How to Respond to Peer Review
Daniel Ha · Seoul National University PhD StudentWhat Types of Peer Review Decisions Are There?
There are five types: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Revise and 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 insight: 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 Respond to a Revision Request?
Categorize all comments, write a response letter, revise the manuscript, and resubmit within the deadline — follow these 5 steps in order.
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.
| Type | Comment | Response Example |
|---|---|---|
| Agree | "The statistical justification for the sample size is insufficient." | 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. |
| Disagree | "A mixed methods approach should be employed." | 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. |
Never ignore a comment you disagree with — doing so signals a lack of scholarly engagement. Partial acceptance combined with a supplementary explanation is far more effective than outright rejection. For example, framing your response as "We agree with the reviewer's point and have added this limitation to the Discussion section; however, we have not changed the methodology itself for the following reasons" increases the likelihood of reviewer acceptance.
Key principles for the response letter:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Respond to every comment | Skipping even one will be interpreted as ignoring it |
| Specify the location | Cite page and line numbers so reviewers can verify changes immediately |
| Maintain a polite tone | The more critical the comment, the more important it is to treat it as expert-to-expert dialogue |
| Support disagreements | When you push back, always cite data or literature as evidence |
| Mark changes in the manuscript | Highlight newly added content 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.
Working in the AI Editor lets you insert new citations directly.
Step 5: Resubmit
Submit the revised manuscript together with the response letter. Missing the deadline may cause your resubmission to be treated as a new submission or push it down the review queue, so be sure to meet it.
| Revision Type | Typical Deadline |
|---|---|
| Minor Revision | 2~4 weeks |
| Major Revision | 2~3 months |
| Revise & Resubmit | 3~6 months |
If you cannot finish in time, request an extension from the editor before the deadline — most will accommodate a reasonable request. Create a comment categorization table immediately upon receiving the revision to gauge the workload.
In the revised manuscript, visually distinguish all changes (color highlighting, underlines, Track Changes, etc.) so that reviewers can easily compare the old and new versions. Some journals require both a Clean Copy and a Marked Copy, so check the Author Guidelines again before resubmitting. Before submitting, do a final cross-check to confirm that each answer in the response letter corresponds one-to-one with the matching change in the manuscript.
What Should You Do If Your Paper Is Rejected?
Top journals have rejection rates of 80~95%. Incorporate reviewer feedback and resubmit to a different journal.
| 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.
What Are Common Mistakes in Responding to Peer Review?
The most frequent mistakes are responding emotionally, ignoring some comments, and submitting a revised manuscript without a response letter.
| 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.