What Are the Usual Comments When a Reviewer Asks You to Revise a Scientific Paper? A Practical Guide for Researchers
Introduction
What are the usual comments when a reviewer asks you to revise a scientific paper? This is one of the most common questions PhD scholars, early-career academics, and research authors ask after receiving a “revise and resubmit” decision. The email may feel overwhelming at first. You may see comments about the literature review, research gap, methodology, statistical analysis, theoretical contribution, writing clarity, journal formatting, or ethical compliance. However, a revision request is not a rejection. In most cases, it means the editor and reviewers see potential in your work, but they need clearer evidence, stronger argumentation, and better alignment with journal expectations.
For many researchers, the peer review stage is emotionally demanding. A manuscript may represent months or years of fieldwork, data analysis, reading, writing, and supervisor feedback. Therefore, reviewer criticism can feel personal. Yet, in scholarly publishing, reviewer comments are part of quality control. They help authors improve logic, transparency, validity, and contribution. Taylor & Francis explains that reviewers evaluate manuscripts for validity, significance, and originality, which are central criteria in academic publishing. (Author Services)
The challenge is that PhD students and academic researchers now publish in an increasingly competitive environment. Global research output continues to expand. Dimensions reports access to more than 106 million publications, 700,000 clinical trials, and 130 million patents in its research database, showing the scale of today’s scholarly ecosystem. (Dimensions) At the same time, open access publishing has grown quickly. STM reported that Gold Open Access represented 35% of all articles in its 2023 progress report, and its dashboard indicates Gold Open Access accounted for 40% of scholarly articles, reviews, and conference papers published globally in 2024. (STM Association)
This growth brings opportunity, but it also increases pressure. Researchers must manage publication timelines, institutional targets, funding expectations, supervisor feedback, article processing charges, language barriers, journal formatting rules, and ethical requirements. For PhD scholars, these demands often come alongside teaching, coursework, data collection, job applications, family responsibilities, and financial constraints.
Therefore, understanding what are the usual comments when a reviewer asks you to revise a scientific paper can reduce anxiety and improve your response strategy. Once you know the patterns behind reviewer feedback, you can revise with structure instead of panic. You can separate major concerns from minor edits. You can also prepare a professional response letter that shows respect, clarity, and academic maturity.
At ContentXprtz, we support researchers, PhD scholars, universities, and professionals with ethical academic editing, proofreading, and publication assistance. Our goal is not to replace your scholarly voice. Instead, we help refine your ideas, strengthen your argument, and prepare your manuscript for credible academic review.
Why Reviewer Comments Matter in Scientific Publishing
Reviewer comments are not simply editorial obstacles. They are part of the knowledge validation process. A well-written review identifies weaknesses that may reduce the reliability, originality, or clarity of a scientific paper. COPE states that peer reviewers should provide unbiased and constructive critique, and their feedback should be objective, clear, and useful. (publicationethics.org)
This matters because scientific papers influence future research, policy decisions, clinical practices, business strategies, and public understanding. If a paper lacks methodological transparency or contains unclear claims, readers may misinterpret the findings. As a result, reviewers often focus on the areas that affect trust.
Common reviewer priorities include:
- Research originality
- Theoretical contribution
- Methodological rigor
- Sampling logic
- Data validity
- Statistical accuracy
- Ethical compliance
- Writing clarity
- Journal fit
- Citation quality
When authors ask, what are the usual comments when a reviewer asks you to revise a scientific paper, the answer usually begins with these quality dimensions. Reviewers want to know whether the paper makes a clear contribution, follows appropriate methods, reports findings transparently, and communicates ideas in a scholarly but readable way.
Major Revision Versus Minor Revision
Before responding to reviewer comments, you must understand the decision type.
A minor revision usually means the manuscript is close to acceptance. Reviewers may ask for clearer wording, updated citations, formatting corrections, minor statistical explanations, improved figures, or small clarifications.
A major revision means the paper needs substantial improvement. Reviewers may question the research gap, theoretical framing, research design, analysis, interpretation, contribution, or structure. However, even a major revision is often a positive signal. The journal has not rejected the paper. Instead, the editor has invited you to improve it.
