Reviewer Comment Response Service

Professional Response-to-Reviewers Service for Academic Papers

Expert assistance in preparing clear, professional, and scientifically grounded responses to reviewer comments, with appropriate revisions and point-by-point explanations.

Upload your manuscript and reviewer comments below to request a professional response-to-reviewers service.

If you encounter any problems with the upload or submission, please contact us at analyzetest.info@gmail.com.

Reviewer Comment Response Service: A Complete Guide to Responding to Journal Reviewers

1. Introduction

Receiving reviewer comments is a normal and often essential part of scientific publishing. In many cases, a manuscript is not rejected because the underlying research is fundamentally flawed, but because reviewers identify issues that require clarification, additional analysis, stronger justification, improved presentation, or further experimental evidence. How authors respond to these comments can therefore have a significant influence on the outcome of the revision process.

A professional response to reviewers involves much more than simply answering each question. Authors need to understand the scientific concern behind each comment, determine whether a revision is necessary, provide appropriate evidence or justification, and clearly explain what has been changed in the manuscript. At the same time, responses should remain respectful, precise, and constructive—even when the authors disagree with a reviewer’s interpretation or cannot perform a requested experiment.

This process can be particularly challenging for researchers working in highly technical fields such as materials science, chemistry, nanotechnology, corrosion science, electrochemistry, polymers, coatings, and energy storage. Reviewer comments may involve complex experimental techniques, statistical analysis, characterization results, equivalent circuit models, mechanisms, or interpretation of scientific data. A response that is linguistically polished but scientifically inappropriate may fail to address the reviewer’s actual concern.

An effective reviewer response should therefore connect three elements: the reviewer’s comment, the authors’ scientific reasoning, and the corresponding revision of the manuscript. This is why a strong response is usually prepared on a point-by-point basis, allowing each reviewer concern to be addressed explicitly and transparently.

At AnalyzeTest, our Reviewer Comment Response Service is designed to help researchers prepare clear, professional, and scientifically grounded responses to journal reviewers. The service combines academic writing expertise with scientific knowledge to help analyze reviewer comments, develop appropriate responses, improve the professional tone of the correspondence, and ensure consistency between the response letter and the revised manuscript.

The objective is not to simply “answer the reviewer,” but to help authors communicate their scientific position clearly, respectfully, and convincingly while maintaining the integrity and accuracy of their research.

2. What Is a Reviewer Comment Response?

A reviewer comment response is a formal written explanation prepared by the authors in response to the comments, questions, criticisms, and recommendations provided by journal reviewers during the peer-review process. It is typically submitted together with the revised manuscript and is intended to show the editor and reviewers how each concern has been considered and addressed.

A response to reviewers is not simply a letter explaining whether the authors agree or disagree with the reviewers. A well-prepared response demonstrates that the authors have carefully evaluated each comment and taken appropriate action. Depending on the nature of the comment, this may involve revising the manuscript, adding further explanation, providing additional references, performing additional analysis, correcting an error, conducting a new experiment, or explaining why a requested change is not appropriate or feasible.

Most journals expect responses to be organized in a point-by-point format. In this approach, each reviewer comment is presented separately, followed by the authors’ response and, where applicable, a description of the corresponding changes made to the manuscript.

For example, a typical response may follow this structure:

Reviewer Comment:
The reviewer identifies a specific concern or requests clarification.

Response:
The authors provide a direct, scientifically justified answer to the comment.

Changes in the Manuscript:
The authors indicate what was changed and, when required by the journal, provide the relevant page and line numbers.

This structure makes the revision process easier to evaluate because the reviewer does not need to search through the revised manuscript to determine whether a particular concern has been addressed.

Reviewer responses can range from very simple corrections to highly technical discussions. A minor comment may require only a brief acknowledgment and correction, whereas a major comment may require detailed scientific reasoning, additional data analysis, new experiments, or substantial revision of the manuscript.

Importantly, authors are not required to agree with every reviewer comment. Scientific disagreement is acceptable when it is supported by appropriate evidence and presented respectfully. In such cases, the response should explain the authors’ reasoning rather than simply rejecting the reviewer’s opinion.

A strong reviewer response therefore serves two purposes: it demonstrates that the authors have taken the peer-review process seriously, and it helps the editor and reviewers understand why the revised manuscript adequately addresses the issues raised during review.

