addressing reviewer’s feedbacks for peer-review journal...

Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance

Volume 3 (1), December 2014

ADDRESSING REVIEWER’S FEEDBACKS FOR PEER-REVIEW

JOURNAL

Elvia R. Shauki

Universitas Indonesia / University of South Australia

Email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Abstract

After conducting your research project for several months (maybe years), it is the time to

submit the manuscript according to the required format. Once you submitted, the waiting

time can be a daunting time for most of us (regardless whether you are an experienced / well

established researchers or not). Submitting a paper to a top ranked peer-review journal is

always challenging not only that we have to deal with our critical writing and critical study

during the writing process, but also (if the paper is accepted) addressing reviewer‟s comments

/ feedbacks can be even more challenging. The verdicts that we will soon receive might not

be a bitter pill for you if you know how to handle it in the most pragmatically way.

According to Williams (2004) there are 5 (five) possibilities of the reviewers outcome: (1)

accept with minor revision; (2) accept with major revision); (3) a complete rewrite; (4) unsure

outcome whether as to refection or possible for a resubmission; and (5) the outright rejection.

This paper is aimed to share our experiences in how to address critical comments feedbacks

from a top journal by providing several steps and hints, such feedbacks as the following

(these comments have been re-worded by the authors) need to be addressed in a timely

manner: (1) contribution and benefit of the study; (2) that the hypotheses developed for

the study are really basic and not original; and that the paper only discusses one aspect

only (sustainability only). Though we strongly believe that the study is quite unique, we have

listed the contributions / rationales / significances of the study clearly and that we have also

indicated clearly that the study is expected to fill in the gap to what has been done in the past.

As well the study does cover significantly on two topics research area: sustainability and

accountability instead of one area only.

Looking at the example for a paper that has been submitted to an A-ranked journal, this study

addressed the importance of applying three rules in addressing reviewers‟ comments as

outlined by Williams (2004): (1) answer completely; (2) answer politely; and (3) answer with

evidence. It is not explicitly stated whether the outcome of the review is for minor or major

revision. In addressing contribution and benefit of the study and originality of the

hypotheses, there have been three major actions taken: (1) significant rewrite of this section

by addressing three clear separate contributions who will be benefiting from this study

(current debates among academic scholars, business practices, and the regulatory bodies); (2)

mailto:[email protected]

Shauki, Addressing Reviewer’s Feedbacks .... 89

as well adding a diagram indicating the literature gap and its contributions and benefits

towards the discussion related to the topic; and lastly (3) justifying clearly with full and

detailed evidence that the study does not cover one topic only (sustainability) but it covers

two areas of research study (sustainability and accountability).

Keywords: reviewers’ feedbacks, three rules in addressing reviewers’ feedbacks,

contributions and benefits of the study, and originality of the hypotheses.

90 Asia Pacific Journal of Accounting and Finance Vol. 3 (1), December 2014, 88-97

1. INTRODUCTION

Submitting a paper to a top ranked peer-review journal is always challenging not only

that we have to deal with our critical writing and critical study but also (if the paper is

accepted) addressing reviewer‟s comments / feedbacks can be even more challenging. After

conducting your research project for months (maybe years), we finally come to the stage of

submitting the work according to the required manuscript guidelines. Once you submitted the

waiting period can be really a daunting time even for the most experienced authors (i.e. high

calibre professors). The verdicts / outcome that you will soon receive might not be a bitter

pill that you have to swallow if you are prepared to handle it (i.e. dealing the verdicts in the

most pragmatically way). Most of the times the reviews can be quite frustrating and

confusing (i.e. long winded comments, too short / too brief, using uncommon terms, too

harsh, or it might have no comments at all) which you may be offended due to this. Due to

the above facts, it is mostly that it is not easy to address the comments as well as to address

specific comments on the reviews.

This paper is aimed to share our experiences in how to address critical comments /

feedbacks from a top journal, such feedbacks as the following (these comments have been re-

worded by the authors) which need to be addressed in a timely manner: (1) contributions /

benefits of the study; (2) the study outlined hypotheses which were not original (nothing

new); and (3) only one topic covers in the study (sustainability) where it should discuss more

than just one topic only. By looking at the real example, the audience will be guided in how

to address such comments.

Before we start with the review, there are some points that you need to consider:

What is a peer review;

Is this ranked journal or unranked journal;

Do you know the reviewer(s)? Is it a team of reviewer or is it an individual one? Do

you know the Editorial Board?

First revision, second or later revision?

The outcome from the journal editor (s);

Time frame;

Identifying the resources;

Identifying potential problems;

How to response?

Do you or don‟t you agree with the feedbacks?

Have you addressed them well?

