without changes | Extremely rare. Congratulations |
| Minor Revision | Accepted after small edits | Make corrections promptly and resubmit |
| Major Revision | Re-review after major changes | Respond systematically; additional analysis may be needed |
| Revise & Resubmit | New review after substantial revision | May require near-complete rewriting |
| Reject | Submission declined | Incorporate feedback and submit to another journal |
Key mindset: Minor/Major Revision is not a rejection. It means the reviewers are willing to publish your work if you make the changes. Fewer than 5% of first submissions are accepted outright, so receiving a revision request should be taken positively.
How Do You Handle a Revision?
Step 1: Process Your Emotions
Receiving critical comments can be disappointing or frustrating at first. This is a natural reaction. Give yourself a day or so, then re-read the comments objectively. Responding emotionally will cost you the chance of publication.
Step 2: Categorize the Comments
Organize all comments into a table. This table becomes the skeleton of your response letter.
| Reviewer | Comment Summary | Type | Response Plan | Difficulty | Agreement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1-1 | Insufficient sample size justification | Methodology | Add power analysis | Medium | Agree |
| R1-2 | Fix typos | Editorial | Fix immediately | Low | Agree |
| R2-1 | Needs discussion of alternative explanations | Discussion | Add paragraph | Medium | Agree |
| R2-2 | Requests different theoretical framework | Theory | Rebut with evidence | High | Partially agree |
Categorizing comments by type reveals the priority of revision tasks. Handle editorial items (easy ones) first, then devote time to methodology and theory items (harder ones).
Step 3: Write the Response Letter
The response letter is a scholarly dialogue with the reviewers. Respond to every comment, one by one, without exception.
Example response to a comment you agree with:
Reviewer 1, Comment 1: "The statistical justification for the sample size is insufficient."
Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have added a power analysis (G*Power, α = .05, power = .80, medium effect size f = .25) justifying our sample size of 312 participants. This addition can be found on page 12, lines 8-15 of the revised manuscript.
Example response to a comment you disagree with:
Reviewer 2, Comment 2: "A mixed methods approach should be employed."
Response: We appreciate this thoughtful suggestion. However, our research question specifically asks "how much" rather than "how," which aligns with a quantitative approach (Creswell, 2024). Moreover, similar studies in our field (Kim et al., 2023; Lee, 2024) have successfully employed the same design. We have added a justification for our methodological choice on page 10, lines 3-8.
Key principles for the response letter:
- Respond to every comment without exception — skipping even one will be seen as ignoring it
- Specify the location of changes in the manuscript (page, line numbers)
- Maintain a polite and grateful tone throughout
- When disagreeing, always support your position with data or literature
- Mark newly added content in the manuscript with color or underline (per journal policy)
Step 4: Revise the Manuscript
Revise the manuscript according to what you wrote in the response letter. If the response letter and manuscript do not match, you lose credibility.
When you need additional analysis or citations, Nubint AI's Citation Finder agent can quickly find papers matching the context the reviewers requested. Working in the AI Editor lets you insert new citations directly as well.
What Do You Do If Rejected?
Rejection is common. Rejection rates at top journals range from 80-95%.
Response Strategies by Rejection Reason
| Rejection Reason | Response | Estimated Time |
|---|---|---|
| Scope mismatch | Switch immediately to a more suitable journal without revising | 1-2 weeks |
| Methodological flaws | Incorporate review comments, strengthen methodology, resubmit | 1-3 months |
| Lack of originality | Reorganize the contribution, strengthen differentiators, resubmit | 2-4 weeks |
| Insufficient analysis | Conduct additional analysis and resubmit | 1-3 months |
- Read the review comments carefully and incorporate the improvements
- Do not send the same manuscript to another journal without revisions — reviewers may overlap
- If rejected, use the journal comparison table from the How to Choose a Journal and Submit guide to switch to your second-choice journal
Managing Revision Deadlines
Most journals provide a revision deadline.
| Revision Type | Typical Deadline |
|---|---|
| Minor Revision | 2-4 weeks |
| Major Revision | 2-3 months |
| Revise & Resubmit | 3-6 months |
- Missing the deadline may result in your resubmission being treated as a new submission
- If you cannot finish in time, request an extension from the editor in advance — most will accommodate
- Create a comment categorization table immediately upon receiving the revision to gauge the workload
Common Mistakes
| Mistake | Solution |
|---|---|
| Responding emotionally to comments | Wait a day, then re-read objectively |
| Ignoring some comments | Respond to every comment without exception |
| Submitting only the revised manuscript without a response letter | Always submit the response letter alongside |
| Blindly agreeing with all comments | If you have evidence, politely push back — this actually builds trust |
| Missing the revision deadline | Plan your schedule immediately upon receiving the decision; request an extension if needed |
| Mismatch between response letter and manuscript | Write the response letter first, then revise the manuscript, and cross-check at the end |
Summary
The key to peer review response is to categorize all comments, respond to each without exception, politely, and with evidence. A revision request is not a rejection but an opportunity for publication, and a rejection is not a failure but a waypoint to another journal. Process your emotions, respond systematically, and you will reach acceptance.
For the full submission process, see the How to Choose a Journal and Submit guide. For final proofreading before submission, see the How to Proofread Your Paper guide.