You can track peer review responses effectively by using a simple spreadsheet or a two-column table in your word processor to categorize comments, outline necessary changes, and draft your replies.
When you receive a "revise and resubmit" decision, the sheer volume of reviewer comments can easily feel overwhelming. Creating a structured system to manage the peer review process ensures you systematically address every single critique, which ultimately makes drafting your final response to reviewers letter much easier.
Use a Spreadsheet for Major Revisions
For heavy revisions involving multiple co-authors, Google Sheets or Microsoft Excel is the best simple tool to keep your research team organized. Set up a tracking spreadsheet with the following columns:
- Reviewer ID: Note who made the comment (e.g., Reviewer 1, Associate Editor).
- Original Comment: Paste the exact text provided by the reviewer.
- Action Plan: Briefly outline what needs to be changed in the manuscript (e.g., rerun statistical analysis, rewrite the methodology section).
- Status: Use simple color-coding (e.g., Red for Not Started, Yellow for In Progress, Green for Completed) to visualize your progress.
- Draft Response: Write your formal, polite reply to the reviewer directly in this column.
Use a Word Processor Table for Direct Drafting
If your revisions are minor or you are working alone, you can skip the spreadsheet and work directly in Microsoft Word or Google Docs. Insert a two-column table into a blank document. Place the reviewer’s comments in the left column and your point-by-point responses in the right column. This method is highly efficient because this working document can seamlessly transition into the final response letter you submit to the journal.
Best Practices for Managing Reviewer Comments
- Break down long paragraphs: Reviewers often write lengthy, conversational paragraphs that contain three or four distinct critiques. Split these into individual, actionable bullet points so no minor request gets accidentally ignored.
- Verify new literature requests: Reviewers frequently ask you to cite additional studies to support your claims or broaden your literature review. When integrating these new sources, using WisPaper's TrueCite automatically finds and verifies your citations, ensuring you don't accidentally include incorrect or hallucinated references in your revised draft.
- Tackle the easy wins first: Build momentum by addressing formatting changes, typo corrections, or simple text clarifications before diving into complex data re-analysis or rewriting entire discussion sections.
By relying on these simple tracking tools, you remove the chaos from the revision process and present a thorough, professional response to the editorial board.
