What Happens If You Don’t Address All the Comments From Your Reviewers During Peer Review?

By Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

If you are wondering what happens if you dont address all the comments from your reviewers during peer review, the short answer is that your manuscript may be sent back for another revision, reviewers may repeat unresolved concerns, or the editor may decide that the paper is not yet suitable for publication. In more serious cases—especially when an unanswered comment concerns methodology, data interpretation, ethics, statistical analysis, validity, or a central claim—the manuscript could be rejected.

However, “addressing” a reviewer comment does not always mean making the exact change requested.

Authors are generally expected to respond to every substantive point, but scholarly disagreement is legitimate. If you believe a requested change is inappropriate, methodologically unsound, outside the study’s scope, inconsistent with the editor’s instructions, impossible because of legitimate limitations, or likely to weaken the manuscript, you can explain your reasoning respectfully. What usually creates difficulty is not disagreement itself but silence, incomplete responses, vague replies, or unexplained refusal.

This distinction is especially important for PhD scholars, early-career researchers, first-time journal authors, and researchers writing in a second language. A long peer-review report can feel like a checklist of demands, yet reviewer comments are not all equivalent. One may identify a critical problem with the study design; another may simply suggest changing terminology. Some comments overlap. Some conflict with one another. Occasionally, a reviewer may misunderstand the manuscript because an explanation was unclear.

Your task during revision is therefore not to obey reviewers mechanically. It is to demonstrate to the editor that you have carefully considered every relevant concern and responded academically.

A strong revision normally involves two connected documents: the revised manuscript and a clear point-by-point response explaining what changed, where it changed, or why a suggested change was not made. Major publisher guidance similarly emphasizes responding specifically to reviewer concerns rather than quietly leaving difficult comments unanswered. PLOS, for example, instructs revising authors to address reviewers’ and editors’ specific points and explain the changes made, while Springer Nature describes revision as including a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response.

Understanding how to handle those responses can make the difference between a confusing revision and a persuasive scholarly dialogue.

Quick Answer: What Happens If You Don’t Address Every Reviewer Comment?

If you leave reviewer comments completely unanswered, the editor or reviewers may conclude that you overlooked the feedback, misunderstood it, or chose not to engage with an important concern. Depending on the importance of the omitted comment, this can lead to another revision request or contribute to rejection.

The key principle is simple:

Every substantive reviewer or editor comment should normally receive a visible response, even when your response is that you respectfully disagree and have not made the requested change.

Taylor & Francis advises authors to address every concern unless the editor indicates otherwise, while PLOS specifically cautions authors not to ignore comments and recommends explaining why a change was not made when authors disagree with a suggestion.

You therefore have three broad options for each comment:

1. Accept the suggestion and revise the manuscript.
2. Partially accept it and explain the modification you made.
3. Respectfully disagree and provide a clear academic justification.

The dangerous fourth option is simply not responding.

Key Takeaways

• Ignoring a substantive reviewer comment can weaken your revision, particularly when the issue affects methods, results, interpretation, ethics, reporting, or the validity of a central claim.
• Addressing a comment does not necessarily mean agreeing with it; a justified, respectful disagreement can be an appropriate scholarly response.
• Editors usually care about the quality of your reasoning as well as the changes you make.
• A point-by-point response helps reviewers and editors see exactly how each concern was handled.
• Vague replies such as “done,” “corrected,” or “addressed” are usually less useful than responses explaining what changed and where.
• Conflicting reviewer recommendations should be resolved through reasoned judgment, with editorial guidance sought when necessary.
• Before resubmission, check the decision letter, reviewer reports, revised manuscript, tables, figures, supplementary materials, and response letter together so that no comment disappears accidentally.

What This Page Covers

This guide explains:

• What can happen when reviewer comments are left unanswered.
• Which reviewer comments carry the greatest publication risk.
• Whether you have to agree with every reviewer.
• How to disagree professionally when a requested revision is inappropriate.
• How to prepare an effective point-by-point reviewer response.
• How to deal with conflicting, unclear, unreasonable, or impossible requests.
• How to audit your revision before resubmitting.

