An important part of the peer review process of a scientific paper is revising the manuscript in response to the comments raised by reviewers. We editors do our best to ensure that all of the different technical and conceptual aspects of a given work are covered by the reviewers that we select — addressing the concerns raised by reviewers ensures that the study is as robust and validated as possible, providing enough evidence of its potential novelty, impact, and broad applicability. As part of this process, authors are asked to submit not only a revised version of their manuscript, but also a document responding to each of the points raised by the reviewers.

But how should authors go about putting the point-by-point response document together, in order to make the process smoother and more efficient for authors, editors, and reviewers?

First, it is advisable to start the document with a short summary of the main concerns raised by the reviewers and the changes made in response to them. This helps reviewers — and editors — to immediately identify the main changes made by the authors, as well as sets the context for the revision.

After the summary, authors should go point-by-point through each reviewer’s comments. Our recommendation is to copy the entire text of the review, without leaving anything out, otherwise reviewers might have the impression that authors are selectively choosing what to address. Then, authors should respond to specific concerns directly after the corresponding text. Here, there are different ways researchers typically distinguish the reviewers’ text and the authors’ reply, such as using different font colors, emphasizing one of them in bold or italic, or using text boxes. All of these approaches can work well, given that the distinction is made clear.

When replying to each concern, authors should be clear about where corresponding changes are made in the main text or the supplementary information files. This is particularly important for long revisions, making it more efficient for reviewers and editors to identify updates. Adding line numbers to the submission files is a good approach, since they can be used to refer to the parts of the paper that have been revised. We recommend against copying all the new changes to the response document, as it makes the file unnecessarily long and verbose, except for new or updated figures, as it could be useful to have them next to a reply for explanation purposes.

It is important to carefully consider all the concerns and any additional experiments requested by reviewers. Additional experiments might be seen as unnecessary by the authors, but the reviewers’ perspective should not be immediately discarded, especially because we tend to recruit referees with diverse expertise to comment on different aspects of the paper. Still, if authors feel that some of the requested modifications are out of scope or too difficult, expensive, or laborious to be done, these issues can be discussed with the handling editor.

Overall, authors should ensure that all the replies are well explained and justified: if a concern will not or cannot be addressed, there must be enough justification and evidence in the document so that reviewers and editors can better understand the reasoning. In addition, any clarifications and new data discussed in the response document must also come within the paper. While authors can opt-in to publish the reviewer reports alongside their manuscript — which would include the response document — it is crucial that any relevant information is included in the main paper or the supplementary information files for better reporting and clarity. If the reviewers have these concerns, most likely other readers will have them too!

Finally, authors should focus on the scientific arguments and be respectful to reviewers, as nothing is gained by answering impolitely or insulting the reviewers’ knowledge and understanding of the field. Given the multidisciplinary nature of our papers, reviewers come from different backgrounds and expertise, so this must be taken into account as perhaps a simple explanation is enough to clear some concerns about the study. If there is a factual error in one of the reports, authors should clarify the issue politely and with scientific arguments. As we strive to facilitate a constructive and respectful peer review process, we ask reviewers to avoid judgmental or demeaning language as well.

As part of the revision, authors should submit a cover letter answering any requests made by editors, and the same document can be used to raise any concerns regarding the reviewers’ reports. Cover letters are confidential and never shared with reviewers. It goes without saying that we editors are here to guide authors through the peer review process, and we encourage authors — and reviewers — to contact us with any questions or concerns that come up throughout the process.