3. Why Is Responding to Reviewers So Important?

Responding to reviewers is one of the most important stages in the publication process. When a manuscript receives a revision decision, the quality of the response letter can influence how easily the editor and reviewers can evaluate the revised work. Even when the underlying research is strong, incomplete, unclear, or overly defensive responses can create additional concerns and make the revision process more difficult.

A well-prepared response demonstrates that the authors have carefully considered the reviewers’ concerns and are willing to improve the manuscript where appropriate. It also provides an opportunity to explain scientific decisions that may not have been sufficiently clear in the original submission.

Influencing the Editorial Decision

The response letter helps the editor determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the issues raised during peer review. When responses are clear, specific, and supported by evidence, the editor can more easily assess the extent of the revisions and decide whether the manuscript is ready for further consideration.

Conversely, vague responses, unanswered comments, or unexplained disagreements may lead to another round of review or, in some cases, contribute to rejection.

Demonstrating Professionalism

Peer review is a scientific discussion between researchers. A professional response demonstrates respect for the reviewers’ expertise, even when the authors disagree with a particular suggestion.

Expressions such as:

“We appreciate the reviewer for raising this important point.”

or

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion.”

can establish a constructive tone before the authors explain their response.

Professionalism does not mean agreeing with every comment. It means presenting disagreements objectively and supporting them with scientific reasoning.

Clarifying the Scientific Contribution

Reviewers may question the novelty, significance, methodology, interpretation, or conclusions of a study. A carefully prepared response provides an opportunity to clarify aspects of the research that may not have been sufficiently explained in the original manuscript.

For example, if a reviewer questions the novelty of a material or experimental approach, the authors can use the response to clearly explain how their work differs from previous studies and where the specific contribution lies.

Showing That the Manuscript Has Been Improved

A strong response should make clear not only that the authors considered a comment but also what action was taken.

For example:

“Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have added a detailed discussion of the proposed mechanism in Section 3.4 of the revised manuscript.”

Providing this information allows the reviewer to quickly locate and evaluate the relevant modification.

Preventing Misunderstandings

Some reviewer comments arise because information in the manuscript was unclear or insufficiently explained. In such cases, the appropriate response is often not to argue with the reviewer but to improve the manuscript so that the intended meaning becomes clearer.

A useful response may therefore address both the comment and its underlying cause by clarifying the relevant section of the manuscript.

Supporting a Successful Revision

The ultimate purpose of the response letter is to facilitate the evaluation of the revised manuscript.

A successful response should allow the reviewer to answer three basic questions:

1. Did the authors understand the concern?
2. Did they address it appropriately?
3. Where can the corresponding changes be found in the revised manuscript?

When these questions are answered clearly and consistently, the revision process becomes more efficient for both the authors and the journal.

For this reason, a reviewer response should be treated as an integral part of the revised submission—not as an administrative formality. A well-structured, scientifically justified, and respectful response can significantly strengthen the overall revision and help communicate the value and reliability of the research to the editorial team.

4. What Makes a Good Response to Reviewers?

A good response to reviewers should do more than acknowledge a comment. It should demonstrate that the authors have understood the reviewer’s concern, evaluated it objectively, and taken an appropriate scientific action. The strongest responses are usually clear, respectful, specific, evidence-based, and directly connected to the revisions made in the manuscript.

Clear

Each response should address the reviewer’s actual question or concern directly. Avoid vague statements such as “We have revised the manuscript accordingly” when the reader cannot determine what was changed or why.

Instead, explain the action taken and, where appropriate, identify the relevant section, figure, table, page, or line numbers.

Respectful

Even when a reviewer makes an incorrect assumption or the authors disagree with a recommendation, the response should remain professional and constructive.

For example, instead of writing:

“The reviewer is incorrect.”

a more appropriate approach would be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. However, based on the experimental results and the relevant literature, we believe that this interpretation may not fully apply to the present system.”

The objective is to communicate disagreement without creating an adversarial tone.

Specific

A strong response provides concrete information. If a manuscript has been modified, explain exactly what was changed. If additional analysis was performed, describe the analysis and its outcome. If a reference was added, identify how it supports the discussion.

Specificity allows the reviewer to verify the response efficiently.

Evidence-Based

Scientific disagreements should be supported by evidence whenever possible. Depending on the comment, appropriate evidence may include:

• Experimental results
• Additional data analysis
• Statistical analysis
• Characterization results
• Scientific literature
• Theoretical explanations
• Methodological considerations

For example, if a reviewer questions an interpretation of an XRD pattern, simply stating that the interpretation is correct is rarely sufficient. The response should explain the basis for the assignment and, where appropriate, provide supporting references or additional analysis.