Table of Contents

1. Methodology and Academic Sources
2. Do You Have to Address Every Reviewer Comment?
3. What Happens When You Ignore a Reviewer Comment?
4. Are All Reviewer Comments Equally Important?
5. Addressing a Comment vs Agreeing With a Reviewer
6. When Is It Reasonable Not to Make a Requested Change?
7. How to Respond When You Disagree
8. How to Prepare a Point-by-Point Response
9. What to Do When Reviewers Conflict
10. What to Do With Unclear or Impossible Requests
11. Practical Peer-Review Examples
12. Common Revision Mistakes
13. Reviewer-Response Checklist
14. How Contentxprtz Can Support a Revision
15. Summary
16. Frequently Asked Questions
17. About the Author
18. Conclusion

Methodology and Academic Sources

The guidance in this article is based on established scholarly peer-review practices and current author guidance from major academic publishers and journals.

For example, PLOS guidance on revising manuscripts states that authors should address specific points from reviewers and editors and identify the corresponding manuscript changes.

Springer Nature’s submission guidance describes a revision as requiring a revised manuscript and point-by-point response and notes that the editor may accept, reject, request further revision, or seek additional review after evaluating the resubmission.

Taylor & Francis guidance on responding to reviewer comments similarly recommends addressing concerns systematically and explaining what was changed.

Elsevier’s CALM approach to reviewer responses recommends addressing comments individually, clearly describing revisions, and identifying their location in the manuscript.

Individual journals can have different submission systems, revision requirements, response-letter conventions, deadlines, and peer-review models. Always read your journal’s decision letter and author instructions before applying general advice.

Do You Have to Address Every Reviewer Comment?

In most revision situations, you should respond to every substantive comment. You do not necessarily have to implement every suggested change.

That difference is fundamental.

Suppose a reviewer writes:

“The authors should repeat the entire study with a larger sample.”

You may conclude that collecting a new sample is beyond the scope of the present study. You are not necessarily required to perform the requested work simply because a reviewer proposed it.

But leaving the comment unanswered is risky.

A stronger approach is to explain:

• Why the additional work cannot reasonably be completed.
• Whether the current evidence is sufficient for the claims you retain.
• Whether you have moderated those claims.
• Whether you have added the issue as a limitation.
• Whether another analysis can partially address the reviewer’s concern.

Similarly, if a reviewer asks you to cite a particular article, you should evaluate whether that article is genuinely relevant. You should not add an irrelevant citation merely to satisfy a reviewer. But your response should explain your decision if you decline the request.

A response therefore communicates something important to the editor:

“We saw this concern, considered it seriously, and made a reasoned scholarly decision.”

That is very different from appearing to have missed the comment altogether.

What Happens If You Don’t Address All the Comments From Your Reviewers During Peer Review?

Several outcomes are possible, and the consequences depend heavily on the importance of the comment.

1. The reviewer may repeat the same concern

One of the most common outcomes is another round of revision.

If Reviewer 2 asked why a particular statistical test was selected and your response letter never answers the question, the reviewer may simply ask it again.

PLOS advises authors that even when they decide not to make a change, they should explain the decision; otherwise, reviewers may raise the same issue again during subsequent review.

This increases:

• Revision time.
• Correspondence with coauthors.
• Editorial workload.
• The risk of new misunderstandings.
• The time before a final decision.

2. The editor may think the concern remains unresolved

The editor—not the reviewer alone—typically makes the publication decision.

When your revision is evaluated, the editor needs to determine whether the concerns raised during review have been adequately addressed. Springer Nature notes that editors assess revised manuscripts and may consult original reviewers or additional experts before deciding whether to accept, reject, or request another review round.

If a major reviewer concern appears nowhere in your response, the editor has little evidence that you considered it.

3. You may receive another major or minor revision decision

Not every missed comment leads to rejection.

If the omitted issue is relatively easy to correct, an editor may return the manuscript and ask you to address it.

However, another revision can delay publication and create extra work that might have been avoided with a careful response audit.

4. A major unresolved issue may contribute to rejection

A forgotten punctuation correction is very different from an unanswered comment questioning whether your analysis supports your conclusion.

A missed comment becomes much more serious when it concerns:

• Study validity.
• Research design.
• Statistical methods.
• Data quality.
• Ethical approval or consent.
• Reproducibility.
• Missing controls.
• Unsupported causal claims.
• Inconsistency between results and conclusions.
• Inadequate reporting of essential methods.

Taylor & Francis notes that insufficient responses to reviewer concerns can result in further revision or potentially rejection after revision.

