Responding to reviewer comments on a Scopus submission means answering every point in a structured letter — fixing what you agree with and defending the rest. Do it with evidence and courtesy.
Responding to reviewer comments on a Scopus submission means answering every point in a structured letter — fixing what you agree with and defending the rest. Do it with evidence and courtesy. For Vietnamese researchers, the revision stage — not the first draft — is where most publications are won or lost, because a "major revision" decision is an invitation, not a rejection.
Reviewers are busy academics doing unpaid work; a clear, complete, respectful response makes their job easy and signals you are a serious author. This guide answers the seven questions Vietnamese researchers ask MAAS publishing mentors most often after the first decision email arrives.
Author: MAAS Editorial Team · Reviewed by a Principal Publishing Advisory mentor (PhD, Scopus Q1 author and reviewer)
Last updated: 2026-06-01
Category: research-methods
What do the editor's decision and reviewer comments actually mean?
Direct answer: A Scopus journal decision is usually one of four outcomes: accept (rare on first submission), minor revision, major revision, or reject. "Major revision" is good news — it means the editor sees publishable value and is willing to read your paper again. Only an outright "reject" closes the door at that journal, and even then the comments help you improve the paper for the next one.
Evidence: Elsevier and Springer Nature author guidance both report that first-round acceptance is uncommon and that the large majority of eventually published papers go through at least one major-revision cycle. Wiley's author resources describe major revision as "conditional interest" — the journal is signalling intent to publish if concerns are resolved.
Example: A MAAS Publishing Advisory client received a Q2 education journal decision with eleven reviewer comments and panicked, reading it as rejection. The decision word was actually "major revision." After a structured response and three weeks of revisions, the paper was accepted — the comments had been a roadmap to acceptance, not a verdict against it.
How do you write a response-to-reviewers letter?
Direct answer: Write a point-by-point response that copies each reviewer comment verbatim, then answers it directly underneath. State what you changed, where (page and line number), and quote the new text. Open with a short thank-you to the editor and reviewers. The golden rule: every single comment gets a visible response, even if your answer is "we have made this change as suggested."
Evidence: The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and most Scopus journal author instructions explicitly require a response document that addresses all comments. PLOS and BMJ author guidance recommend the comment-in-bold / response-below format with location references, because it lets reviewers verify changes in minutes rather than re-reading the whole manuscript.
Example: A MAAS-coached author structured her letter as: "Reviewer 1, Comment 3: [pasted comment]. Response: We agree. We have added a limitations paragraph (p. 14, lines 312–325): '[new text]'." Reviewer 1 returned the second round with a single line — "All my concerns have been addressed" — because the letter made verification effortless.
How do you respond to a reviewer comment you disagree with?
Direct answer: You can disagree — politely, with evidence. Never ignore a comment or dismiss it. Acknowledge the reviewer's point, explain your reasoning with a citation or data, and offer a compromise where possible (for example, adding a sentence acknowledging the alternative view rather than changing your method). Editors respect a well-argued, courteous defence far more than silent compliance or defensiveness.
Evidence: Noble's (2017) "Multivariate analysis of variance" editorials and the widely shared Nature career guidance on responding to reviewers both stress that reviewers are not always right, and that a reasoned rebuttal — "We respectfully retain our approach because…" — is a normal and accepted part of peer review when supported by evidence.
Example: A reviewer asked a MAAS client to drop her qualitative interviews because the sample was "too small." She declined, but did so well: she cited the saturation literature, clarified that the study was interpretive rather than generalising, and added two sentences to the methodology explaining this. The editor sided with her and the section stayed.
How long do you have to respond, and how fast should you?
Direct answer: Journals typically give 30 to 90 days for a major revision and 14 to 30 days for a minor one, stated in the decision email. Do not rush a major revision to look fast — a thorough, complete response matters more than speed. If you need more time, email the editor and ask; extensions are routinely granted when requested before the deadline.
Evidence: Editorial Manager and ScholarOne (the two systems most Scopus journals use) display the revision deadline on the author dashboard, and Elsevier's author FAQ confirms that authors may request deadline extensions through the system or by emailing the handling editor.
Example: A MAAS Publishing Advisory client in a joint Vietnam–UK programme was given 60 days, needed to re-run an analysis, and emailed the editor for two extra weeks. The editor granted it the same day. The paper was accepted; the brief delay had no effect on the outcome.
What do you do when two reviewers give contradictory comments?
Direct answer: When reviewers disagree, you do not have to satisfy both — address each comment, explain the conflict to the editor, and state which path you took and why. The editor is the final arbiter, so make their decision easy by flagging the contradiction explicitly in your response letter and justifying your choice.
Evidence: COPE guidance on conflicting reviews advises authors to respond to both reviewers transparently and to let the editor adjudicate, rather than attempting an impossible compromise. Most journal author guides echo this: the editor weighs the reviews, not the author.
