Responding to peer review
Peer review is perceived as the gate keeper in publishing work. While that is not entirely true (editors have the final say and sometimes disagree with reviewers), it is a good idea to take seriously their concerns. Again, in some cases, the concern raised by the reviewer is not in fact a flaw with the study, but is due to poor communication by the author – everyone who has submitted a manuscript for publication has experienced (or will likely at some point) a moment of “but I showed that! The reviewer obviously does not understand my work” when reading a review, and yet it is too often assumed the issue is with the reviewer and not what was submitted. As I stated earlier, the author should not assume the reviewer was provided with enough information to understand what was done by the author and why or can follow the argument as presented. In my experience, reviewers are often trying to be constructive in providing advice on how the manuscript can be improved.11I say “often” because I do believe there is collegiality in the community. That has been my experience. It is true that in some cases, the reviewer offers no advice on how the manuscript can be improved and only provides negative feedback. Sometimes that is due to an intractable difference of opinion regarding theory or method, sometimes it is because the reviewer is a contemptibly obnoxious person, and in some cases, the manuscript is just not very good.
A prudent approach to dealing with reviews is to consider the comments as advice on how to improve the manuscript. It is helpful that when responding to the reviewers, the author provides a written response to each comment and clearly outlines what changes were made to the manuscript. It is not enough to respond with “done” or “thank you for the comment, changes were made” (yes, I do receive such responses, and far too often). Such responses do not help the editor in determining if the manuscript has been adequately improved. Which changes were made? How is the new manuscript different than what was previously submitted”? Answering these questions will avoid confusion – making the editor work hard to understand what has been done to allay reviewer concerns is counterproductive. I have heard several colleagues say they approach their response to peer review with a “the reviewer is always correct” attitude. I believe that is generally a healthy approach and shows humility. However, one must be mindful that there is room for scientific debate. The author is certainly within her rights as an expert in the field to disagree with the reviewer. What matters is that the author provides the editor with a defence for her position.