Responding to peer review
Peer review is perceived as the gate keeper in publishing work. While
that is not entirely true (editors have the final say and sometimes
disagree with reviewers), it is a good idea to take seriously their
concerns. Again, in some cases, the concern raised by the reviewer is
not in fact a flaw with the study, but is due to poor communication by
the author – everyone who has submitted a manuscript for publication
has experienced (or will likely at some point) a moment of “but I
showed that! The reviewer obviously does not understand my work” when
reading a review, and yet it is too often assumed the issue is with the
reviewer and not what was submitted. As I stated earlier, the author
should not assume the reviewer was provided with enough information to
understand what was done by the author and why or can follow the
argument as presented. In my experience, reviewers are often trying to
be constructive in providing advice on how the manuscript can be
improved.11I say “often” because I do believe there is
collegiality in the community. That has been my experience. It is true
that in some cases, the reviewer offers no advice on how the
manuscript can be improved and only provides negative feedback.
Sometimes that is due to an intractable difference of opinion
regarding theory or method, sometimes it is because the reviewer is a
contemptibly obnoxious person, and in some cases, the manuscript is
just not very good.
A prudent approach to dealing with reviews is to consider the comments
as advice on how to improve the manuscript. It is helpful that when
responding to the reviewers, the author provides a written response to
each comment and clearly outlines what changes were made to the
manuscript. It is not enough to respond with “done” or “thank you for
the comment, changes were made” (yes, I do receive such responses, and
far too often). Such responses do not help the editor in determining if
the manuscript has been adequately improved. Which changes were made?
How is the new manuscript different than what was previously
submitted”? Answering these questions will avoid confusion – making
the editor work hard to understand what has been done to allay reviewer
concerns is counterproductive. I have heard several colleagues say they
approach their response to peer review with a “the reviewer is always
correct” attitude. I believe that is generally a healthy approach and
shows humility. However, one must be mindful that there is room for
scientific debate. The author is certainly within her rights as an
expert in the field to disagree with the reviewer. What matters is that
the author provides the editor with a defence for her position.