Dr. Marc Chiaccio, PhD in Climate Science from the Swiss Institute of Technology (ETH) in Zurich Switzerland, has worked in various institutes around the world, including NASA, International Centre for Theoretical Physics (ICTP), and the University of Sweden. He has more than a decade of experience writing scientific articles for international journals as well as writing science lessons for students.
Handling Comments from Manuscript Reviewers
Becoming a successful researcher in the natural sciences means not only conducting novel and important research, but also responding effectively to the comments of the journal editors and reviewers in an appropriate and proactive manner. Knowing how to respond properly to their comments on your manuscript becomes increasingly important, as such comments can have a tremendous impact on the editor’s decision to ultimately publish your paper. The majority of atmospheric and climate science journals to which I’ve personally submitted have demanded thorough and complete answers to questions specifically about the scope of my work. I learned early on that answering a particular comment with a one-sentence response was not going to cut it. I needed to make sure I understood the questions the reviewer was asking so that I could answer their questions and address their concerns effectively.
At this stage of the submission of your journal, the editor will determine how well and thoroughly you responded to the reviewers’ comments in order for your paper to be worthy of publication. If the editor’s expertise is very closely related to the topic of the paper, the editor will sometimes intervene and suggest whether it is appropriate or not to address the comments of a particular reviewer. If the editor’s expertise falls far from the topic of the paper, they will rely more on the recommendations of the reviewers
This article will (1) help you understand why it’s important to respond properly to such comments; (2) what exactly should be included in a response or rebuttal letter; and (3) how to respond appropriately to reviewers’ comments. We will include an example from an actual comment made by a reviewer during a manuscript submission to a climate science journal.
Why is a Journal Rebuttal Letter Important?
In addition to having many years’ experience submitting manuscripts to journals for publication, I have also been a reviewer for atmospheric and climate science journals since 2008, including such publications as Journal of Geophysical Research, Environmental Research Letters, and Climate Dynamics. Having been on the other side of the “fence,” I have seen firsthand how authors respond to my questions and comments, and so I understand how important it is to address these comments thoroughly. Knowing how to deftly handle a rebuttal letter is one of the most important skills you will need to become a successful researcher.
After you have submitted your manuscript with a cover letter to the editor stating the significance of your work, carefully followed all of the journal’s submission instructions, you can only wait and hope that the editor has initially accepted your work and considered it good enough for a formal review. If you pass this stage and the paper has not been flat out rejected, a rebuttal letter will be attached to the review of your paper. Hopefully, the aim of your paper matches closely to that of the selected target journal and your paper has enough merit not to be initially rejected.
What to Include in a Rebuttal Letter
Much of the time, especially if you are new to research, you will be faced with such a rebuttal letter from the editor that can include many comments from up to three or four reviewers. How you respond to this letter determines whether or not the editor accepts or declines your manuscript. Below is the information that should be included in the rebuttal letter for a continued and successful review of your manuscript:
Essential Information to Include:
- Title of the manuscript
- All authors of the manuscript
- A brief “thank you” note addressed to the editor and reviewers stating your gratitude for the review.
- Write responses to the comments in separate sections according to the first reviewer, second reviewer, and so forth.
- Distinguish the reviewers’ comments from your own responses by using either bold or italicized versus normal text or using different fonts for specific sections.
- Be sure to answer each and every comment made by the reviewers.
- Use formal language in all responses to the reviewers’ comments.
Avoid taking a strong or argumentative tone if you happen to disagree on any issues. Instead, state that the reviewer has raised a good point and try to argue in a more positive tone why you do not agree, providing as many facts as possible to support your argument.
- If you do not agree with a reviewer when they recommend that another methodology should be used, for example, state clearly why you think the original one is better and provide references if possible.
- Though there is not a limit in the word length of your responses to the reviewers, do try to keep them as concise as possible.
Example of Editor Comment and Response from a Climate Science Journal
In my fourteen years of submitting edited manuscripts to journals, I’ve had to answer hundreds of questions from editors and reviewers. This includes everything from comments pointing out minor errors such as leaving out the year in a citation, to questions about the appropriateness of methodology. On one occasion, I attempted to convince the editor that the scientific method I applied was the one most appropriate for testing the research hypothesis.
Below is an actual example of a comment my co-authors and I received from one reviewer submitting our paper to a geophysical research journal. Pay close attention to the structure of the response of the reviewer’s comment considering the font, line spacing, tone, and how we have addressed the reviewer’s main concerns. We did not fully agree with the desired requests of the reviewer, but we clearly stated our reasons along with relevant arguments and references. We also did a quick check to give further confidence to our findings. Notice as well that we placed the original reviewer’s comment in italics and our response in regular text for clarity.
Dimming and brightening: I found this part less convincing than the rest of the paper. The comparison of the radiation trends to the satellite products is surprising, given that they generally use non-time-varying aerosols, whereas aerosols are likely to explain the dimming/brightening mechanism. The authors should instead use ground-based measurements, such as stations from the BSRN and GEBA networks, that have been recently homogenized (Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2013).
Our Response Letter to the Reviewer
As explained in section 2.2, changes in the AOD through time are implied and its signature in the SRB dataset was seen with the Pinatubo eruption (Stackhouse et al., 2011). The CERES dataset as explained in section 2.3 uses the same method. Thus, this is the reason we use these satellite products and our reason for going in detail in the dimming and brightening section between trends of these datasets. We also wanted to show how useful such satellite products are in these modeling assessments because as we point out in lines 44-49, satellites provide a greater spatial coverage than ground based measurements with better precision than reanalysis data (Qin et al., 2006). As a check however, we have evaluated the available BSRN stations over the common period 2001-2007 for eight different stations in Europe.
Quick Checklist before Submitting
- Use single spacing between all lines.
- Stick to Arial or Times New Roman using 12-point font.
- Do not indent paragraphs.
- Use double-spacing between paragraphs.
- Use a spelling and grammar check throughout your whole letter.
Final Considerations and Take-Home Message for Authors
From my many years of experience answering the comments of editors and reviewers, I will argue that it is very important that you respond to ALL comments made by the reviewers. It is worthwhile to make sure you have left nothing out for any comment, even if it concerns a minor issue. There will be times when you will completely disagree with a reviewer, but it is better to show that you have at least considered their recommendation; and if you still disagree, provide clear reasons why you disagree and provide references. This is critical, as it shows that you are willing to work with them to improve your paper, and at the same time it demonstrates your expertise and knowledge of the literature in that scientific area.
One last thing to check before you submit your rebuttal letter is to make sure you have written a short note to the editor indicating that you have addressed all of the editors’ and reviewers’ concerns and thanked them all for their feedback. If you strongly disagree with the editor or a reviewer on a particular major comment, for example, and one that would require major revision, you can always let the editor know first—but remember to use a softened tone in your writing and argue your point in a way that clearly shows your expertise.
The more you adhere to the advice provided in this article, the greater the likelihood of your paper being published. Writing a successful rebuttal letter is one of the most important steps you will take during your research career. Good luck!
- Journal of Geophysical Research
- Journal of Applied Meteorology
- Climate Dynamics
- Environmental Research Letters