The response to reviewers, and what an editor can do to it

What is a response to reviewers, and who reads it?

A point-by-point reply to every comment the reviewers and the editor raised, sent alongside the revised manuscript. Most journals ask for it as a separate file.

Its readers are the handling editor and, where the paper goes back out, the original reviewers. Both are working from the earlier version and the earlier reports, so a reply that answers a comment without restating it makes them reconstruct the question first.

The convention that has settled almost everywhere is quotation followed by reply. The reviewer's comment appears in full, then the author's answer, then the location of the change in the revised file. Where a comment prompted no change, the reply says so and gives the reason.

PLOS ONE, one journal that publishes its requirement, asks authors to "address the specific points made by each reviewer." It asks for responses to all reviewer and editor comments, and for a record of the changes made.¹

Length is not a virtue here. A reply that runs longer than the section it defends usually indicates a disagreement that has not been named, and naming it directly takes fewer words.

Does the editor have to follow the reviewers?

Recommendations are advisory rather than binding. The ICMJE states plainly that "the editor of a journal is ultimately responsible for the selection of all its content," and that an editor may reject an article at any time before publication.²

That matters for how a response letter is written. The editor's own letter, not the reviewers' reports, sets the conditions for acceptance, and where the two differ the editor's summary is the one that governs.

Reviewers disagreeing with each other is common enough that journals expect authors to say so. Where two reports ask for opposite changes, naming the conflict and explaining which of the two was followed is a normal reply, and it is better received than a silent choice.

Can an editor of language work on a response letter?

Yes, and it is one of the more useful places to spend an editing budget. The letter is short, it is read carefully, and it is written under time pressure by someone who has just been criticized.

What editing does to it is mechanical and effective. Numbering matches the reviewer's own numbering, every comment is reproduced accurately, and page and line references point where they claim to. Each change is described the same way throughout rather than four ways in four replies.

Tone is the other half. A reply written in frustration reads as frustration to the person who wrote the comment, and softening a sentence changes nothing about the argument it carries. Editing can mark the sentences that will read as combative to someone who has not seen the author's day.

What an editor cannot do with a reviewer's comment

Judging whether the reviewer is right is outside the work. Whether an additional experiment is necessary, whether a statistical objection holds, and whether a requested citation is relevant are all questions inside your field, and they belong to you and your coauthors.

An editor can mark a comment that has not been answered anywhere in the reply, which happens more often than authors expect in a long report. An editor can also mark a reply that answers a different question from the one asked.

Where the reply says a change was made, an editor can confirm that the revised manuscript contains a change at the place named. Confirming that the change addresses the scientific objection is a separate act, and it is not ours.

Is the review confidential, and may it be shared with an editor?

Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential by both the ICMJE and COPE. The ICMJE describes submitted manuscripts as "privileged communications that are authors' private, confidential property."² COPE asks reviewers to respect the confidentiality of the manuscripts they evaluate and not to disclose information about the work or use it for personal advantage.³

Those obligations run to reviewers and journal staff rather than to authors. Sending your own paper and the reports about it to someone you have engaged is ordinary practice, and it is what most language editing of a revision involves.

Where a paper is under an embargo or a collaboration agreement restricting circulation, that is a separate constraint. Mentioning it before the work starts settles what can be sent and how.

Every document a client sends us is treated in confidence, and unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, and decision letters are held on the same terms as anything else.

Should the revised manuscript be marked up?

Journals differ, and the instructions to authors say which. Many ask for two files: a marked version showing changes and a clean version for typesetting. Some ask for one or the other, and a few ask that changes be indicated by color rather than tracked.

Where the journal is silent, supplying both costs nothing and saves a request. The marked file lets a reviewer find the changes, and the clean file is the one that becomes the paper.

PLOS ONE asks for both, and names the method. It requires "a marked-up copy of your manuscript file showing the changes you have made since the original submission."¹ It states that the best way to show those changes is the tracked changes option in Microsoft Word, and asks for a clean version alongside.¹

Line numbering matters more than it seems. A response letter citing line 412 is useless where the revised file has no line numbers, or where the numbering restarts in every section.

How long does a revision take, and where does editing fit?

The journal sets the deadline and will usually extend it on request. What tends to go wrong is not the science but the assembly, since a revision touches the manuscript, the response letter, the figures, the supplementary files, and sometimes the cover letter.

Editing works best after the science is settled and before the files are assembled. A language pass over a revision that is still moving produces corrections to sentences that will not survive.

For a paper returned with language as a stated reason, the revision is the point at which that criticism is answered. Leaving it to the last day is how a second round of the same comment happens.

Extensions are usually available for the asking. PLOS ONE, for one, directs authors who need more time to email the journal rather than to miss the date.¹

Can an editor tell me whether the revision will be accepted?

Nobody outside the journal can, and an editor claiming to know is guessing. Acceptance follows from the editor's judgment, the reviewers' assessment of the changes, and the journal's own priorities, and none of those three is visible from outside.

What can be said is narrower and still worth having. A response letter that answers every comment in the reviewer's own numbering removes one reason for a second round. A tone that reads as cooperative removes another, and a manuscript whose stated changes are actually present removes a third.

None of those three has anything to do with the research, which is why they are the ones worth clearing out of the way. What remains is the reviewers' view of the science, and that is the argument the revision was for.