Springer advises authors to thank reviewers and editors, address all points, describe major revisions, and provide point-by-point responses. It also notes that authors may explain why a suggested experiment or analysis was not performed, if they have a valid scholarly reason. (springer.com)
Therefore, the best response is not defensive. It is organized, respectful, and evidence-based.
What Are the Usual Comments When a Reviewer Asks You to Revise a Scientific Paper?
The usual comments fall into predictable categories. When you identify the category, you can respond more effectively.
Comments About the Research Gap
Reviewers often say:
“The research gap is not clearly articulated.”
“The study does not explain what is new.”
“The introduction needs stronger justification.”
“The problem statement is too broad.”
These comments appear when the manuscript describes a topic but does not explain why the study is necessary. A scientific paper must do more than summarize existing literature. It must show a precise gap, unresolved problem, or underexplored context.
A strong response should clarify:
- What previous studies have already established
- What remains unknown
- Why the gap matters
- How your paper addresses the gap
- Why your context, method, dataset, or theory adds value
For example, instead of writing, “Few studies have examined digital banking,” write, “Existing digital banking studies focus mainly on adoption intention, while limited evidence explains how trust and perceived risk shape continued usage among middle-class Indian users.”
This sharper framing helps reviewers see your contribution.
Comments About Literature Review Quality
Another common concern is literature review weakness. Reviewers may write:
“The literature review is descriptive rather than critical.”
“Recent studies are missing.”
“The review does not support the hypotheses.”
“The manuscript needs better theoretical integration.”
These comments show that the literature review does not yet function as an argument. It may list studies without comparing them. It may rely on outdated sources. It may not connect prior research to the proposed model.
To improve the section, organize literature around themes, not authors. Compare findings. Highlight contradictions. Identify methodological limitations. Then explain how your study responds to these limitations.
For PhD scholars, professional academic editing services can help refine literature flow, strengthen synthesis, and improve conceptual clarity without changing the author’s original research contribution.
Comments About Theoretical Framework
Reviewers often ask:
“Why was this theory selected?”
“The theoretical foundation is weak.”
“The hypotheses are not adequately justified.”
“The manuscript needs stronger theoretical contribution.”
These comments mean the paper may present variables, but it does not explain their conceptual relationship. A theory gives structure to your argument. It explains why one construct may influence another. It also helps readers understand how your study extends knowledge.
A strong revision should show:
- Why the theory fits the research problem
- How the theory explains the proposed relationships
- Where previous theory is limited
- How your findings confirm, extend, or challenge the theory
For example, if you use Behavioral Reasoning Theory, do not only define it. Explain how “reasons for” and “reasons against” affect attitude and intention in your research context.
Comments About Methodology
When researchers ask, what are the usual comments when a reviewer asks you to revise a scientific paper, methodology comments are among the most frequent.
Reviewers may say:
“The methodology lacks detail.”
“The sampling strategy is unclear.”
“The sample size justification is missing.”
“The data collection process needs explanation.”
“The study design does not match the research question.”
Methodology comments are serious because they affect credibility. Readers must know how the study was conducted. They need enough detail to evaluate reliability, validity, and reproducibility.
The APA Journal Article Reporting Standards help authors report research with clarity and transparency, especially for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies. (apastyle.apa.org) Therefore, a revised methodology should include research design, sampling method, participant profile, data collection procedure, instrument development, validity checks, reliability measures, ethical approval, and analysis technique.
A weak methodology says, “Data were collected through a questionnaire.”
A stronger methodology says, “Data were collected through a structured questionnaire administered to 492 respondents who had used online fitness platforms within the previous six months. The questionnaire was developed from validated scales and tested through a pilot study before full data collection.”
Comments About Data Analysis
Reviewers often ask for more detail about analysis. Common comments include:
“The statistical analysis is insufficient.”
“The model fit indices should be reported.”
“The robustness checks are missing.”
“The qualitative coding process is unclear.”
“The results are not adequately interpreted.”