Complete

Every part of a reviewer’s comment should be addressed.

If a reviewer asks three questions in a single comment, responding to only one of them can give the impression that the remaining issues were overlooked.

A useful practice is to break complex comments into separate points and address each one explicitly.

Concise

A professional response should be sufficiently detailed to resolve the concern but should not become unnecessarily repetitive.

Long responses are not necessarily stronger responses. The objective is to provide enough information for the reviewer to understand the authors’ reasoning and verify the corresponding changes.

Consistent With the Revised Manuscript

The response letter and revised manuscript must tell the same story.

If the response states that a particular discussion, experiment, figure, or analysis has been added, the corresponding change should actually appear in the revised manuscript.

Similarly, if the authors state that a reviewer suggestion was incorporated, the revised text should reflect that change accurately.

Scientifically Responsible

Authors should never claim to have performed an experiment, analysis, literature search, or revision that was not actually performed.

For example, if a reviewer requests an additional experiment that the authors could not conduct, the response should explain the situation honestly and provide an appropriate scientific justification rather than implying that the experiment was completed.

Ultimately, an effective response to reviewers combines scientific reasoning with professional communication. It should help the reviewer understand what the authors changed, why they made the change, and how the revised manuscript addresses the original concern.

5. Understanding Different Types of Reviewer Comments

Not all reviewer comments require the same type of response. Some comments can be addressed with a simple correction, while others may require additional analysis, new experiments, extensive discussion, or a carefully justified disagreement.

Before preparing a response, authors should first identify what type of concern the reviewer has raised. Understanding the nature of the comment helps determine the appropriate response strategy and prevents authors from providing unnecessarily long or inadequate answers.

Minor Comments

Minor comments usually concern relatively small issues that do not fundamentally affect the scientific content of the manuscript.

Examples include:

• Typographical errors
• Grammar and language problems
• Formatting issues
• Incorrect or incomplete references
• Figure or table labeling
• Minor clarification requests
• Inconsistent terminology

These comments can often be addressed directly by making the requested correction and briefly explaining that the change has been incorporated.

For example:

Reviewer Comment: Please correct the spelling of “electrochemical.”

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this error. The spelling has been corrected throughout the revised manuscript.

Although minor comments may appear insignificant, they should not be ignored. Failure to address small issues can give reviewers the impression that the manuscript was not carefully revised.

Major Comments

Major comments concern issues that may substantially affect the interpretation, validity, or presentation of the research.

They may involve:

• Experimental methodology
• Data interpretation
• Scientific mechanisms
• Statistical analysis
• Missing controls
• Insufficient characterization
• Novelty
• Theoretical justification
• Limitations of the study
• Major structural problems

Major comments generally require a detailed response. Authors should explain how the concern was addressed and provide supporting evidence where appropriate.

In some cases, addressing a major comment may require substantial changes to the manuscript or additional experimental work.

Technical Comments

Technical comments focus on specific scientific or methodological aspects of the research.

For example, a reviewer may ask about:

• Instrument parameters
• Sample preparation
• Experimental conditions
• Data processing
• Mathematical equations
• Model selection
• Equivalent circuits
• Peak assignment
• Spectral interpretation
• Statistical methods

Technical comments should be answered with technical precision. Generic statements such as “we have clarified this issue” may be insufficient if the reviewer is questioning a specific scientific procedure or interpretation.

For highly technical comments, it is often useful to provide the relevant equation, experimental parameter, calculation, reference, or additional analysis.

Requests for Additional Experiments

Reviewers sometimes request experiments or characterization techniques that were not included in the original manuscript.

Examples may include requests for:

• XPS
• XRD
• FTIR
• Raman spectroscopy
• SEM/TEM
• EDS
• BET
• TGA
• EIS
• Additional electrochemical measurements
• Long-term stability tests
• Control experiments

The appropriate response depends on whether the requested experiment can reasonably be performed and whether it is necessary to address the scientific concern.

If the experiment has been performed, the new results should be presented clearly.

If the experiment can be performed, the authors may conduct it and incorporate the results into the revised manuscript.

If the experiment cannot be performed, the authors should provide an honest and scientifically justified explanation rather than claiming that the experiment was completed.

Comments on Scientific Interpretation

A reviewer may accept the experimental data but disagree with the interpretation.

