I remember one paper where the reviews were so positive that I thought, Finally! Minor revisions—this will be easy! Then I had another where I had to re-analyse my entire dataset to address reviewer feedback.
Revisions can be anything from quick tweaks to complete overhauls, and how you respond can make or break your paper’s acceptance.
This section will guide you through:
✔ How to structure a persuasive response to reviewers.
✔ Which revision requests to accept and which to push back on.
✔ How to handle resubmissions effectively.
✔ Strategies for dealing with reviewer fatigue and emotional burnout.
How to Handle Major Revisions
Let’s dive in.
Understanding Your Reviews Decision
Once you receive reviewer comments, the first step is to consider the decision and feedback carefully.
Types of Editorial Decisions:
1. Minor Revisions – A few small changes (e.g., clarifying a section, adding references). Your paper is almost accepted—just refine it!
2. Major Revisions – Substantial concerns about methodology, analysis, or clarity. If addressed well, your paper has a strong chance of acceptance.
3. Reject with Invitation to Resubmit – The paper needs significant restructuring but has potential. Treat this as a new submission.
4. Rejection – The paper is not suitable for the journal or has fundamental weaknesses. If the rejection is due to methodological bias, consider submitting elsewhere.
💡 First Steps After Receiving Feedback:
✔ Take Time to Process – Don’t respond emotionally—step away before drafting your response.
✔ Identify Key Themes – Group comments into methodology, clarity, theoretical engagement, and findings.
✔ Assess Reviewer Bias – Are reviewers applying inappropriate quantitative standards to your qualitative research?
✔ Decide on Your Strategy – Which revisions will you accept, modify, or challenge?
Responding to Reviewer Comments Like a Pro
Writing a Persuasive Response Letter
Your response letter is just as important as your revisions—it is your opportunity to demonstrate engagement with feedback and persuade reviewers of your changes. A well-structured, professional response increases your chances of acceptance.
Key Steps for an Effective Response Letter:
✔ Be professional and constructive – Even if feedback is frustrating, maintain a neutral and respectful tone.
✔ Address every comment clearly – Acknowledge each point, even if you disagree. If you do not follow a suggestion, provide a reasoned justification.
✔ Use a response table – Organising reviewer comments alongside your responses makes it easy for editors to see what you’ve changed.
✔ Justify your decisions with literature – If a reviewer suggests changes that don’t align with qualitative research standards, back up your decision with references.
✔ Engage the editor if necessary – If a reviewer applies inappropriate standards (e.g., asking for generalisability in a qualitative study), politely ask the editor for guidance.
💡 Pro Tip: Editors appreciate clarity and professionalism in response letters. Even if you push back on a suggestion, show that you have carefully considered it.
Responding to Reviewer Feedback
Organising your responses in a table makes the revision process clearer and more efficient—for both you and the reviewers. Here is an example of a reviewer response table:
| Reviewer Comment | Response | Action Taken |
| Your sample size is too small for generalisability. | Aligned with the qualitative research paradigm and ‘big Q’ qualitative approach, we prioritise depth and richness of data (Braun & Clarke, 2024). Our study does not adopt a positivist perspective that requires a large sample size for generalisability. | Clarified in the Methods section (p. X). |
| More participant quotes are needed. | Expanded the methodology section to explain our analytic approach (p. X). | Added five new participant quotes in the Findings section. |
| Consider intercoder reliability to ensure coding consistency. | Thank you for this suggestion. However, in line with the literature, intercoder reliability is not applicable in reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022), which prioritises researcher reflexivity and transparency. | Expanded the Methodology section to explain our analytic approach (p. X). |
| Your discussion lacks connection to broader literature. | We appreciate this suggestion and have now integrated additional literature to add context to our findings. | Added references to [specific studies] in the discussion section (p. X). |
| The writing needs more clarity. | We have revised the manuscript to enhance clarity, readability, and coherence. We believe these refinements have strengthened the manuscript as a whole. | Streamlined key sections and improved transitions. |
💡 Pro Tip: If feedback is methodologically inappropriate, frame your response as a clarification, not a rejection of their input. Support your argument with qualitative methodology literature.
When I received a major revisions decision requiring me to re-analyse my entire dataset, I nearly cried! But the process really allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of my data. While it felt overwhelming at first, tackling it step by step made it more manageable. In the end, the revisions not only strengthened the paper but also enhanced my research skills and confidence.