In quantitative research, reviewers may request reliability values, validity tests, correlation analysis, regression assumptions, multicollinearity checks, mediation testing, moderation analysis, or model fit statistics. In qualitative research, they may ask for coding procedures, inter-coder reliability, theme development, and illustrative quotes.
Do not simply add numbers. Explain what the results mean. A table may show significance, but the discussion must explain interpretation, relevance, and contribution.
For complex statistical and methodological revisions, ContentXprtz provides ethical PhD thesis help that supports clarity, structure, and academic presentation while preserving research integrity.
Comments About Results and Discussion
Reviewers often say:
“The results section repeats the tables.”
“The discussion does not interpret the findings.”
“The findings are not linked to prior literature.”
“The discussion should explain unexpected results.”
These comments appear when the paper reports data but does not build meaning. Results answer “what was found.” Discussion answers “why it matters.”
A strong discussion should:
- Interpret each key finding
- Compare results with previous studies
- Explain agreements and contradictions
- Address unexpected outcomes
- Link findings to theory
- Show practical implications
- Explain limitations
For example, if privacy concerns do not significantly affect digital service adoption, do not ignore the result. Explain possible reasons. Perhaps users normalize data sharing due to convenience. Perhaps the sample trusts regulated platforms. Perhaps privacy awareness remains low in the studied context.
Comments About Originality and Contribution
Reviewers may write:
“The contribution is unclear.”
“The manuscript does not add enough new knowledge.”
“The practical implications are generic.”
“The paper needs stronger theoretical and managerial implications.”
These comments often appear in Q1 and Scopus-indexed journals. High-quality journals expect more than correct methods. They want a meaningful contribution.
To revise, ask three questions:
- What does this paper add to theory?
- What does it add to method or context?
- What does it help practitioners, policymakers, or institutions do better?
Avoid generic statements such as “This study helps managers improve performance.” Instead, specify the decision area, stakeholder, and action.
For example: “The findings help university research offices design targeted publication workshops that address reviewer response writing, not only manuscript drafting.”
Comments About Language and Academic Style
Language comments are common, especially for multilingual researchers. Reviewers may say:
“The manuscript requires language editing.”
“The writing is unclear.”
“The paper needs proofreading by a native or professional editor.”
“The argument is difficult to follow.”
These comments do not always mean the research is weak. Sometimes, strong ideas lose impact because sentence structure, grammar, transitions, or terminology are unclear.
Academic editing can improve:
- Sentence clarity
- Logical flow
- Paragraph transitions
- Terminology consistency
- Citation accuracy
- Journal tone
- Grammar and punctuation
- Conciseness
Researchers who need publication-focused support can explore ContentXprtz research paper writing support, especially when they need clarity, structure, and academic confidence.
Comments About Journal Formatting
Reviewers and editors may also ask for formatting changes.
Common comments include:
“The manuscript does not follow journal guidelines.”
“The references need formatting.”
“The tables and figures need revision.”
“The abstract should be restructured.”
“The keywords are not suitable.”
These comments seem minor, but they affect editorial efficiency. Some journals reject or delay manuscripts because formatting does not meet requirements.
Taylor & Francis notes that many journals now allow format-free submission, but authors still need consistency and complete information for review. (Author Services) Therefore, always check author guidelines before resubmission.
Comments About Ethics, Consent, and Transparency
Reviewers may ask:
“Was ethical approval obtained?”
“How was informed consent collected?”
“Please clarify data availability.”
“Please disclose conflicts of interest.”
“Please explain AI tool use, if applicable.”
These comments are increasingly important. Journals expect transparency in data collection, authorship, funding, consent, and conflicts of interest. If your study involves human participants, include ethical approval details, consent procedure, anonymity protection, and data storage practices.
A clear ethics statement builds trust. It also protects authors from avoidable publication delays.
How to Read Reviewer Comments Without Panic
When the decision email arrives, do not revise immediately. First, read the editor’s letter carefully. Then read all reviewer comments twice. Nature Index suggests that waiting a day or two can help authors create emotional distance before responding to difficult feedback. (Nature)
After that, classify comments into groups:
- Major conceptual comments
- Methodology comments
- Analysis comments
- Writing clarity comments
- Formatting comments
- Reference comments
- Ethics comments
Then create a revision tracker. Use columns for reviewer number, comment, action required, manuscript location, response draft, and status.