5. Reviewers may question how carefully the revision was prepared

Peer review involves trust in scholarly communication.

If a response letter carefully handles comments 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 but completely skips comment 4, reviewers may reasonably wonder whether the omission was accidental or deliberate.

A response matrix or numbered response document helps prevent this problem.

6. The omission can create inconsistencies in the revised paper

Reviewer comments are often connected.

Imagine:

• Reviewer 1 asks you to redefine an outcome variable.
• Reviewer 2 asks you to update the corresponding analysis.
• Reviewer 3 asks you to revise the discussion based on that analysis.

If you change the variable definition but overlook Reviewer 2’s statistical concern, your revision may become internally inconsistent.

Addressing reviewer feedback should therefore be treated as a coordinated manuscript revision rather than a collection of isolated edits.

Are All Reviewer Comments Equally Important?

No. Every substantive comment deserves a response, but different comments carry different levels of scientific and editorial importance.

A useful way to triage comments is to classify them.

Reviewer Comment Type	Typical Importance	What the Author Should Usually Do
Methodological validity	Very high	Address thoroughly; revise, analyse further, or justify the existing approach
Statistical analysis	Very high	Check calculations/methods and respond with evidence
Ethics or reporting issue	Very high	Resolve carefully according to applicable requirements
Unsupported interpretation	High	Revise claims, provide evidence, or justify interpretation
Missing methodological detail	High	Add enough information for readers to understand the study
Literature/context concern	Medium to high	Evaluate relevance and strengthen context where appropriate
Structural or clarity issue	Medium	Revise for readability or explain your choice
Terminology request	Low to medium	Correct when appropriate and clarify discipline-specific usage
Stylistic preference	Variable	Consider journal style and explain if you retain your wording
Typographical correction	Usually low	Correct unless the reviewer is mistaken

The practical lesson is not to ignore minor comments. Instead, prioritize your work according to scientific importance while still recording a response to each point.

Addressing a Reviewer Comment Is Not the Same as Agreeing With It

This is one of the most important concepts for authors to understand.

Peer review is a scholarly evaluation process, not an instruction hierarchy in which reviewers automatically control every decision.

A reviewer can:

• Misinterpret the study.
• Request an analysis that does not fit the research design.
• Recommend an inappropriate method.
• Ask for an experiment outside the paper’s scope.
• Suggest contradictory revisions.
• Request literature that is not relevant.
• Prefer terminology that is inappropriate for your discipline.
• Recommend a conclusion your data cannot support.

You remain responsible for your manuscript.

PLOS explicitly recognizes that authors may decide not to make a requested change, provided they clearly explain why. It also advises authors facing conflicting reviewer recommendations to provide a defensible rationale and, where useful, seek guidance from the editor.

Your goal is therefore not:

Reviewer asks → author obeys.

A better model is:

Reviewer raises concern → author evaluates concern → author revises or justifies → editor evaluates the resolution.

When Is It Reasonable Not to Make a Requested Change?

Several situations can justify a reasoned disagreement.

The requested analysis is inappropriate

For example, a reviewer may request a statistical method whose assumptions are not satisfied by your data.

You should not knowingly perform inappropriate analysis merely to demonstrate compliance.

Instead:

1. Acknowledge the concern.
2. Explain why the requested analysis is unsuitable.
3. State what method you used and why.
4. Provide supporting methodological references if necessary.
5. Consider whether additional clarification belongs in the manuscript.

The request is beyond the scope of the study

A reviewer may ask for an entirely new experiment, population, dataset, theoretical framework, or research question.

Ask whether the request is necessary to support the manuscript’s existing claims.

If it is not, you may explain the boundaries of the study and perhaps revise the paper so that those boundaries are more explicit.

The reviewer requests a conclusion unsupported by your data

Never alter your scientific interpretation merely to make the paper more agreeable to a reviewer.

Your responsibility remains to the evidence.

The suggested citation is irrelevant

Citation suggestions should be assessed on scholarly relevance.

If a recommended reference materially strengthens the literature review, add it.

If it does not, explain respectfully why it was not incorporated rather than inserting an unrelated citation.

Two reviewers want opposite changes

Contradictory reviewer advice is common enough to require judgment.

One reviewer might say:

“Expand the theoretical discussion.”

Another might say:

“The discussion is too long and should be substantially shortened.”

You cannot fully satisfy both requests literally.

