WorkflowDRAFT · Last reviewed
Preparing a revision
How to respond to reviewer comments, format a point-by-point response letter, use Word Track Changes correctly, and what to do if you disagree with a reviewer.
When you receive a revision request
- The platform shifts your submission page to the "Round N" view showing:
— The Editor-in-Chief's decision letter
— The anonymised reviewer reports, numbered Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2 ...
— Any annotated .docx files reviewers uploaded (available for download)
- Initial outcomes come in two levels: Minor revisions or Major revisions
- Typical time allowed: 4–6 weeks
- If you need more time, email the editorial office BEFORE the deadline
The point-by-point response letter
The response letter is the most important part of your revision. Follow this format:
- Quote the reviewer's comment verbatim (italics or in a box)
- State your response
- Point to WHERE in the manuscript you made the change (page + line numbers)
Example:
*Reviewer 1, comment 2:* "The sample size (n = 32) seems small for the generalisation claims in the Discussion."
*Response:* We thank the reviewer for this important point. We have moderated the generalisation claims in the Discussion of the revised manuscript (page 14, lines 4–9) to apply only to our sample, and have added a "Limitations" subsection acknowledging the small sample size (page 15, lines 12–18).
Respond to every single comment — even ones you disagree with. See "If you disagree with a reviewer" below.
Using Word Track Changes
- Turn on Track Changes: Review tab → Track Changes → toggle ON
- Keep Track Changes ON throughout your revisions — do NOT Accept All before submitting
- Keep author names/affiliations removed — our system also auto-scrubs Word metadata (creator name, comments)
- If you accidentally accepted all changes — don't panic, upload what you have; reviewers will not complain
- Your file is automatically diffed against the previous version — reviewers will see your changes highlighted
What makes a good revision
- Address every comment — never skip
- Be specific — point to pages, line numbers, tables, or figures that changed
- Stay polite — even when a comment feels unfair, your response should remain professional
- Be self-correcting — if your original claim overreached, acknowledge and moderate
- Be clear — if you address comment 2 by changing section 3, explain the connection
Timeline and extensions
- Typical window for Minor revisions: 2–4 weeks
- Typical window for Major revisions: 4–6 weeks
- If you need more time, email [email protected] BEFORE the deadline with: your manuscript's internal code, the extra time requested, and a brief reason
- The Editor-in-Chief usually grants reasonable extensions — just ask, don't hide
If you disagree with a reviewer
Disagreement is normal in peer review. How to handle it:
- In the response letter, answer honestly and show your evidence
- Do not attempt to resolve by changing text you don't agree with — that produces incoherence
- The Editor-in-Chief is the final arbiter — if your evidence is strong, they may side with you
- If a subsequent decision still feels unfair, send a formal appeal to [email protected] with your specific reasoning
Resubmitting via the platform
The platform has a dedicated "Round N" page designed for revisions:
- Open your submission at
/submit— the system automatically routes you to the Round N landing page - Two checklist items to complete: your revised manuscript (.docx with Track Changes ON) and your response letter (.docx or textarea)
- Click "Submit revision" when both are green
- The platform emails the Editor-in-Chief automatically; you receive a confirmation
- The Editor-in-Chief then decides whether to send out for Round N+1 or decide directly