This method helps you stay calm and systematic.
How to Respond to Reviewer Comments Professionally
A strong response letter is as important as the revised manuscript. Elsevier’s response template advises authors to include reviewer comments followed by author responses. (www.elsevier.com) Taylor & Francis also explains that authors are expected to prepare a revised manuscript and write a response letter explaining how feedback was addressed. (Author Services)
Use this structure:
Opening paragraph: Thank the editor and reviewers.
Summary of revisions: Briefly state the major improvements.
Point-by-point response: Copy each reviewer comment and respond below it.
Manuscript location: Mention section, page, paragraph, or line number.
Respectful disagreement: If you disagree, explain why using evidence.
Example:
Reviewer Comment: The research gap is unclear.
Author Response: Thank you for this helpful comment. We have revised the introduction to clarify the research gap. Specifically, we now explain that prior studies focus mainly on adoption intention, while limited research examines continued usage among middle-class users. This revision appears in the Introduction, paragraphs 3 and 4.
This response is polite, specific, and verifiable.
Examples of Common Reviewer Comments and Better Responses
Example 1: Literature Review
Reviewer Comment: The literature review is too descriptive and lacks recent studies.
Weak Response: We added more references.
Better Response: Thank you for the observation. We revised the literature review by organizing it around three themes: adoption behavior, trust mechanisms, and digital service continuity. We also added recent studies from 2021 to 2025 to strengthen the research gap and theoretical positioning.
Example 2: Methodology
Reviewer Comment: The sampling method is unclear.
Weak Response: We clarified the sample.
Better Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. We have added a detailed explanation of the purposive sampling strategy, inclusion criteria, recruitment process, and respondent profile. This improves the transparency of the methodology section.
Example 3: Discussion
Reviewer Comment: The discussion does not connect findings with theory.
Weak Response: We revised the discussion.
Better Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We expanded the discussion by linking the findings to Behavioral Reasoning Theory. We now explain how reasons for adoption and reasons against adoption shaped user attitude and behavioral intention.
Why Professional Academic Support Helps During Revision
Many researchers can draft a manuscript, but revision requires a different skill set. It demands editorial judgment, disciplinary awareness, journal familiarity, and emotional discipline. A professional editor can help identify whether the reviewer is asking for more evidence, clearer logic, better structure, stronger citations, or improved language.
ContentXprtz supports researchers through ethical editing and publication-focused assistance. Our services help authors refine manuscripts, dissertations, journal articles, book chapters, and academic documents while maintaining academic integrity.
Researchers seeking structured support can explore:
- Academic editing services
- PhD thesis help
- Student academic writing support
- Book authors writing services
- Corporate writing services
Frequently Asked Questions
What are the usual comments when a reviewer asks you to revise a scientific paper?
The usual comments include concerns about the research gap, literature review, theoretical framework, methodology, data analysis, results, discussion, originality, contribution, academic language, journal formatting, and ethical transparency. Reviewers may ask you to clarify why the study matters, update recent literature, justify the sample size, explain statistical tests, report validity measures, improve figures, or strengthen the discussion. They may also ask you to respond to conflicting findings, explain unexpected results, and show how the paper contributes to theory or practice. When authors ask, what are the usual comments when a reviewer asks you to revise a scientific paper, they should understand that reviewers usually focus on quality, clarity, and trust. Most comments aim to make the paper more rigorous and useful for readers. The best approach is to read comments calmly, classify them by theme, revise the manuscript carefully, and prepare a point-by-point response letter. A revision request is not a failure. It is often a meaningful step toward publication.
Does a revision request mean my paper will be accepted?
