Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 26, 2025

Author Spotlight: Biological Standardization to Ensure Reproducibility and Harmonization in Research
Published on: August 4, 2023
Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript
Zahra Bahadoran1, Parvin Mirmiran2, Khosrow Kashfi3
1Nutrition and Endocrine Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract:
Getting feedback from the journals' editorial office upon the peer-review process, revising the manuscript, and responding to reviewers' comments are the essential parts of scientific publishing. The process of revising seems cumbersome and time-consuming as authors must be engaged probably with many comments and requested changes. Authors are advised to approach the reviewer as a consultant rather than an adversary. They should carefully read and understand comments and then decide how to proceed with each requested change/suggestion. In the case of serious disagreement with reviewer comments or misunderstanding, authors can defer the issue to the editor. Preparing a scientific and well-organized "response to reviews" and the revised version of the manuscript can increase the chance of acceptance. Here, we provide a practical guide on dealing with different types of comments (i.e., minor or major revisions, conflicting comments, or those that authors disagree with or cannot adhere to) and how to craft a response to reviews. We also provide the dos and don'ts for making a successful revision.
Related Concept Videos
Proofreading
The Scientific Method
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...
Feedback Inhibition
Recombinant DNA
CRISPR
Mismatch Repair