Instead, identify the underlying concerns. Perhaps the real solution is to shorten repetitive discussion while strengthening one theoretically important subsection.

The editor has given different instructions

Editorial guidance usually carries particular significance because the editor is responsible for the journal’s decision and policies.

When reviewer and editor requests appear incompatible, clearly explain the issue and follow any specific editorial direction.

How to Respond When You Disagree With a Reviewer

A disagreement becomes persuasive when it is clear, respectful, evidence-based, and easy to evaluate.

A useful structure is:

1. Acknowledge the concern.

“Thank you for raising this important issue regarding the selection of the outcome measure.”

2. Give a direct response.

“We agree that the distinction requires clarification; however, we have not replaced the measure for the following methodological reason.”

3. Explain your reasoning.

Describe why the proposed change would not be appropriate.

4. Provide evidence where necessary.

You may refer to:

• Methodological literature.
• Reporting guidelines.
• Previously validated procedures.
• Journal instructions.
• Study design limitations.
• Relevant analyses.

5. Explain what you changed anyway, if anything.

Even if you reject the exact suggestion, the comment may reveal that your manuscript was unclear.

For example:

“We have retained the original analysis but expanded the Methods section to explain the rationale and added the relevant assumption checks.”

This approach demonstrates engagement rather than defensiveness.

How to Prepare a Strong Point-by-Point Response

Major publisher guidance consistently emphasizes making the relationship between reviewer comments, author responses, and manuscript changes easy to follow.

A practical process is:

Step 1: Copy every editor and reviewer comment into a response document

Create separate sections:

• Editor comments.
• Reviewer 1.
• Reviewer 2.
• Reviewer 3.

Preserve the numbering used in the decision letter where possible.

Step 2: Break compound comments into separate issues

A reviewer may write:

“The sample is too small, the inclusion criteria are unclear, and the authors should explain how missing data were handled.”

That is one paragraph but three separate issues:

1. Sample size.
2. Inclusion criteria.
3. Missing-data handling.

Respond to all three.

Step 3: Classify each comment

You might internally label comments:

• Major scientific issue.
• Additional analysis.
• Clarification.
• Literature.
• Interpretation.
• Writing.
• Formatting.
• Optional suggestion.

This helps you allocate time appropriately.

Step 4: Revise the manuscript

Make substantive changes before polishing minor language.

There is little value in perfecting a paragraph that may later be removed during major restructuring.

Step 5: Write a direct response under every comment

Avoid responses such as:

• “Done.”
• “Corrected.”
• “Changed accordingly.”
• “As suggested.”

Instead write:

“We agree. We have clarified the participant-selection process in the Methods section and now specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria on pages X–Y, lines X–Y.”

Exact page and line numbering should reflect your journal’s preferred format.

Step 6: Explain disagreements completely

Do not write:

“We disagree.”

Write enough for an editor outside your exact sub-specialty to understand your reasoning.

Step 7: Ensure manuscript and response letter agree

If your response claims that a limitation was added, verify that the limitation actually appears in the submitted manuscript.

Step 8: Check marked and clean copies

Some journals request both a version showing changes and a clean revised manuscript. PLOS revision instructions, for example, specify a response-to-reviewers document, a marked-up revised copy, and a clean manuscript for the journals covered by that guidance.

Always follow your target journal’s own submission requirements.

Practical Example 1: You Accidentally Skip a Minor Comment

Situation

Reviewer 1 provides 18 comments.

You respond to 17 but accidentally overlook:

“Please define the abbreviation XYZ at first use.”

What could happen?

The manuscript is unlikely to fail solely because of one minor abbreviation if everything else is satisfactory, but the reviewer or editor may notice the omission and request another correction.

More importantly, the skipped comment signals that your response audit was incomplete.

Better approach

Before resubmission, maintain a simple tracker:

Comment	Manuscript Changed?	Response Written?	Final Check
R1.1	Yes	Yes	Complete
R1.2	Yes	Yes	Complete
R1.3	No—justified	Yes	Complete

The tracker is for your internal revision management; it does not necessarily need to be submitted.

Practical Example 2: You Ignore a Major Methodological Concern

Situation

A reviewer asks:

“Please explain why observations were treated as independent despite repeated measurements from the same participants.”

The authors revise several sentences elsewhere but do not answer this point.