A revision request does not guarantee acceptance, but it is usually a positive sign. It means the editor has not rejected the manuscript at the current stage and believes the paper may become publishable after improvement. However, the outcome depends on how well you address the comments. If reviewers raise major concerns about theory, methodology, analysis, or contribution, you must respond with meaningful revisions. Do not treat a major revision as a formatting task. Instead, treat it as a second opportunity to strengthen your manuscript. Address every comment. Use respectful language. Provide evidence. Mention where changes were made. If you disagree with a suggestion, explain your reason carefully. Journals value authors who respond professionally. Therefore, when you ask, what are the usual comments when a reviewer asks you to revise a scientific paper, also ask how each comment affects acceptance probability. Serious comments need serious revision. Minor comments need accurate correction. Both matter.
How should I organize my response to reviewer comments?
Organize your response letter in a clear point-by-point format. Begin with a short thank-you note to the editor and reviewers. Then summarize the major changes made to the manuscript. After that, copy each reviewer comment and place your response below it. Use headings such as Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, and Reviewer 3. Keep each response specific. Avoid vague phrases such as “done” or “corrected.” Instead, explain what you changed and where the change appears. For example, write, “We revised the methodology section to include the sampling criteria, recruitment procedure, and pilot testing details.” This approach makes the reviewer’s job easier. It also shows professionalism. Springer recommends addressing all points raised by editors and reviewers and describing major revisions in the response letter. (springer.com) A structured response improves transparency and reduces the chance of misunderstanding.
What should I do if I disagree with a reviewer comment?
You may disagree with a reviewer, but you must do it respectfully. Do not write emotional or defensive responses. First, check whether the reviewer misunderstood your argument because your writing was unclear. If yes, revise the manuscript to prevent future confusion. If the reviewer’s suggestion genuinely does not fit your study, explain your reasoning with scholarly evidence. For example, if a reviewer asks for a statistical test that does not match your research design, explain why another method is more appropriate. You can write, “We appreciate this suggestion. However, because the data structure does not meet the assumptions required for this test, we retained the current method and added a justification in the methodology section.” This tone shows respect and academic judgment. When considering what are the usual comments when a reviewer asks you to revise a scientific paper, remember that not every comment requires full acceptance. However, every comment requires a thoughtful response.
How can I improve the literature review after reviewer feedback?
To improve the literature review, move beyond summary. Reviewers often criticize literature reviews that list studies without synthesis. Start by grouping studies into themes. Then compare their findings, methods, samples, theories, and limitations. Add recent studies from credible journals. Remove weak or irrelevant citations. Show how the literature leads logically to your research gap. For example, instead of writing one paragraph per author, write paragraphs around key debates. A strong literature review may discuss what is known, what remains unclear, and why your study is necessary. It should also support your hypotheses or research questions. If a reviewer says the literature review is outdated, add recent work from the last five years, especially from journals related to your field. If the reviewer says the theory is weak, explain how your theoretical framework connects the variables. This approach makes your review analytical, not descriptive.
Why do reviewers ask for stronger methodology details?
Reviewers ask for methodology details because the method determines whether your findings are trustworthy. A reader must understand how you collected data, selected participants, measured variables, analyzed results, and handled ethical concerns. If these details are missing, the study may appear weak, even when the research idea is strong. Methodology transparency also supports reproducibility. APA’s Journal Article Reporting Standards are designed to improve rigor and transparency in peer-reviewed journal articles. (apastyle.apa.org) Therefore, include enough detail for readers to evaluate your study. For quantitative research, report sample size, scales, reliability, validity, assumptions, and statistical procedures. For qualitative research, explain participant selection, interview protocol, coding process, theme development, and credibility checks. For mixed-method research, clarify integration logic. Strong methodology writing can significantly improve reviewer confidence.
How do I handle reviewer comments about poor academic English?
If reviewers comment on poor academic English, do not feel discouraged. Many excellent researchers write in English as an additional language. The issue is not intelligence or expertise. The issue is whether readers can follow the argument clearly. Start by revising long sentences. Use precise terminology. Improve transitions between paragraphs. Remove repetition. Check grammar, punctuation, tense consistency, and citation style. Also ensure that the tone matches the journal’s expectations. Academic writing should be clear, formal, and evidence-based. It should not be unnecessarily complex. Professional proofreading can help when the manuscript needs language refinement before resubmission. However, editing should protect your meaning and scholarly ownership. At ContentXprtz, our academic editing approach focuses on clarity, flow, grammar, structure, and publication readiness while respecting the author’s original research voice.