A peer-review article is a type of article that has been evaluated and recommended

for publication by one or more experts in the field. These reviewers consider factors such as:

(1) the author‟s familiarity with current research and commentary; (2) soundness of argument

and methodology; (3) whether the article makes a contribution to the field. As a scholar, we

are expected to submit our reputable sources to a peer review journal. Peer review is an

accepted measure of quality and this will depend on our discipline which one is classified as

peer reviewed article or not. A high-ranked journal is widely used by the academic scholars

in evaluating an academic journal's impact and quality as well as for the purpose of scholar‟s


promotion. Journal rankings are intended to reflect the place of a journal within its research

are / research discipline, the relative difficulty of being published in that journal, and the

prestige associated with it. Knowing and having the contact with the reviewer (s) will be

helpful should we have difficulties understanding the comments / feedbacks and should we

need to discuss further regarding the comments / feedbacks. If this is not the case, contacting

the reviewer (s) via the Editor (Editor in Chief) will also be helpful as sometimes there are

some implicit / unclear statements in the comments / feedbacks.

Is this the first/second/third revision? Addressing first revision normally takes

longer times and bears some risks too, as if the reviewer (s) believes that we are not

addressing the comments / feedbacks according to the required formats/structures/contents,

the paper might be rejected. Addressing second / third revision normally takes shorter period

as it is normally polishing the ideas / understandings. Addressing major / minor revisions will

be a great different.

Williams (2004) has mentioned several different scenarios regarding the outcome

from the journal editor (s):

1. Accept with Minor Revision, it is best to simply get on without involving too many

arguments. Addressing minor revision is relatively easier than addressing major revision

and it has lower risk being rejected by the reviewers. It (normally) involves: (1) typos; (2)

grammatical errors; (3) suggestion for better title or suggestion to shorten the title; (4)

number of words reduction in Abstract; (5) reorganizing the material; (6) stating the

resources (or references); and maybe (7) changing the layout.

2. Major Revision Needed, work harder and three golden rules applies. Major revision

means that the paper will have to undergo further review after revision (usually by

the same referees), while minor revision means that while changes should be made, no

further reviewing is needed. Authors need to know well what major revisions are required

for the paper: (1) do we need to re-run the data; (2) is the data incomplete; (3) is it

something to do with the research model; (4) do we need to change / to add the unit

analysis; (5) is it about the research instruments; and other major revisions that we might

have.

3. Journal requests A Complete Rewrite (need to think is it worth it to do it?);

4. Unsure as to rejection or possible resubmission, the wording of some journal response

letters can be difficult to interpret. Phrases such as „„we cannot accept your manuscript in

its current form, but if you do decide to resubmit, then we would only consider a

substantial revision,‟‟ may sound like a rejection, yet in reality, it may indicate an

opportunity to resubmit; and

5. The outright rejection, it is normally quite short with very little chance to resubmit it.

How about the time frame and the resources? Do we have sufficient times to

address all of the feedbacks / comments? As we are all busy and have many other jobs to be

done, organizing and making a good plan regarding the resubmission is quite necessary. If the

due date falls in our most hectic time (marking time), some other arrangements are needed,

maybe by authorizing other staffs to take care of your other jobs, also it will be a good idea if

you could share the load with the co-author(s) or assign research assistant should there be any

involvement needed for data arrangement. Another resources that we need to pay attention is

the availability of the data (should there be any major revision related with the data) whether


the access is still valid (whether our institutions still subscribe the data base), whether the

software that we use to run the data is still valid, etc. etc.

Identify potential problems: Once you received the feedbacks, read the comments

carefully (you may read more than once) and try to digest and understand the comments /

feedbacks well. Go through the comments / feedbacks carefully. Read them more often, you

might get frustrated and get offended for the first time reading the review. If this is the case,

you might pause and wait until you could digest them well. Re–read and re-read the

comments, after several re-read you will have a good overlook regarding the comments and

will have a clear picture on what you need to do (Khanam 2013).

2. HOW TO RESPONSE AND ADDRESS THEM WELL?

How you respond to the reviewers‟ comments / feedbacks may be critical to whether

the journal will publish your paper or not, or whether you will have to start the submission

process elsewhere (in another journals) from scratch (Guyatt and Haynes 2006). If you don’t

agree with the reviewers‟ comments, Williams (2004) has outlined 3 (three) golden rules that

can be applied: (1) answer completely; (2) answer politely; and (3) answer with evidence. It

is quite all right if you disagree with the reviewers‟ comments, but you need to do it in the

most sensible manner. Remember reviewer (s) have at least spent their most valuable times

reading your paper without pay. Besides, the following tips might be useful: (1) In case some

points mentioned in the comments have already been addressed in the original manuscript;

(2) be polite in addressing your disagreement; (3), or if you feel a particular suggestion is out

of the scope of the current study, mention this too.

