Hello!

Journal manuscripts are one of the most established channels for science communication. Typically, researchers will prepare articles at the end of their experiments, sharing their findings and implications for the community. A critical step in this process is the peer-review stage that takes place after submission to a journal and where other scientists with expertise on the topic are invited to assess the experimental work, results, and manuscript and determine if it is worth publishing. In other words, it serves as quality control for science, intending to ensure reproducibility, trustworthiness, and proper scientific conduct of the research. Having submitted my first original research article to a journal, I have had the chance to experience this process firsthand and receive reviewer comments. In this post, I would like to share some of the takeaways I took so far from this peer-reviewing process.

1. Embracing reviewer comments

2. Distilling constructive feedback

3. Collecting supporting literature

4. Seamlessly implementing comments

Embracing reviewer comments

When a manuscript is submitted to a journal, it is assigned to an editor responsible for the initial assessment of the work. In short, the editor can immediately reject the paper (e.g., if there are apparent flaws or signs of misconduct) or advance it for peer-reviewing, in which case they are also expected to identify and invite other researchers with appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript in more detail. Depending on the journal, the number of invited reviewers can vary but usually include at least two or three researchers. As hinted above, reviewers are expected to comment on the quality of the manuscript and assess if the findings are novel, reproducible, and worthy of sharing with the community, that is, whether the study is worth publishing. Even if the reviewers believe the work should be accepted, an advantage of peer-reviewing is that they usually note a few points of improvement in the manuscript, called revisions. These can range from major revisions, such as when reviewers request additional experiments to support the findings or to restructure certain sections of the article to include relevant literature or improve readability, to minor revisions, where few details need to be included or clarified. Although it is granted that preparing a manuscript requires considerable effort, this feedback is vital for authors as it highlights how the general reader would receive and interpret the work.

Distilling constructive feedback

Although many agree that peer reviewing provides several advantages for authors, this process also presents some challenges. First, reviewers are typically not rewarded for their efforts and voluntarily spend time supporting the scientific community. In addition, given the sharp increase in the number of papers submitted to journals, finding time to give detailed feedback on such articles can be difficult. Unfortunately, this can lead to a superficial assessment that may arise from an incomplete understanding of the study and culminate in somewhat discouraging comments for the authors. Still, reiterating that reviewers act as the first reflection of the scientific community, authors can learn from this feedback and improve the manuscript to make it understandable for a reader less familiar with all the concepts depicted in their work. These improvements required may often be quite subtle in the comments provided, potentially revealing an ambiguity in the text or a gap in how a given approach was described. Therefore, it is vital to allow sufficient time to reflect on the comments and understand their motivation instead of discrediting possibly inaccurate statements resulting from a misunderstanding.

Collecting supporting literature

After organising all the comments received, it is often helpful, if not necessary, to research the literature and identify relevant work that can help support the responses to reviewer comments. Depending on the complexity, it could range from better introducing the background for the scientific question to contextualising novel findings among previous studies. Reviewers may even provide suggestions of articles for consideration, facilitating this process. In my experience, carefully reading this selected number of papers was extremely valuable. For instance, when comparing results with other studies, having a thorough understanding of the differences between experimental conditions is often of paramount importance to accurately discuss differences in outcomes or justify an improvement in a proposed new approach. Comparably, when aiming to provide additional background or examples to sustain a statement, literature reviews are a prized source of information that may very well contain a reference to a study that aligns with our work. Ultimately, as I advanced on my list, I would keep a note with a summary of the critical statements relevant to respond to comments and, eventually, be incorporated into the manuscript.

Seamlessly implementing comments

At last, responses to reviewer comments need to be formatted in a “response letter” that includes point-by-point replies to each topic raised and the manuscript’s changes to address them. While the response letter is directed to each reviewer and can be structured relatively straightforwardly, changes in the manuscript can be more challenging to implement. New information must fit the existing text without substantially interfering with the current flow and order of ideas, which are often carefully crafted, especially in the introduction and discussion. My approach consisted of identifying possible sections where new information could be added and isolating this passage in a new document to draft potential reworks to focus on the topic being considered. After reaching an appropriate formulation, I would paste the section back to the original text for revisions. An essential remark in this process is to become comfortable removing existing lines. Modifications will often lead to additions to the text, which implies that other segments may no longer be as relevant and should not be included in the revised version. While it is fundamental to aim for completeness, it is equally important to be as succinct as possible.

Conclusion

Ultimately, peer reviewing is a challenging but worthy exercise to bring the best of scientific research to the community. I am excited to complete this process for my current article and look forward to future opportunities that can guide me on how to communicate my work best.

Please feel free to share your thoughts on peer reviewing!

Have a great day!