Sometimes, journals are run by professional editors, but usually scientific journals are just run by academics who take on the role of editor for a determined period of time. In any case, both send papers to peers for reviewing. The reviewers are chosen by the editor and are usually experts in the field of research. Some scientists are more critical than others and the editors acknowledge this fact to pick one editor or another for a specific article or journal. The role of the reviewers is to evaluate the paper as well as the related data (references, supplemental material, etc), in order to suggest improvements and give an opinion on the publication of the article. The editor will send you his letter with a decision on publication, around 1 to 2 months after submission, and the evaluation of each reviewer who read your article (usually 1 to 3).

Illustration: James Yang

Here a few things that you should keep in mind while responding to the reviewers:

• Answer to each comment point by point. Write your answer to each comment below the corresponding comment, responding specifically and clearly to the reviewer’s question.

• If you added changes in the manuscript, mark them in yellow so that the reviewer can easily find the changes reading the paper. If necessary, send back two copies of the article to the editor, one clear version and one version with changes marked.

• When you respond to a comment, mention if you modified the manuscript and if so, explain on which page, line and section.

• If you modified the manuscript, copy and paste the old phrase and the new one with your answer. This way, the reviewer won’t have to go back and forth from the manuscript to the reviewer’s comment page.

• Treat the reviewers with a lot of deference and be polite. Use phrases such as “we agree with the reviewer”, “we would like to thank the reviewer for this insightful comment”, “we are grateful for this suggestion”, etc. Don’t be afraid to overdo it.

• Respond to the comments with a positive and constructive attitude. Keep in mind that articles are almost never published without at least one revision step. It is usual to be asked to perform new experiments and new analyses.

• Remember that if the editor offers you to modify the manuscript, it means that both the editor and the reviewers actually want to publish the article. So don’t take the reviews as critiques, but as an opportunity to improve your paper and to publish it.

• Do everything you can to answer to all requests from the reviewers, even if you do not fully agree with the reviewer, for example if you think that they are not necessary or that they are extravagant.

• If you decide for any reason to not address one of the comments, for example, because the reviewers ask you to perform an experiment that is not realistic, you should at least explain why and try to be convincing in your argumentation.

• Finally, keep in mind the integrity of you work. If you strongly disagree with a reviewer, then don’t apply his comments to your manuscript, because in the end, the paper will be published under your name only. The identity of the reviewers and the comments will not be revealed. The final version of the article is what your fellow scientists will read.

• A Few Tips to Avoid Rejection of a Scientific Paper Submission
• Why Would a Scientific Paper be Rejected from Publication
• How to Submit a Scientific Article for Publication