In order to address the reviewers‟ comments well, the steps are proposed herewith

with some tips related to the do and don‟t list. Later in Section 3 by looking at one example

suggested structure and its format are proposed.

2.1. The Steps

Once you received the feedbacks, read the comments carefully (you may read more

than once) and try to digest and understand the comments / feedbacks well. Go through the

comments / feedbacks carefully. Read them more often, you might get frustrated and get

offended for the first time reading the review. Khanam (2013) and Samet (2009) state that if

this is the case, you might pause and wait until you could digest them well. Re–read and re-

read the comments, after several re-read you will have a good overlook regarding the

comments and will have a clear picture on what you need to do.

Prepare a table in addressing the feedbacks / comments. Have a look at the general

comments / overall remarks first. If this paragraph is too long try to separate them in points.

Address each comment (normally by section) by referring to the general comments. Explain

well whether you accept/agree/reject and whether revision (s) has (have) been done to

address the comments by providing a reference.

Awati (2013) suggested the following steps in writing the responses made by reviewer

(s):


1. Take a break, as has been discussed earlier regarding the time frame. If the dead line is

so close and that you need to have a slab of time, then have a break. Take off and read

the comments carefully and objectively to assure that you do understand fully on the

reviewers comments.

2. Give point by point responses, after making a good introduction about what you are

going to do with the responses, next step will be addressing each reviewer‟s response by

giving a sequential number for each of the comment of each reviewer (reviewer #1,

comment # 1).

3. Provide reasoned arguments, watching your tone and applying the three golden rule is so

important here. Should there be any disagreement, please state so with sufficient

justifications by providing many details as possible.

4. Pay attention to details, following the above points, your disagreement will only be

understood well by the reviewers if you provide details of the arguments explaining how

you have addressed each concern.

5. Watch your tone, this point is important. No need to be offended as the critique is not

targeting you as an individual but it is aimed at your work. Put your emotions away when

reading the feedbacks and when writing the responses (Samet 2009).

2.2. The Do and the Do Not Lists

These are the list of tips / hints what you should and you should not do (some of the

lists were adapted from Khanam 2013). If a particular comment you received from the

reviewers could have multiple interpretations, it is suggested that you begin your response by

explaining what you have understood from the comment first and then proceed with your

argument.

The Do List:

1. The three golden rules introduced earlier are suggested to be applied here.

2. If you know the reviewer (s), it is advisable that you consult with the reviewer (s) or

contact them via the Editorial Board for clarity purposes.

3. Consult with your co-author or a colleague/mentor who is familiar and might help with

your work in order to find the best way to work around complex reviewer comments.

4. Share the load with the co-author (s).

5. Make sure that you address each of the comments in entirely.

6. If you have addressed the comments earlier but was (were) raised again please state that

this has been addressed earlier (with references).

7. Be polite and be accountable in your response when you disagree with any

comment/suggestion.

8. Wherever required, cite references, or include supplementary/unpublished data in

support of your argument.

9. Resubmit promptly and ensure that changes made to the manuscript based on the

reviewers‟ suggestions are clearly indicated.

The Don’t List:

1. The three golden rules introduced earlier are suggested to be applied here.


2. In any chance, please don‟t argue with the reviewer and refer to three above rules as

proposed by Williams (2004).

3. If the reviewer has suggested a minor revision that you might not entirely agree with, but

is easy to comply with and does not take away any value from your study, it might be

easier to incorporate it that to argue your case.

4. Do not take a negative comment from the reviewer as a personal attack. Try to look at it

with a neutral perspective and address it to the best of your ability.

5. Avoid using phrases like “we completely disagree” in your rebuttal letter. You can find a

list of useful phrases to answer critical comments in Appendix of this article.

6. Do not deny the request of the reviewers for original/raw data (hint: be careful with the

copy right).

3. LOOKING AT THE EXAMPLES

Our study investigates the relationship between environmental strategy and corporate

environmental performance through the application of environmental management

accounting and environmental innovations. Empirical evidence suggests that there is a

positive and significant association between: (1) environmental strategy and the use of

environmental management accounting; (2) the use of environmental management

accounting to environmental innovations of the company (product, processes and programs

innovations); and (3) environmental strategy towards company‟s environmental performance.

Though (4) the use of environmental management accounting towards corporate

environmental performance; and (5) the use the environmental innovations (product and

process innovation) on company‟s environmental performance have less significant

association but they do have positive relationships as expected. The results of this study

suggest a solid foundation that intangible assets such as corporate environmental strategy (by

using accounting practices particularly on environmental management accounting) in

improving corporate‟s environmental performance with the involvement of innovation

variables.