Why this is serious

The comment potentially affects the validity of the statistical analysis.

If the independence assumption is inappropriate, the issue may influence:

• Standard errors.
• Confidence intervals.
• Significance testing.
• Interpretation of results.
• Reliability of conclusions.

The editor may therefore consider the central methodological concern unresolved.

Better approach

The authors should evaluate the analysis with an appropriate methodological or statistical expert if necessary.

Their response may involve:

• Correcting the analysis.
• Reanalysing the data.
• Explaining why the original approach remains appropriate.
• Moderating conclusions.
• Reporting the issue as a limitation.

Simply ignoring the point does none of these.

Practical Example 3: You Disagree With a Request for a New Experiment

Situation

A reviewer requests a six-month longitudinal follow-up, but the submitted study was deliberately designed as a cross-sectional investigation.

Weak response

“We cannot do this.”

Stronger academic response

“Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that longitudinal data would provide valuable evidence about temporal relationships. However, the present study was designed to examine cross-sectional associations, and longitudinal data were not collected. We have therefore not added the proposed analysis. To ensure that our interpretation does not imply temporal causality, we have revised the Discussion and Conclusion and added the absence of longitudinal follow-up as a study limitation.”

Why this works

The authors:

• Recognize the scientific value of the suggestion.
• Explain why it cannot be implemented.
• Clarify the intended study scope.
• Prevent overinterpretation.
• Improve the manuscript in response to the underlying concern.

That is a legitimate response even though the reviewer’s requested experiment was not performed.

Practical Example 4: Two Reviewers Give Conflicting Advice

Situation

Reviewer 1:

“The discussion needs additional comparison with previous studies.”

Reviewer 2:

“The discussion is unnecessarily long.”

Weak approach

Follow Reviewer 1 and ignore Reviewer 2.

Better approach

Ask what each reviewer is actually concerned about.

Reviewer 1 wants stronger scholarly interpretation.

Reviewer 2 wants greater concision.

You may be able to satisfy both by:

• Removing repetitive general discussion.
• Adding two highly relevant comparisons.
• Condensing background information.
• Strengthening interpretation without increasing total length.

In the response letter, explain this balancing decision to both reviewers.

Where the recommendations genuinely cannot be reconciled, the handling editor can be asked for guidance. PLOS specifically recommends editorial guidance when reviewers offer conflicting advice.

Practical Example 5: The Reviewer Misunderstood Your Manuscript

Situation

A reviewer criticizes you for not controlling for age.

You actually did control for age, but the information appears only in a dense paragraph in the supplementary methods.

Tempting response

“The reviewer is incorrect. Age was already included.”

Better response

The misunderstanding itself is useful evidence that the manuscript is not sufficiently clear.

You might respond:

“Thank you for raising this point. Age was included as a covariate in the original analysis; however, we recognize that this was not sufficiently clear in the manuscript. We have now stated this explicitly in the main Methods section and clarified the model specification.”

The reviewer’s factual interpretation was wrong, but the comment still helped improve communication.

Common Mistakes When Responding to Peer Review

Mistake 1: Answering only the comments you agree with

This can make disagreement look like avoidance.

Better approach: respond to the difficult comments too.

Mistake 2: Making the change but forgetting the response letter

A reviewer should not have to search the manuscript to discover what changed.

Better approach: explain the change directly and identify its location.

Mistake 3: Writing “done” without explaining what was done

Elsevier’s author guidance specifically recommends avoiding vague responses and instead stating how a point was handled and where the revision appears.

Better approach: provide a concise description of the revision.

Mistake 4: Becoming defensive

Critical reviewer comments can feel personal, particularly after months or years of research.

But emotional language rarely strengthens a scholarly response.

Better approach: separate your private reaction from the response submitted to the journal.

A widely cited PLOS Computational Biology article on reviewer responses recommends maintaining a polite, respectful response and answering every point raised.

Mistake 5: Automatically accepting every suggestion

Reviewer recommendations should be evaluated, not copied into the manuscript without judgment.

Better approach: ask whether the proposed revision improves validity, transparency, accuracy, or communication.

Mistake 6: Rewriting the manuscript without checking connected sections

A change in the Methods may require corresponding changes to:

• Abstract.
• Results.
• Tables.
• Figures.
• Discussion.
• Limitations.
• Conclusion.
• Supplementary files.

