Editorial

Patricia Ann Mabrouk, SPUR Editor-in-Chief

Understanding the Peer Review Process and How to Respond: Tips for SPUR Authors

Abstract

Understanding journal norms, viewing peer review feedback constructively, and responding appropriately through revisions to the manuscript text and the Response to Reviewers document are essential elements of a successful manuscript revision. This brief editorial discusses these elements.

Responding to peer reviewer feedback is a normal part of the publication process at Scholarship & Practice of Undergraduate Research (SPUR). In this editorial, I offer some tips on how to do this effectively, improving your chances of being published in SPUR and doing this in a shorter time.

doi: 10.18833/spur/7/4/8

Understand the Norms of the Journal

In the case of SPUR, most submissions will go through two rounds of peer review. All are externally peer reviewed by at least two reviewers. The handling editor, either an associate editor in the case of general submissions or an issue editor in the case of themed issues, also weighs in on the manuscript’s suitability for publication in SPUR. Most of my decisions, based on the associate or issue editor’s evaluation and that of the peer reviewers, are for revision. What does this mean? For a major revision, the reviewers and editors perceived the submission as valuable and saw potential. More importantly, it means that there are substantial problems with one or more of the following standard elements: the literature, methodology, data, or analysis, and these are missing or flawed in some way. Sometimes, it is difficult to discern from the original submission if the manuscript is fatally flawed, so a manuscript may initially receive a decision of major revision and subsequently be declined. If a manuscript has not improved substantially after two review cycles and significant concerns remain, we will likely decline publication.

A minor revision is usually made when the work is technically solid, and needed changes can be completed relatively quickly (two weeks) without doing additional research or analysis. Sometimes, authors do not pay due attention to addressing all the issues raised for a minor revision decision, which can necessitate yet another round of reviews and revision, delaying publication.

Peer Review Feedback

At SPUR, editors strive to provide constructive, specific, and actionable feedback from at least two reviewers. So, when you receive a decision letter, no matter the decision, I think it is essential to recognize that expert feedback comes from a good place and that the objective is to ensure that the work SPUR publishes is high quality and helps our authors present their work in its best form. So do not take criticisms personally. Don’t react to reviews; respond to them. Assume that the feedback comes from a good place.

It is critical to revise your manuscript and address all the criticisms and concerns raised by the reviewers and editors. Although you may not agree with all the criticisms, it is up to you how you decide to respond to each concern in your revision. If you disagree, explain why you are not making the requested revision and provide clear evidence to support your decision. Sometimes you will receive conflicting feedback. One reviewer may be critical, and another reviewer may be satisfied. You may receive feedback indicating that the reviewer did not understand your work. That may be true, but remember, as the author, the responsibility to clearly and accurately communicate the study and its findings falls on you, not the reviewer (or reader). Rewriting the relevant text or section using more explicit language is the wisest response in these situations and can only increase the impact of your work.

The Response to Reviewers Document

Your response to reviewers is as important as your revised manuscript. Be respectful in your responses. Remember that editors and reviewers are volunteers with technical and publishing expertise. Indicate precisely what changes you have made in the revision and ensure your responses are thorough. Using quotations can be helpful in your response to indicate exactly what change was made. Please include line numbers so that editors and reviewers can see where these changes appear in the revision.

It is most effective if the authors create a table listing all the concerns raised verbatim (column 1) and provide a statement indicating how they have addressed these concerns in the manuscript and where the changes can be found in the revision (column 2). While this is a helpful approach in preparing the Response to Reviewers document that is part of a resubmission, it can lead to a piecemeal approach to revision that is generally ineffective in producing a quality revision. It is essential to recognize that making local changes to the manuscript may have a ripple effect on the manuscript as a whole. For example, changes made to the data and analysis may necessitate changes to the abstract, introduction, and results at a minimum. If major revisions are requested, address the major issues first and revise the manuscript holistically. It wastes your time and effort addressing minutiae such as typos, spelling errors, etc., though it may make you feel better.

If You Need Help, Ask!

Consider us your partners. When in doubt, as they always say, ask. Don’t hesitate to contact the journal if

you are unclear about the reviewers’ concerns or requests;

you need to add a significant amount of text exceeding the word count; or

life happens, and you may need to pause your revision.

If your manuscript is being considered for a themed issue, we may not be able to provide the needed time, but we can consider the work for publication in a future unthemed regular issue. Sometimes, it may not be possible to address the reviewers’ concerns without additional work that requires further study or a different analytical approach. In this case, consider contacting the journal and withdrawing your submission; there is no penalty to an author or authorship team.

In Case of Declination

Suppose a manuscript is rejected and the authors believe they can address the concerns the editors and reviewers raised. In that case, the corresponding author can contact the Editor-in-Chief to discuss the decision. Please remember that declination decisions are not made lightly, so it is essential to critically review the manuscript in light of the concerns raised in the reviewer feedback before reaching out. If the declination was made on an original submission, it is highly likely that the study has major flaws or does not fit the journal’s aims and scope. In these circumstances, it is wisest to consider revising the manuscript, if possible, and submitting your work to another journal.

Conclusion

As editor-in-chief, I have repeatedly seen peer review markedly improve the quality of SPUR submissions. Responding to peer review is a normal part of the review process. Most manuscripts undergo at least two rounds of revision. We, as editors, reviewers, and authors, are in this together and we want the same thing–to publish the best version of your work. So, work with us, take peer review feedback to heart, critically revise your manuscript, and address all concerns in a point-by-point response to reviewers.

Are you interested in reviewing for SPUR? Email spur@cur.org and provide your contact information and areas of technical expertise.