EDITORIAL

In Response
eferees are the heart of the peer review process. They are experts in their fields

R who provide independent evaluations of a manuscript, and they are anonymous

to the authors. In their written reviews, referees offer comments on the technical
content of a manuscript, opinions about its significance, novelty, and potential impact,
and a recommendation as to whether or not the manuscript should be considered for
publication.1,2 At ACS Nano, we greatly value our referees;their expertise, their input,
their time, and their dedication. They are our authors, our readers, and our editorial
advisors, and they are an integral part of our journal's extended family. What then does
one do, as an author on the receiving end of anonymous peer review, when one does not
agree with the comments of the referees?
See [Link] for options on how to legitimately share published articles.

As authors, we have all been there.

Reviews that are returned to us some-
What then does one do, as an author on the receiving end of
times offer conflicting opinions, or
Downloaded via Daniel Ricardo Delgado on May 7, 2019 at 16:07:28 (UTC).

there are inaccurate or inappropriate anonymous peer review, when one does not agree with the
comments, or the content of the re-
comments of the referees?
views indicates that the reviewers “just
didn't get it”. As editors, we do our best
to arrive at a decision on a manuscript based on the aggregate of available feedback
rather than on singular or anomalous comments, but we cannot change the comments of
the reviewers, so their feedback reaches the authors unfiltered. How should authors
respond to such reviews?
As part of a revised manuscript, authors are expected to address each and every referee
comment explicitly. This reply is fairly simple when an author agrees with a comment and
has made the suggested change to the manuscript. But what about those other
comments with which we disagree? What is appropriate? There are a number of
questions that an author should ask before getting upset with a reviewer who “doesn't
get it”:
(i) Were we, the authors, clear when making the critical point that the reviewer did
not understand? This point requires a good hard look at one's own paper. We notice that
much of the time, a reviewer's “misunderstanding” actually points to a lack of clarity in the
manuscript that arises from inexact language or overly convoluted arguments. Before
getting angry with the reviewer, please consider the origins of the misunderstanding. It is
typically best to clarify the manuscript to prevent future readers from having the same
confusion (vide infra).
(ii) Could the reviewer actually be correct, but in a way that we, the authors, had not
considered? Again, we suggest taking a deep breath and giving the reviewer the benefit of
the doubt. Was there another aspect that had not been considered? Discuss the possibility
with co-authors and others to work through it. Like the point above, it is better that these
new perspectives be considered and incorporated now than to have future readers arrive at
the same conclusions as the reviewer.
(iii) Is the reviewer wrong? After having patiently gone through (i) and (ii), it can certainly
be the case that the reviewer is wrong. One possible reason is the type of problem
mentioned in part (i) (above), so we suggest the following. In a few lines, in professional
and polite language, state that you believe that there is a misunderstanding, and clarify the
manuscript. Briefly but succinctly write what you believe to be the situation, and assist the
reviewer (and the editors) in understanding your point. Once you have completed this effort,
have a look back at your manuscript, and think about how the reviewer could have arrived at
their conclusions. Is there something you can change or add in order to prevent future
Published online May 22, 2012
readers from coming to the same conclusions as the reviewer? 10.1021/nn3019046
Authors have the freedom to choose any appropriate format for the letter that details their
responses to the reviewers' comments. However, we believe that a straightforward and clear C 2012 American Chemical Society

VOL. 6 ’ NO. 5 ’ 3643–3645 ’ 2012 3643

[Link]
 EDITORIAL
approach is to copy every comment into a new document and to answer each point
individually in a different color or font. For example, below we put the reviewer comments in
bold and our responses in green where we agree with the referees. (Occasionally, we will
disagree with the referees, and will contrast that reply in a different color.)

Some authors will try to respond to the reviews by rehashing all of the positive attributes
of the review while discounting, or even attacking, all critical comments. By adopting the
letter structure we suggest above, all of the comments are addressed systematically, with no
avoidance of the more challenging queries.
Upon receipt of your revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments, it
is important to remember that, depending upon the issues being addressed during the
revision, an author's response may be sent back to the reviewers, along with the revised
manuscript. We value the service that our reviewers provide, and even though errors and
misguided comments can sometimes find their way into reviews, we are not about to
send back to the reviewers a ranting response that attacks them or that is offensive,
belligerent, or just plain angry. It is completely acceptable to disagree with some of the
reviewers' comments, but rarely are all of a reviewer's comments invalid. Rebutting
comments in a respectful way goes a lot further than does a long, ranting, emotional
response.
It is important to remember that we look at the ensemble of reviewer comments
holistically. In cases where a manuscript is rejected based on the collection of reviewer
comments and the authors strongly disagree with the outcome, we sometimes see
comments similar to those discussed above, such as “clearly none of the reviewers
understood the importance of the work” or “the reviewers missed the point”. While this
can happen on occasion, rarely are several consistent reviews completely off target. If
none of the reviewers “got it”, there is typically a bigger underlying issue. Was the overall
importance of the work clearly communicated? Was the manuscript organized or
presented in a way that obscured these aspects?
One further point is on the anonymity of the referee process. Authors sometimes try to
guess the identities of referees (and are nearly always incorrect). There is no point to this
exercise. We are fortunate to be able to have the top scientists in our field review
manuscripts for us (and expeditiously!). We assure you that each referee is carefully
selected as an expert in the specific area of the manuscript under consideration. That is
one of the advantages of having practicing scientists as editors and having us handle
manuscripts personally.3

The reviewers are taking their valuable time to try to help you, the
author, improve your paper.

We hope that this editorial underscores the need both for reviewers to take the review
process and the contents of their reviews seriously and also for the authors receiving
the reviews to put them into perspective. We have been greatly impressed with the care
and quality of the reviews that we typically receive. We find that the vast majority of

VOL. 6 ’ NO. 5 ’ 3643–3645 ’ 2012 3644

[Link]
 EDITORIAL
reviewers are trying to be constructive and that most authors appreciate the feedback and
wisdom in referee reports. The reviewers are taking their valuable time to try to help you, the
author, improve your paper. We hope that everyone recognizes that reviewers, like all
people, have different ways of expressing themselves, and that it is necessary to respond to
them in an appropriate and respectful way. We, at ACS Nano, are always there to help and we
greatly value your contributions, both as an author and as a reviewer.

Jillian M. Buriak
Associate Editor

Raymond E. Schaak
Associate Editor

Paul S. Weiss
Editor-in-Chief

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Weiss, P. S. The Best Referee Report. ACS Nano 2008, 2, 177.
2. Publishing Your Research 101 Ep. 6 (ACS Publications). The Review Process for Authors and Reviewers;
[Link]
3. Sweedler, J. V. Professional Editors or Scientist Editors? Both Perspectives Have Value. Anal. Chem. 2012,
84, 2095.

VOL. 6 ’ NO. 5 ’ 3643–3645 ’ 2012 3645

[Link]