Step-by-Step Approach to Major Revisions:
✔ Prioritize Core Issues – Address methodology, theoretical contributions, and findings before minor edits.
✔ Use a Response Table – Organize your revisions into a point-by-point format for clarity.
✔ Demonstrate Engagement – Even when pushing back, show that you carefully considered the feedback.
✔ Seek Peer Support – Ask a mentor or colleague to review your responses before submission.
Example Response to Contradictory Comments
- Reviewer 1: The discussion section is too theoretical—focus more on practical implications.
- Reviewer 2: The discussion lacks theoretical depth—engage more with conceptual frameworks.
Balanced Response:
Thank you for these suggestions, we greatly appreciate both perspectives. To address the feedback, we have refined our discussion to balance theoretical depth with practical implications (page X). We now explicitly connect our findings to [theory] while also highlighting their applied significance in [context].
💡 Pro Tip: If reviewer comments contradict each other, address both—but explain your rationale for balancing their concerns.
Handling Rejections & Resubmissions
One of my papers was rejected from four different journals before finally being accepted. Each rejection was discouraging, but each revision made it stronger.
If Your Paper Is Rejected:
- Assess the Feedback – Was the rejection due to journal mismatch or methodological misunderstanding?
- Revise & Submit Elsewhere – If rejection stems from bias, find a journal that values qualitative research.
- Seek Mentorship – Ask colleagues or mentors for insights on refining your manuscript.
- Don’t Take It Personally – Many top researchers face rejection before publication.
💡 Pro Tip: If possible, keep a publishing pipeline—always have one paper under review, one in revision, and one in preparation. This reduces the emotional impact of rejection.
Dealing with Reviewer Fatigue & Emotional Burnout
Revising papers can feel exhausting, especially when faced with difficult or contradictory feedback or long review delays.
- Strategies for Avoiding Burnout:
- Take Breaks – Step away from your manuscript before responding to feedback.
- Reframe Revisions as Growth – Each round of revisions strengthens your academic writing and argumentation.
- Celebrate Small Wins – Even minor revisions mean your paper is progressing.
- Talk to Colleagues – You’re not alone—everyone experiences difficult reviews.
Final Thoughts: Turning Revisions into an Opportunity
Revisions can be frustrating, but they’re also an opportunity to refine your work. Even my toughest revision experiences have made my papers stronger.
Instead of seeing feedback as a setback, view it as a step toward publication success.
Next Up: Part 4 – Building a Long-Term Publishing Strategy
Now that you know how to handle revisions and resubmissions effectively, it’s time to develop a sustainable publishing strategy. In Part 4, we’ll cover:
✔ The benefits of becoming a peer reviewer yourself.
✔ How to build a publication pipeline and work on multiple papers at once.
✔ Expanding your research impact beyond journals (blogs, policy briefs, conferences).
✔ Developing a long-term academic publishing strategy.
💬 What’s the most difficult revision request you’ve ever received? How did you handle it? Leave a comment below!
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2024). Supporting best practice in reflexive thematic analysis reporting in Palliative Medicine: A review of published research and introduction to the Reflexive Thematic Analysis Reporting Guidelines (RTARG). Palliative Medicine, 38(6), 608-616.
Clarke, V., Braun, V., Adams, J., Callaghan, J. E. M., LaMarre, A., & Semlyen, J. (2024). “Being really confidently wrong”: Qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent peer review feedback. Qualitative Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000322
Herber, O. R., Bradbury-Jones, C., Böling, S., Combes, S., Hirt, J., Koop, Y., … & Taylor, J. (2020). What feedback do reviewers give when reviewing qualitative manuscripts? A focused mapping review and synthesis. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20, 1-15.
Wong, G. L. (2019). Tips for responding to reviewers’ comments—from an editor’s or reviewer’s points of view. Gut and Liver, 13(1), 7-10. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl18361
Editage Insights. (2020). How to handle tricky peer reviewer comments [Free downloadable handbook]. Retrieved from https://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-handle-tricky-peer-reviewer-comments-free-downloadable-handbook
QualPage. (2018). Responding to peer review. Retrieved from https://qualpage.com/2018/08/23/responding-to-peer-review/
Society for Social Studies of Science and Practice. (2023). Responding to reviewer feedback that is challenging. Retrieved from https://www.sssp-research.org/responding-to-reviewer-feedback-that-is-challenging/
0 Comments