What if reviewers ask for additional analysis?
If reviewers ask for additional analysis, first assess whether the request is methodologically valid and feasible. Some requests improve the paper. For example, a reviewer may ask for robustness checks, mediation analysis, subgroup analysis, additional qualitative quotes, or model fit indices. If the analysis strengthens the manuscript and fits your data, perform it and explain the results clearly. If the request is not feasible, explain why. Perhaps the data were not collected for that purpose. Perhaps the sample size does not support the requested test. Perhaps the analysis would shift the paper away from its research question. In such cases, provide a respectful explanation and, where possible, add a limitation. When asking what are the usual comments when a reviewer asks you to revise a scientific paper, remember that analysis comments often carry high importance. Handle them carefully and transparently.
How long should I take to revise a scientific paper?
The time needed depends on the decision type and journal deadline. Minor revisions may take one to three weeks. Major revisions may take four to twelve weeks or more. Some journals give a fixed deadline, such as 30, 60, or 90 days. Do not rush the revision only to resubmit a weak manuscript. At the same time, do not delay so long that you miss the deadline. Start by creating a revision plan. Identify high-priority comments first. These include methodology, analysis, theory, and contribution. Then handle writing, references, tables, figures, and formatting. Keep a revision tracker to monitor progress. If you need more time, many journals allow extension requests. Write to the editorial office politely before the deadline. Explain why you need additional time and provide a realistic submission date.
Can professional academic editing improve my chances after reviewer comments?
Professional academic editing can improve the clarity, structure, readability, and presentation of your revised manuscript. It cannot guarantee acceptance, because publication decisions depend on the journal, editor, reviewers, research quality, fit, originality, and methodological rigor. However, expert editing can help you address reviewer concerns more effectively. It can improve the introduction, literature synthesis, argument flow, discussion, implications, limitations, grammar, formatting, and response letter. It can also help identify gaps that authors may miss after working on the same manuscript for months. Ethical academic support does not fabricate data, invent citations, or rewrite research dishonestly. Instead, it strengthens communication and compliance. For PhD scholars and researchers, this support can reduce stress and improve submission quality. ContentXprtz offers publication-focused editing and research paper assistance designed to help authors revise with confidence.
Practical Checklist Before Resubmission
Before submitting your revised manuscript, check the following:
- Every reviewer comment has a response.
- The revised manuscript matches the response letter.
- Major changes are clearly explained.
- The introduction states the research gap.
- The literature review includes recent and relevant studies.
- The theoretical framework supports the model.
- The methodology is transparent.
- The analysis is accurate and complete.
- Tables and figures follow journal style.
- The discussion interprets results, not just reports them.
- Limitations and future research are specific.
- Ethical approval, consent, and data availability are clear.
- References follow journal formatting.
- Language is polished and concise.
- The cover letter is professional.
This checklist helps ensure that your revision is complete, consistent, and reviewer-friendly.
Final Thoughts
Understanding what are the usual comments when a reviewer asks you to revise a scientific paper can transform the revision process from a stressful task into a strategic academic opportunity. Most reviewer comments focus on predictable areas: research gap, literature review, theory, methodology, analysis, discussion, contribution, language, formatting, and ethics. Once you recognize these patterns, you can respond with confidence.
A successful revision does three things. First, it improves the manuscript. Second, it shows the editor and reviewers that you took the feedback seriously. Third, it strengthens your identity as a careful, ethical, and publication-ready researcher.
For PhD scholars, early-career academics, and research professionals, revision is not a sign of weakness. It is part of scholarly growth. Every strong paper becomes stronger through critique, reflection, and refinement.
ContentXprtz supports researchers worldwide with ethical editing, proofreading, manuscript refinement, PhD assistance, and publication support. Since 2010, we have worked with scholars across more than 110 countries, helping research ideas become clearer, stronger, and ready for academic audiences.
Explore our PhD and academic services to receive expert support for your thesis, dissertation, manuscript, or journal revision.
At ContentXprtz, we don’t just edit, we help your ideas reach their fullest potential.
