4.5 Scaffolding Responses To Reviewer Comments

Every comment requires a response.

After receiving an editorial decision, you usually will return to revising your manuscript. A common request in a review is ‘revise and resubmit’, requiring you to make moderate changes. I suggest two steps to launch further revision. First, read the comments from the editor and the reviewers as dispassionately as possible. Second, read your manuscript’s current version while keeping reviewers’ comments in mind.

You can easily find negative reviewer comments upsetting, particularly after all your hard work creating and polishing your manuscript. I try to put my emotional responses to reviews on the back burner. I treat each comment as constructive criticism I can use to further improve my manuscript. Some reviewers make such a perspective difficult – but I try!

I adopt a constructive attitude towards reviewer comments because I realize I must respond to every comment to convince an editor to publish my revised manuscript. Being angry or defensive about comments does not help. I try to find positive suggestions in every comment, even comments I disagree with.

Because every comment requires a response, and because I must communicate every response to an editor, I create scaffolds to help me revise my manuscript. My scaffolds ensure I respond to every comment and help me create my cover letter for resubmitting my revised manuscript.

I use two scaffolds to support revising from reviewer comments. First, I create a word processing document by pasting in all comments from the review letter. I organize the document to put each comment in its own paragraph. I add a label at each comment’s beginning – ‘Reviewer 1 comment:’, ‘Reviewer 2 comment:’ and so on.

Next, I use my comments document to build my second scaffold: an index card for each comment. I copy each comment into a new word processing document, a label template; I put each comment onto its own label. I print the labels and paste each label onto an index card (i.e., on the blank side). I use my index cards to organize my revising.

After creating my index card labels, I return to my first scaffold and highlight every reviewer comment in yellow. When I address a comment, I will remove its yellow highlighting to signal I dealt with the comment.

My two scaffolds serve different purposes, as you will see. However, both scaffolds share one goal: tracking which comments I have addressed, and which comments I still need to deal with. The two scaffolds help me remember to address every comment.

The index card scaffold helps me organize my revising steps. I follow the principle of modular design: I work on one comment at a time. Furthermore, I don’t address comments in their order in the letter I received from the editor. Instead, I sort the index cards, putting the comments I feel easiest to address on the top, and the hardest comments to address on the bottom. I deal with the comments in their order in my sorted deck.

After sorting index cards, I begin revising. I work on one index card at a time. I take the top card – the easiest comment to fix – read the label and then address the comment by changing my manuscript. I then update my first scaffold. I add a new paragraph below the comment in the first scaffold, labeled ‘Author’s response:’. I use the index card I just dealt with to help me describe my editing in response to the comment. I also remove the yellow highlighting from the comment. I mark the index card as completed and put it in a new pile: my’ ‘done cards. I’m rewarded by seeing my ‘done cards’ pile growing.

I usually find the upper cards in my scaffold easy to deal with. Many reviewers point out spelling mistakes, or sentences which don’t make sense because of missing words or other simple problems. Early on, my ‘done’ pile grows quickly.

As I work through my index cards, I encounter more challenging comments. Some might require rewriting sections or adding new paragraphs. I might aid such revisions by developing a miniature version of a Chapter 2 scaffold to organize writing my new paragraphs.

Some comments, when I reach them, ask for changes I do not want to make. I jot down my argument for not making the change on the lined side of the comment’s index card. Later, I will add my argument beneath the reviewer’s comment in the other scaffold. When I add my argument to the first scaffold, I feel I have addressed the comment.

I work through each index card, revising my manuscript and altering the first scaffold (the document filled with comments and my added responses) again and again. When I finish revising, all my index cards lie in the ‘done’ pile; my first scaffold will have no yellow highlighting and will have an author’s response paragraph beneath each comment. Both scaffolds signal I have responded to every comment in the editor’s letter.

Now I reap the benefits provided by updating the first scaffold every time I revised my manuscript. Each time I revised the scaffold filled with comments, I also described what I did to address a comment. I can now convert the scaffold into a cover letter to use when I resubmit my manuscript. I add some general material at the beginning of the scaffold – thanking the editor for the reviews, describing my main revising, expressing hope the editor will accept the manuscript because of my revisions – and then I write ‘the specific responses to each comment are provided below’; I then add the final version of my first scaffold, completing my cover letter.

With my edits finished, and with my cover letter completed, I can send my manuscript back to the editor. The scaffolds ensured I dealt with every comment, helped me deal with the easy problems first, and provided my cover letter. I believe I have increased the odds the editor will accept my revised manuscript because I responded to every comment in the review.