Congratulations! You’ve gotten the good news that you’ve been offered the opportunity to revise and resubmit your manuscript to the APSR! Along with the good news, however, comes substantive advice, sometimes quite a lot of it. On a first invitation to revise and resubmit, you will have at least three reviews and a letter from us that may suggest how to work with the reviews or provide you with additional advice. But how do you work through this advice, particularly when it is contradictory or advice that you disagree with? And what should you include in the detailed memo we request that you include with your resubmission?

We asked our editors and some of our best reviewers what they are looking for in a revised resubmission and, in particular, what makes a good response memo. While some of the responses were varied, some general themes emerged. In this blog, we share what we’ve learned.

What are reviewers and editors looking for in an R&R?

More than anything else, editors and reviewers wanted to see evidence that their comments were taken seriously. That doesn’t mean that you have to agree with or do everything that they’ve suggested, just that you haven’t dismissed their feedback without addressing why. A few of our reviewers explicitly recommended waiting to begin revisions on a paper (and writing the associated response memo), so that you can have time to process the criticisms and manage your emotions. “Ideally, authors would take a week or two to put the reviews aside, and then come back and read them again after they have had a chance to think about them.” As one reviewer explained “your first reactions to the reviews don’t belong in a memo.”

Reviewers and editors agreed that the memo is your best opportunity to explain how you have revised your paper in response to the comments and suggestions made in the review process. A good review memo signals to the reviewers that you have invested time and care into considering their suggestions and critiques. If a reviewer asks a specific question, be sure to answer it! Our reviewers acknowledge that authors may not agree with every point, but “at the end of the day, reviewers are providing time and effort to reflect on a colleague’s work.” As one reviewer notes – and we concur – many of our reviewers are generous and kind in providing their “unpaid labor to offer feedback to peers.” Even if you disagree with the feedback, you can’t go wrong by being “gracious and thoughtful” in your response.

Responses should be specific and to the point, noting the changes made that address the reviews. As one reviewer put it, “If [the] work has been done, the memo shouldn’t be hard to write. If not, no memo will suffice.” Remember, an R&R means that the editors think your manuscript has a lot of promise, but an R&R is not a promise that it will get published. You should communicate the changes you have made and justify your decisions in making these changes. If you opted not to make changes, or to make changes that are different from those requested by reviewers or the editors, you should justify these choices clearly, as well. Our reviewers do not appreciate authors who write “long responses to referees without changing the paper or explaining how they revised the paper.” You can certainly express that a reviewer’s comment was difficult to address or that following one reviewer’s advice would militate against following another reviewer’s advice. Remember too, that even if you believe you did something in your original draft that a reviewer did not see, you might be able to make your work clearer in the paper so that a later reader will be able to see the good work you did!

What if you strongly disagree with reviewers? It is okay to disagree with reviewers. Try not to deflect or sidestep reviewers’ remarks, and make sure that if you disagree with them, you do so with adequate support and respect. You can and should explain why you believe a criticism or suggestion is incorrect. Try to make your point(s) in a way that focuses on the criticism or the suggestion, rather than on the reviewer. Provide support, and avoid telegraphing disrespect by disparaging or questioning the qualification of the reviewers. Avoid arguing with the editor or reviewers about every point.

What if your reviewers are divided? Most seasoned academics have received mixed reviews. Reviewers remind us that “divided reviews are part of the deal,” and do not see disagreements between or among reviewers as major problems. Sometimes one reviewer may be far more critical than the others. At other times, reviewers may have strong suggestions for revision, but these suggestions may push you in very different directions. In either case, our editors advise that your memo acknowledge these tensions. If you have one or two reviews that are more critical, the editors suggest focusing your memo on these reviews and taking care to explain clearly and succinctly how you have addressed their concerns. With reviewers who suggest very different directions, acknowledge the split and any guidance the editors may have provided and explain why you took the tack you did in responding, making sure that you justify your critical choices in your memo “in a way that is conscientious and respectful.”

Ultimately, it is up to the author(s) to figure out how to reconcile the advice, using your best judgment. In many cases, however, compromises can be crafted. As one reviewer noted, “Often, if one looks carefully at the precise nature of each reviewer’s critiques, a [satisfying response] is more possible than first appears.” If you are genuinely stuck, the reviewers, like the editors, suggest contacting the editors to see if we have suggestions for you.

Characteristics of a good memo

Response memos are highly individual, since each one must be tailored to the reviews and advice offered for a particular paper. Nonetheless, in general it’s worth keeping your audience (the editors and the reviewers) in mind and developing your memo to be an effective explanation of what you have done to respond to the advice you’ve received. We and the reviewers will focus primarily on evaluating your revised manuscript, but your memo can helpfully outline how you’ve understood the criticisms and advice provided, and how you’ve responded.