Mistake 7: Overlooking editor comments

The editor’s decision letter may contain instructions not repeated by reviewers.

Create a separate editor-comments section in your revision tracker.

Mistake 8: Changing scientific claims only in the response letter

The response letter does not replace the manuscript.

If a reviewer identifies wording that could mislead future readers, fix the manuscript itself where appropriate.

Mistake 9: Adding unsupported claims simply to satisfy reviewers

A revision should strengthen scholarly accuracy, not compromise it.

You remain responsible for:

• Data.
• Methods.
• Interpretation.
• Citations.
• Conclusions.
• Ethical compliance.
• Final submission.

Mistake 10: Failing to conduct a final cross-check

Many skipped comments are probably not deliberate disagreements—they are workflow errors.

A final audit prevents avoidable omissions.

A Practical Reviewer-Response Checklist

Before resubmitting, check the following:

• Every editor comment has been copied into the response document.
• Every reviewer comment has been included.
• Compound reviewer comments have been separated where necessary.
• Every substantive issue has a visible response.
• Every disagreement includes a clear academic reason.
• Major methodological concerns have been addressed before minor wording issues.
• Any additional analyses mentioned in the response are included in the correct manuscript files.
• Every claimed manuscript change actually appears in the revised version.
• Page, paragraph, section, or line references are accurate.
• Changes to results are reflected in the Abstract where necessary.
• Changes to results are reflected in the Discussion and Conclusion where necessary.
• Tables and figures match the revised analysis.
• New references are relevant, authentic, and correctly formatted.
• No citation has been added merely to appease a reviewer.
• Reviewer disagreements are respectful and evidence-based.
• Conflicting reviewer requests have been reconciled or explained.
• The revised manuscript still tells one coherent scientific story.
• Journal-specific resubmission instructions have been checked.
• The marked-up and clean manuscript versions are correct where both are required.
• All coauthors have reviewed important scientific changes before resubmission.

How Should You Handle Reviewer Comments You Cannot Answer?

Sometimes the problem is not disagreement. You genuinely do not know how to answer.

That requires a different strategy.

First, identify what the reviewer is actually asking

A comment that initially seems confusing may contain a simpler underlying concern.

For example:

“The theoretical mechanism connecting variables A and B is insufficiently developed, especially given the possibility of reverse causality.”

The reviewer may be asking two things:

1. What mechanism supports your proposed relationship?
2. Why should readers accept the direction of the relationship?

Separate these issues before responding.

Consult the relevant coauthor or specialist

If the question concerns:

• Statistics.
• Laboratory technique.
• Qualitative methodology.
• Specialist theory.
• Data management.
• Reporting guidelines.

Ask the coauthor with the most relevant expertise to lead the response.

Return to the literature

A difficult reviewer comment may reveal a genuine gap in your understanding or presentation.

Consult primary literature, methodological guidance, or appropriate reporting standards rather than improvising an answer.

Revise your claim if the evidence is insufficient

Sometimes the correct answer is not to defend your original position.

It may be to say:

“The reviewer is correct that our original wording overstated the evidence. We have revised the manuscript to describe an association rather than a causal effect.”

That is a strong scholarly response because it improves the accuracy of the paper.

What If the Reviewer’s Request Is Unreasonable?

“Unreasonable” should be used cautiously.

A request may feel excessive but still expose an important weakness.

Before rejecting it, ask:

• Does the request affect the validity of our central conclusion?
• Could the underlying concern be solved another way?
• Is the requested work genuinely outside scope?
• Is it impossible because the necessary data were not collected?
• Would the proposed analysis violate methodological assumptions?
• Would complying create misleading results?
• Does the editor appear to consider this request essential?

If the request remains inappropriate, explain that clearly.

If a reviewer request appears unethical, personally inappropriate, coercive, or affected by a potential conflict of interest, communicate the concern to the editor rather than entering into a personal argument with the reviewer.

What If the Reviewer Wants You to Cite Their Papers?

Evaluate requested citations using the same standard you would apply to any reference.

Ask:

• Is the paper directly relevant?
• Does it materially support the discussion?
• Is it methodologically or conceptually important?
• Would you cite it if the reviewer had not suggested it?

If yes, include it.

If no, do not insert an irrelevant citation simply because it was requested. A brief academic explanation may be appropriate.

