Peer-review practice
Responding to peer review: document each change
A structured response connects each concern, answer and manuscript change.
Read the decision as a set of tasks
Separate required editorial conditions from reviewer suggestions and group related points before editing. If two comments conflict, flag the conflict for the editor instead of silently choosing one.
Discuss major changes with all authors, especially when they affect analyses, interpretation, authorship, ethics statements or the central conclusion.
Use a point-by-point structure
Reproduce each comment accurately, provide a direct response and identify the page, paragraph, table, figure or supplement where the change appears. Quote only the minimum revised text needed to orient the reader.
When you disagree, remain specific and evidence-based. Explain the scientific reason, acknowledge any limitation and revise the manuscript where clearer communication can resolve the underlying concern.
Audit the revised package
Check that tracked and clean versions match, citations and numbering remain correct, and every promised change is present. Update declarations, supplements and reporting checklists when the revision changes them.
End with a concise summary of the most important changes. The response is part of the editorial record; clarity saves time and reduces avoidable review cycles.
Practical checklist
Practical checklist
- Editorial conditions separated from suggestions
- Every comment reproduced and answered
- Exact location of each change supplied
- Disagreements explained with evidence
- All authors approved substantive revisions
- Clean, tracked and response files cross-checked
Official readings
Official readings
Selected sources for further reading.