Below are some important feedbacks which come from two different reviewers:

What are really the contributions of your study, where you have listed contributions of the

study well;

The authors developed a series of hypotheses that are really basic (not original at all)

where the study has clearly indicated list of its rationales, significances and contributions;

It focuses on certain aspect only where the fact you have addressed more than just one

aspect (i.e. environmental dimension of sustainability only);

The section is too long and too confusing (in which you believe that you have followed the

guideline / within the allowable number of words, structure and format for the

manuscript); and

I cannot see the benefit reading the paper (in fact you have listed clearly that there are

three parties who will benefiting reading the study: academician, business practices, and

regulatory bodies).


Looking at the example for a paper that has been submitted to an A-ranked journal,

this study addressed the importance of applying three rules in addressing reviewers‟

comments as outlined by Williams (2004): (1) answer completely; (2) answer politely; and

(3) answer with evidence. It is not explicitly stated whether the outcome of the review is for

minor or major revision. In addressing contributions and benefits of the study and

originality of the hypotheses, there have been three major actions taken:

1. Significant and a revamped rewrite of this section by addressing three clear separate

contributions who will be benefiting from this study: (1) current debates among academic

scholars; (2) business practices and (3) the regulatory bodies).

2. And by adding a dedicated diagram indicating the literature gap and its contributions and

benefits towards the discussion related to the topic.

3. Try to justifying clearly with full evidence (i.e. full references) that the study does not

cover one topic only (sustainability) but it covers two area of research study (sustainability

and accountability).

4. A major rewrite and restructure of the literature reviews has been taken in addressing

reviewer‟s comments that the paper is too long and too confusing (especially related to

literature reviews section). With the help of NVivo 10 software, this section has been

restructured tremendously by linking to each of the previous study references to each of

the hypothesis and the conceptual framework.

4. CONCLUSION

Comments from peer reviewers, more often than not, offer an excellent and a

challenging opportunity to improve the quality of your manuscript. Addressing them

adequately and professionally may increase the chances of acceptance, if not with this

journal, it could be sent out to other journals at least (not necessarily with the lower ranking).

This paper has equipped with the detailed tips for responding to reviewer comments, it is

hoping that you will now surely be able to handle the peer review process with more

confidence.

With minor outcome, it is best to simply get on without involving too many

arguments. With major revision and rewrite completely, the three golden rules need to be

applied here (1) answer completely; (2) answer politely; and (3) answer with evidence.

Addressing point by point of the reviewers‟ feedbacks in a well-structured table starting with

a good introduction regarding the review is strongly suggested here. Should there be

comments related to contributions / benefits of the study, clarifications related to this issues

need to be strengthened, using a diagram / figure might help and by linking them with the

research objectives, and its research questions.


REFERENCES

Awati, M. “How to respond to comments by peer reviewers.” Editage Insights (2013),

http://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-respond-to-comments-by-peer-reviewers

(April 2, 2015).

Guyatt, G.H., and R.B. Haynes. “Preparing Reports for Publication and Responding to

Reviewers‟ Comments.” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59 (2006): 900-906.

Khanam, S. “Do's and don'ts for responding to peer reviewers' comments.” Editage Insights

(2013), http://www.editage.com/insights/dos-and-donts-for-responding-to-peer-

reviewers-comments, (April 2, 2015).

Samet J.M. “Dear Author - Advice from a Retiring Editor.” American Journal of

Epidemiology 150 (1999): 433-436.

Williams H.C. “How to reply to peer review comments when submitting papers for

publication.” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 51 (2004): 79-83.

http://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-respond-to-comments-by-peer-reviewers

http://www.editage.com/insights/dos-and-donts-for-responding-to-peer-reviewers-comments

http://www.editage.com/insights/dos-and-donts-for-responding-to-peer-reviewers-comments


APPENDIX

Table 1: List of Useful Phrases to Answer Critical Comments

We agree with the referee that ___, but. . .

The referee is right to point out ___, yet. . .

In accordance with the referees‟ wishes, we have now changed this sentence to___.

Although we agree with the referee that. . .

It is true that___, but. . .

We acknowledge that our manuscript might have been ___, but. . .

We, too, were disappointed by the low response rate.

We agree that this is an important area that requires further research.

We support the referee‟s assertion that ___, although. . .

With all due respect to the reviewer, we believe that this point is not correct.

Source: Williams (2004 p. 81)

ASIAPACIFICJOURNAL OFACCOUNTINGAND FINANCE

ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OFASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OFACCOUNTING AND FINANCEACCOUNTING AND FINANCEASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OFACCOUNTING AND FINANCEDepartment of Accounting, Faculty of Economics and Business,Universitas Indonesia Depok, IndonesiaPhone : +62-21-7272425, Fax: +62-21-7863558Email : [email protected]

addressing reviewer’s feedbacks for peer-review journal...

Documents