Authentic references should always be traceable. Researchers remain responsible for verifying citations rather than relying blindly on reviewer suggestions, automated tools, or AI-generated reference lists.

How Contentxprtz Can Help During a Difficult Revision

A manuscript revision can become complicated when dozens of reviewer comments affect different sections simultaneously.

Contentxprtz provides academic communication and editing support for researchers, scholars, authors, and institutions, with services including academic editing, research paper editing, journal manuscript editing, and publication support. The company’s supplied editorial profile describes its work as supporting researchers across more than 110 countries since 2010.

For a peer-review revision, appropriate professional support may include:

• Checking whether each reviewer comment has received a corresponding response.
• Improving clarity and tone in a response-to-reviewers letter.
• Reviewing consistency between the response letter and revised manuscript.
• Editing revised sections for academic English and readability.
• Identifying places where a response sounds defensive, ambiguous, or incomplete.
• Checking structural consistency after substantial revisions.
• Reviewing whether changed claims remain aligned with the evidence presented.

Professional editing should support the researcher’s communication rather than replace the researcher’s intellectual responsibility. Authors remain responsible for scientific decisions, data, methodology, interpretation, citations, and the final submission.

Researchers preparing a revised journal manuscript can explore Contentxprtz’s research paper editing service when an independent language, structure, or reviewer-response check would be useful.

Summary: What Happens If You Don’t Address All Reviewer Comments?

Failing to address every substantive reviewer comment can make a revised manuscript appear incomplete and may lead to repeated questions, another revision round, or—in cases involving important unresolved scientific concerns—rejection.

The solution is not to agree automatically with every reviewer.

Instead:

• Read every comment carefully.
• Identify the underlying concern.
• Revise when the suggestion improves the manuscript.
• Explain partial changes.
• Disagree respectfully when necessary.
• Support disagreements with academic reasoning.
• Make the response letter easy to follow.
• Check that every promised change appears in the manuscript.
• Ask the editor for guidance when reviewer requests genuinely conflict.
• Conduct a final comment-by-comment audit before submission.

A good response to peer review demonstrates not obedience, but scholarly engagement.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What happens if you dont address all the comments from your reviewers during peer review?

If you leave substantive comments unanswered, reviewers or editors may consider your revision incomplete. The manuscript may be returned for another revision, the same concern may be raised again, or an important unresolved issue may contribute to rejection.

The consequence depends largely on the importance of the omitted comment. Missing a minor wording correction is different from failing to answer a concern about methodology, data analysis, research ethics, or the validity of your main conclusion.

The safest approach is to respond explicitly to every substantive point. If you do not agree with a requested change, explain why. PLOS author guidance specifically advises authors not to ignore comments even when they choose not to make the suggested change.

2. Do I have to make every change requested by peer reviewers?

No. You should seriously consider each request, but you do not have to implement a change that is scientifically inappropriate, outside the legitimate scope of the paper, inconsistent with available data, or otherwise unjustified.

What you should normally do is respond to the comment.

Explain why you did not make the requested change and, where appropriate, show how you addressed the reviewer’s underlying concern another way.

For example, you might retain your original analytical method but add a clearer explanation of why that method fits the study design.

3. Can a paper be rejected because I ignored one reviewer comment?

Yes, potentially, but the seriousness of the comment matters.

An editor is unlikely to evaluate a missing comma correction in the same way as an unanswered criticism showing that your central analysis may be invalid.

A significant unresolved concern can influence the publication decision because editors reassess whether the revised manuscript meets the journal’s standards. Springer Nature explains that following revision, editors may accept, reject, seek additional opinions, or request further review.

The best prevention is a line-by-line response audit before resubmission.

4. What should I write if I disagree with a reviewer?

Begin by acknowledging the concern, state your position directly, and then explain your reasoning.

For example:

“Thank you for this important suggestion. We agree that the proposed analysis could be informative in a longitudinal dataset. However, the present study uses cross-sectional observations and cannot establish temporal direction. We have therefore not performed the proposed causal analysis. Instead, we have revised the Discussion to clarify the observational nature of the findings.”

The tone should remain professional and evidence-based.

Your objective is not to defeat the reviewer in an argument. It is to give the editor enough information to evaluate your decision.

5. Should I respond to very small reviewer comments?

Usually, yes.

Small comments can often be handled with a one-sentence response:

“Thank you. The abbreviation has now been defined at first use.”

