PLOS Mental Health Author Tips Part 3/3: Effective Revisions

PLOS Mental Health has been sharing a series of author tips with the aim of providing some support to those who are very early on in their academic careers or are independent researchers. Specifically, we shared points for consideration regarding the efficiency of peer review, followed by tips for writing manuscripts. In the final blog of this short series, we are going to run through some guidance, which may be useful for authors who are not overly familiar with the peer review process and are faced with having to carry out revisions. How can they reduce the chances of going through a continuous back and forth with reviewers? Editors should do all they can to avoid unnecessary and repetitive revision cycles by carefully assessing the reviewer comments and their context, as well as providing specific guidance to the authors (and reviewers if appropriate). However, there are additional actions that authors can take to help make the revision process more effective and enjoyable. The below are some potential considerations for authors but please always carefully check the specific requirements of the journal you have submitted to.

It can be very hard to receive feedback from reviewers that is anything but glowing – even for highly experienced authors who have received many rejections. Many will care deeply about their work and have invested huge amounts of time and energy into it. So it is only natural to feel even a slight tinge of annoyance when someone has looked at the manuscript for the first time and pointed out all of the flaws that they see. You will get the most out of the revision process however, by being objective. If needed, take a moment away from the comments and your paper to let your emotions settle and then consider how the reviewers and their comments are framed. For instance, rather than seeing the feedback as criticism, see it as a consultation, which is aimed at making your work as accessible and robust as it can be. This is an important process to ensure that your work is received by readers in the manner that it deserves. In some cases, there may even be an added bonus and reviewers could provide you with new ideas about how you can expand on your work in the future. 

…rather than seeing the feedback as criticism, see it as a consultation, which is aimed at making your work as accessible and robust as it can be…

It is important that you respond in some way to all comments that reviewers have made – even if the response is minor or a respectful disagreement (see below). Authors should ensure that they never ignore a single comment that reviewers have made.

Although it is usually clear from the reviewer reports and/or editorial guidance, you may need to spend time analyzing which comments are higher priority than others. Usually, the highest priority comments will be the ones which consider:

• The validity of the work
• The robustness of the methodology and data analysis
• Whether reporting and ethical standards in the field have been met

If you receive comments which require you to address anything that is relevant to the above list, these will usually be non-negotiable when it comes to revisions. If you are unable to completely address an element of your manuscript that represents one of the above, then you must be able to very clearly explain the limitations or exceptions in relation to this. For instance, is there a legitimate reason why you cannot share data? Is there a legitimate exception regarding ethics processes? Not only will you need to ensure that you provide a clear argument in cases such as this, but you will always need to provide as much evidence as possible for your case. 

Reviewer reports will usually also ask you to provide clarifications and further discussion of limitations and explanations in reference to your data. These are also important to address as they help to provide a realistic interpretation of your study (see below). It is always tempting to try to over-sell the implications of your work as you want readers to be equally excited about it and you have your eye on the bigger picture. But remember, the implications and conclusions that you draw must be fully backed-up by the data you present in your paper.

Every study will have limitations and reviewers will usually identify these – with some potentially being previously unappreciated by you. Try not to view comments like this as attempts to invalidate your work. Instead, see them as assisting you with understanding and communicating the true meaning of your results. 

When reviewers have found something that they think can have an impact on how significant or widely applicable your results are, be transparent and realistic about this in your revision. If you cannot address their concerns as part of your revision for this manuscript (e.g. if it is not possible to add more data), then very clearly discuss and explain this in the rebuttal and add the corresponding limitation to the new version of the manuscript. 

Most reviewers will have a good understanding of what is feasible for you to achieve and also what the journal expectations are. When they don’t, it is the role of the Editor to guide both the reviewers and authors where the editorial bar is. Neither the reviewers nor the Editor should be expecting you to perform revisions that are asking for too much in relation to the editorial bar and/or are beyond the scope of the paper. For instance, an unfair expectation would be one that requires you to carry out new experiments or obtain new data when this additional data would not actually contribute to the main message of the paper – it is more intended to answer a tangential pondering of a reviewer. Extensive changes should only be requested if they contribute to the robustness of the study or any of the high priority areas referred to above.

A lot of the time, reviewers will have a different opinion or interpretation to authors. Sometimes, this can be adequately addressed through additional discussions. However, there is a chance that you feel that what the reviewer is asking you to do or include in a revision is wrong. If you can clearly explain why the reviewer may be wrong or may have misunderstood, it is absolutely fine to communicate this in a polite and professional manner. 