Example: One MAAS client had Reviewer 1 demand more theory and Reviewer 2 demand the theory be cut. She added a focused half-page expanding the most relevant concept, then wrote: "We note Reviewers 1 and 2 differ here; we have taken a middle path by deepening the core construct while removing the two peripheral models Reviewer 2 found distracting." The editor accepted the resolution.
How do you recover from a harsh review or a "reject and resubmit"?
Direct answer: Treat a harsh review as free expert consulting, not a personal attack. Wait a day before reacting, separate the tone from the substance, and extract the actionable points. A "reject and resubmit" is closer to a major revision than a true rejection — the journal is willing to see the paper again if you rebuild it. Even a flat reject gives you comments that strengthen the next submission.
Evidence: The Nature and Science Careers columns on rejection consistently report that most published researchers have papers rejected multiple times, and that resilience plus systematic revision — not first-attempt brilliance — predicts eventual publication. Scopus indexing rewards persistence across submission cycles.
Example: A MAAS-coached Vietnamese researcher had a Q1 submission rejected with blunt comments about her framing. Rather than abandon it, she used the comments to reframe the contribution, targeted a better-fit Q2 journal, and was accepted four months later. The "rejection" had effectively peer-reviewed her paper for free before the successful submission.
Do reviewer comments differ for Vietnamese or ESL authors, and how do you handle language criticism?
Direct answer: Yes — ESL authors more often receive comments about "language," "clarity," or "readability," and these are fixable, not disqualifying. When a reviewer flags English quality, respond by having the manuscript professionally edited or reviewed, then state in your letter that the text has been language-edited. Never argue about language; just fix it and say so.
Evidence: Studies in Journal of English for Academic Purposes and surveys by editing services such as Editage report that ESL authors disproportionately receive language-related revision requests, and that a documented language edit before resubmission measurably improves acceptance odds. Many Scopus journals explicitly accept a statement that the paper was edited by a fluent academic reader.
Example: A MAAS Publishing Advisory client received "the English needs significant improvement" from Reviewer 2. Through the Outline → Draft → Final model, a MAAS mentor did a developmental language and structure review with her; her response letter noted the manuscript had been thoroughly language-edited. Reviewer 2's second-round comment was simply "much improved." The science had never been the problem — only the presentation.
Frequently asked questions
Is "major revision" a rejection?
No. Major revision means the journal is interested and will reconsider the paper after you address the comments. It is one of the most common routes to publication in Scopus Q1 and Q2 journals.
Do I have to respond to every single comment?
Yes. Every reviewer and editor comment needs a visible response in your letter, even if it is just "Done — see p. 7." Skipping comments is the fastest way to a second rejection.
Can I disagree with a reviewer?
Yes, politely and with evidence. Acknowledge the point, give your reasoning with a citation, and offer a small compromise. Editors respect a well-argued defence.
What is the difference between minor and major revision?
Minor revision means small fixes (wording, a missing reference, a clarification) and usually a quick re-check by the editor. Major revision means substantive changes that go back to the reviewers.
How do I handle a comment about my English?
Have the paper language-edited or reviewed, then state in your response that this has been done. Treat it as a presentation fix, not a judgement of your research.
Can MAAS help me respond to reviewer comments?
Yes. MAAS Publishing Advisory coaches Vietnamese researchers through the full revision cycle — interpreting the decision, drafting the response letter, and refining the manuscript — using the Outline → Draft → Final model. Book a consultation through our contact page.
Ready to turn "major revision" into "accepted"?
The decision email is not the end of the process — it is the part where most Scopus papers are actually earned. With a mentor who has sat on both sides of peer review, a daunting list of reviewer comments becomes a clear, answerable checklist.
Book a Publishing Advisory consultation with MAAS Academic Mentoring →
Related guides
- How does a Vietnamese researcher get published in a Scopus Q1 or Q2 journal? — the full publication journey before revisions
- Why does the Outline → Draft → Final method work for Scopus Q1 publication? — the method MAAS uses through every revision round
- Publishing Advisory service — full service tiers for Scopus Q1/Q2 support
- Scopus Publishing resource hub — response-letter templates and revision checklists
References
- Elsevier — How to revise and respond to reviewer comments
- Springer Nature — Responding to reviewers (author resources)
- COPE — Committee on Publication Ethics guidance for authors
- PLOS — Revising your manuscript and responding to reviewers
- Nature Careers — How to respond to peer-review comments
- Hyland, K. (2016). "Academic publishing and the myth of linguistic injustice." Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 58–69.
This article is part of the MAAS Journal series for Vietnamese international postgraduate students and researchers. MAAS Publishing Advisory is an advisory partner — we coach authors through the Outline → Draft → Final delivery model with developmental feedback from PhD-level, Scopus-published mentors. We do not write, submit, or guarantee acceptance of work on an author's behalf.