Responding takes little time and demonstrates that you reviewed the report carefully.

A structured response document also reduces the chance that a small comment hides a second, more substantial concern.

6. What if two reviewers ask for opposite changes?

Do not silently choose one reviewer and ignore the other.

Identify the reasoning behind both recommendations and determine whether a compromise can address both concerns.

If one reviewer asks for more theoretical depth while another asks you to shorten the Discussion, you could remove repetitive material while expanding only the section necessary to strengthen theoretical interpretation.

If the requests genuinely cannot be reconciled, explain the conflict and your reasoning. You can also seek guidance from the handling editor. PLOS author guidance specifically identifies editorial consultation as useful when reviewer recommendations conflict.

7. Is it acceptable to say that a reviewer misunderstood the manuscript?

You can explain that the interpretation differs from what you intended, but avoid framing the reviewer as careless or incapable.

If a specialist reviewer misunderstood an important point, future readers may misunderstand it too.

Treat that as useful information.

Instead of writing:

“The reviewer has misunderstood our method.”

Consider:

“We appreciate this comment and recognize that our original description may not have made this distinction sufficiently clear. We have revised the Methods section to clarify…”

You can then explain precisely what the study did.

8. How detailed should a response-to-reviewers letter be?

It should be detailed enough that the editor and reviewers can understand what you did without repeatedly searching through the manuscript.

Taylor & Francis recommends a point-to-point response and identifying manuscript changes clearly, while Elsevier similarly encourages authors to describe how each comment was addressed and indicate where changes appear.

For a simple correction, one sentence may be enough.

For a major methodological disagreement, several paragraphs, references, calculations, or supplementary analyses may be appropriate.

Clarity is more important than unnecessary length.

9. Should I answer a reviewer comment even if I already addressed the issue in the original manuscript?

Yes.

If the reviewer missed the information, simply telling them it was already present may not solve the communication problem.

Consider whether the information was:

• Difficult to locate.
• Ambiguous.
• Too compressed.
• Buried in supplementary material.
• Described using unexpected terminology.

Clarifying the manuscript may prevent future readers from having the same difficulty.

You can explain that the information existed previously while also showing how you made it more visible in the revision.

10. When should I seek professional editing help with reviewer responses?

Professional support may be useful when the manuscript requires extensive language revision, many reviewer comments overlap, the response letter is difficult to organize, or you are unsure whether your explanations sound clear and appropriately academic.

It may also help ESL researchers who understand the scientific response they want to make but find it difficult to express disagreement precisely and diplomatically in English.

Editing should not manufacture scientific answers, invent evidence, or make research decisions on the author’s behalf. The researcher and coauthors remain responsible for deciding whether comments are scientifically valid and for approving every manuscript change.

About the Author

Dr. Aanya Mehta
Research Writer & Professional Business Communicator

Dr. Aanya Mehta is a research-oriented writer and professional communicator with a strong focus on accuracy, clarity, and evidence-based insight. Her work combines analytical thinking with accessible writing, helping readers understand complex business topics through well-researched, credible, and practical content.

Conclusion

Reviewer comments are not simply a collection of edits to accept or reject. They are part of a scholarly evaluation in which authors must demonstrate that important concerns have been understood and handled responsibly.

Failing to address a reviewer comment can create unnecessary uncertainty. A minor omission may generate another correction request; a major unresolved methodological or interpretive concern may have much more serious consequences.

The strongest revision strategy is therefore straightforward:

Do not leave substantive comments unanswered.

When the reviewer is right, revise the manuscript clearly.

When the reviewer identifies genuine ambiguity, improve the explanation.

When the request is only partly appropriate, explain what you changed and why.

When you disagree, provide a respectful, academically defensible response.

When reviewers conflict, use scholarly judgment and seek editorial guidance when necessary.

And before resubmitting, compare every editor and reviewer comment against both your response letter and revised manuscript one final time.

For straightforward revisions, a careful self-review with your coauthors may be sufficient. For complex manuscripts involving extensive reviewer feedback, major restructuring, or difficult response wording, independent academic editing can help identify communication gaps before resubmission. Contentxprtz’s research paper editing service can support clarity, structure, language, and reviewer-response consistency while preserving the researcher’s responsibility for the scholarship itself.

“At Contentxprtz, we don’t just edit; we help ideas reach their fullest potential.”