Our team advises that organization is critically important, as is ensuring that reviewers are able to see your responses to major issues. One strategy is to write a lengthy memo that addresses each point, divided into sections addressing each reviewer. Another is to write a shorter memo that focuses on major issues and references the reviewers parenthetically; this strategy can be effective if you opt to synthesize the reviewers’ advice. Regardless, “good memos get right to the point, but they systematically, and in a clear way, address [at least the major] . . . issue raised, with clear signposting that makes it possible for reviewers and editors to focus on the points they care about.” If a memo is long, “a concise summary at the beginning is a must.” Reviewers reading the memo should know that their concerns have been addressed, even if you have decided not to follow the directions they have suggested.

Reviewers had some modest disagreements about what makes for a highly effective response memo, but they all agreed that clarity, signposting, and some detail are crucial. Some reviewers appreciated summaries of the reviews, “a thematic overview of key changes,” or “a couple of paragraphs that address the overarching points (the ones that multiple reviews identified and/or the editors asked the author to focus on especially).” Others preferred a list of specific suggestions and comments and individual responses to each. A few specified that they appreciated memos that “speak directly, point for point, to the original” reviews. But even some of the reviewers who like the point-by-point responses saw value in authors drawing connections across the reviews. You should also attend to what information belongs in your memo, and what might be better suited for your supplementary appendix. Always keep in mind that the purpose of your memo is to help the reviewers navigate their reading of the revised manuscript. As one reviewer summarized, “I see a response memo as essentially a list of tasks accomplished (with a bit of summary at the beginning).”

As you are writing your memo, be sure to stay on point and write concisely. A response memo should not be overly long, and you should avoid unnecessary explanations or diversions. More than one reviewer encouraged limiting repetitiveness and verbosity. You do not need to respond to every single suggestion, nor do you need to affirm that you will correct very minor issues, like typos. A few reviewers (and editors) expressed concern that memos have gotten too long recently. One reviewer suggested summarizing and linking reviewers’ comments rather than copy-pasting large blocks of text. There was disagreement among the editors about whether you should paste in each review and respond point by point. Some find this approach to be helpful, while others see it as tedious. If you do opt for this format, be sure to address the big and interlocking suggestions comprehensively, and do not include anything in your copying/pasting that does not have to be there. If you have many revisions or detailed comments to address, you might consider ways to be more succinct in the memo, perhaps indicating exactly where the reviewer can find the changes by referencing the manuscript page number and formatted proof line number (i.e., upload the revised manuscript first, then add line numbers to the response memo). Some authors use different colored text (not tracked changes) to indicate sections that have been revised or where edits in response to reviewer comments have been added. These suggestions all aim to make it as easy as possible for reviewers to find where you have addressed their comments in your revisions.

While reviewers and editors disagree over the best length and level of detail, the most important pieces of advice were to ensure that your memo is well organized and clear and not to take on an overly defensive or argumentative tone. Whether your response is long or short, you should focus sharply on the criticisms and how you have addressed them.

Some Final Takeaways

The editors echo much of the advice provided by reviewers. Take time to think about the reviews before deciding how to respond. Organization and a good road map are critical in your response memo. A few of our editors also feel strongly that extreme length is not a virtue. Keep in mind that the reviewers, who have already read your manuscript once, will need to read both your revised manuscript and your response memo carefully. Be respectful of their time and capacity and try to make their job as easy as possible!

The editors underlined the importance of respecting the reviewers’ work and recognizing that criticism is part of the creative process. Even very good papers can be made better, and reviews should be read and addressed in this spirit. A good memo “is similar to a good review: polite, to the point, professional, and gives the other party the benefit of the doubt.” The memo ideally reflects and represents the work you have done to revise the manuscript, and the key here is doing the work.

While you should “polish and edit” your memo and make sure that it is not redundant or overly verbose, keep in mind that the memo itself is not what reviewers are evaluating for publication. Don’t be afraid to admit that you can’t answer every question or overcome every objection, and try not to overthink the memo. One reviewer advised keeping your own motivations in mind: why do you do the work that you do, and how do you relate to your intellectual forebears? Ultimately, this reviewer advised authors to “stand by one’s training and independent thought, and convictions as a researcher.” If you can do this while engaging thoughtfully with all the advice the reviewers provide, your manuscript will be more likely to move forward—and be all the better for the work that you and your reviewers have put into it.