Remember, that if a reviewer has misunderstood your work, or missed something that you thought was already obvious, there is a chance that some readers will too. It may not be an issue unique to the reviewer and may instead be due to the way you have communicated something. Consider the misunderstanding as an opportunity to change the way you convey your message to make it as clear, accurate and far reaching as possible. 

…if a reviewer has misunderstood your work…there is a chance that some readers will too. Consider the misunderstanding as an opportunity to change the way you convey your message…

There are some circumstances in which one reviewer will praise an aspect of the manuscript and the other will criticize it. Sometimes, it is clear why this has happened and you understand where the reviewers are coming from and where a misunderstanding may lie. But what if this is not clear and what do you do if you can’t respond to both? In this case, you will need to make a decision and be able to clearly explain and back-up this decision regarding which reviewer’s suggestions you choose to take. It is usually advisable to tackle the more negative of the two comments (unless there has been a very clear misunderstanding – however even then, this may be due to lack of clarity with expression rather than the reviewer’s understanding only and so changes should still be made). If you are really stuck, and your co-authors are also unsure, you can always ask the Editor…

If you do not understand a comment that a reviewer has made, or it is not clear to you what is required and what is optional, then you can always ask the Editor for their advice. An Editor should have provided you with some guidance already in their decision letter and pointed towards the key comments, which they require you to focus on. But there may still be points that are unclear to you.  Taking time to clarify any uncertainties with the Editor will help to ensure that you do not spend time on something which is not actually addressing the concern that the reviewer has. However, before reaching out to the Editor, you should always consult with your co-authors if you have any (all comments should be shared with them as soon as possible). This may also save you time as they may have a different understanding of the revision requirements.. 

Editors also understand that they may have underestimated the time needed to revise the manuscript and/or things don’t always go as planned and that you may find yourself not being able to meet the deadline set for the revision. If this is the case, you can email the general email inbox (mentalhealth@plos.org) to request this. Journals will always consider extensions are will usually be happy to grant them.

It is important to make it easy for Editors and reviewers to see what changes you made and where you have made them in your manuscript in response to each of the comments raised.

You will always need to include a clear and concise point-by-point rebuttal letter – which is often in a list or table format. Within this letter you should include each (unedited) point that the reviewers have made and then provide your response, which focuses only on addressing the point directly and is self-contained if possible. It may also be useful to begin the rebuttal letter with a concise overview of the major changes that have been made. This communicates what you were able to focus on during the revision. You do not necessarily need to include new figures or text in your rebuttal letter – you can instead direct the Editor and Reviewers to where those changes have been made in the manuscript (page and line number). 

Indeed, you should also include a manuscript document that uses track changes (in addition to a clean version of the manuscript) to demonstrate very clearly where each change that you refer to in your rebuttal letter has been made. Editors will always check that the changes referred to in the rebuttal are indeed in the new version of the manuscript.

Remember, that at PLOS, if you choose to publish peer review history, your rebuttal will be visible to readers. 

Other Considerations

• Double-check the literature

Regardless of how long revisions take, it is useful to check the literature as you may find that there is new evidence to support (or dispute) your conclusions since the manuscript was initially submitted. Indeed, where you may be asked to back-up your interpretations more concretely and additional data cannot be acquired, you may be able to use recent citations that add weight to your argument.

• Think ahead

When preparing your rebuttal and revised manuscript, it is important to consider what a reviewer may say in response to your changes. This is very useful when writing the initial draft of your manuscript too. Write with the reader in mind!

Write with the reader in mind!

• Can I update my preprint?

If you have a preprint version of your manuscript, you should carefully check if the publisher that you are submitting to will allow you to edit the preprint after you have submitted and received reviewer comments as this is not always allowed. At PLOS however, you can indeed edit your preprint manuscript, right up until the point of formal acceptance for publication. 

• Communicate your gratitude

Finally, you will know from your own experience that it is really difficult to squeeze peer review assessments into your schedule and your reviewers will be in the same position. Always remember to thank them at the start and maybe the end of your rebuttal letter. Even if you do not agree with their points, they still would have dedicated their free time to assessing your manuscript (Editors also thank the reviewers!).

Remember: Revisions are good news! They mean that the editors and reviewers think that there is a realistic chance of your manuscript being accepted (provided that all key issues can be addressed). If editors feel that the changes needed would be beyond the scope of a revision, then they would have rejected the paper. However even if you do receive a rejection post-review, every paper has a home and rejection will be an opportunity appeal or to resubmit to another journal (with a potentially stronger study if some of the reviewer feedback is incorporated). 

Disclaimer: The above considerations have been written by PLOS Mental Health Executive Editor Dr Karli Montague-Cardoso. They are for general guidance only and may not be relevant or applicable to all fields or journals. Please check the requirements of the journal you have submitted to at each stage of the peer review process.