For example, a reviewer might argue that a change in an FTIR peak does not provide sufficient evidence for a proposed interaction, or that an electrochemical response does not conclusively demonstrate a particular corrosion mechanism.

Such comments require careful scientific reasoning.

The authors may need to:

• Provide additional evidence
• Add relevant literature
• Modify the interpretation
• Reduce the strength of the claim
• Clarify the limitations of the evidence

In some cases, the most appropriate revision is to change a definitive statement such as “demonstrates” to a more scientifically cautious expression such as “suggests” or “is consistent with.”

Comments on Novelty and Significance

Reviewers may question whether the study provides sufficient novelty or whether its contribution is significant enough for the target journal.

These comments should be addressed by clearly explaining the specific contribution of the work and distinguishing it from previous studies.

Authors should avoid simply stating:

“Our work is novel.”

Instead, they should identify what is different—for example, a new material, methodology, mechanism, application, combination of techniques, performance improvement, or previously unexplored research question—and support the argument with appropriate literature.

Comments on Language and Presentation

Reviewers may request improvements to English, organization, clarity, figures, tables, or overall presentation.

These comments can usually be addressed through systematic editing of the manuscript.

However, authors should distinguish between language correction and scientific revision. Improving English alone does not necessarily resolve a comment concerning scientific interpretation or methodology.

Comments That Contain Multiple Issues

A single reviewer comment may actually contain several separate concerns.

For example:

“The authors should provide additional information regarding the preparation of the samples, explain why this concentration was selected, and discuss the reproducibility of the measurements.”

This is effectively three issues:

1. Sample preparation
2. Choice of concentration
3. Reproducibility

Each should be addressed explicitly.

Breaking complex comments into individual points can make the response more transparent and reduce the possibility of leaving part of the reviewer’s concern unanswered.

Why Classification Matters

Correctly identifying the type of reviewer comment helps determine the appropriate response strategy.

A spelling mistake does not require a two-paragraph scientific explanation, while a question about an equivalent circuit, reaction mechanism, statistical model, or experimental validity may require detailed technical justification.

The key principle is simple:

Understand the concern first, then decide how to respond.

A professional reviewer response should be tailored to the nature and scientific significance of each individual comment rather than using the same response style for every issue.

6. How to Structure a Professional Response to Reviewers

A well-structured response letter allows reviewers and editors to quickly understand how each concern has been addressed. The most effective approach is usually a point-by-point response, in which every reviewer comment is followed by a specific response from the authors and, when applicable, a description of the corresponding changes in the revised manuscript.

A consistent structure also reduces the risk of accidentally overlooking a comment, particularly when a manuscript receives several pages of detailed reviewer feedback.

Start With a Professional Opening

The response letter usually begins with a brief expression of appreciation to the editor and reviewers.

For example:

“We sincerely thank the Editor and the Reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for their valuable comments and suggestions.”

This opening should be concise. There is no need for an excessively long introductory paragraph.

Organize the Response by Reviewer

When a manuscript has multiple reviewers, comments should normally be separated clearly.

For example:

Reviewer #1

Comment 1:
[Reviewer comment]

Response:
[Authors’ response]

Changes in the Manuscript:
[Description of the revision]

The same structure can then be repeated for Reviewer #2, Reviewer #3, and so forth.

Quote or Clearly Identify Each Comment

Each reviewer comment should be reproduced accurately or clearly identified so that the reviewer can immediately understand which issue is being addressed.

If the journal has specific formatting requirements, those requirements should take priority.

For long reviewer comments, authors may sometimes summarize the comment, but they should ensure that the meaning is not altered.

Provide a Direct Response

The response should address the specific concern rather than simply stating that the manuscript has been revised.

For example, instead of:

“The manuscript has been revised according to the reviewer’s suggestion.”

a stronger response would explain:

“We agree that the original manuscript did not provide sufficient information regarding the sample preparation procedure. We have therefore added the concentration, mixing time, and drying conditions to Section 2.2 of the revised manuscript.”

The second response tells the reviewer exactly what was done and why.

Explain the Scientific Reasoning

When a comment concerns scientific interpretation, methodology, or data analysis, the response should include the reasoning behind the authors’ position.

Depending on the issue, this may involve:

• Additional experimental data
• Statistical analysis
• Scientific literature
• Equations or calculations
• Additional characterization
• Theoretical explanations
• Clarification of experimental procedures

The amount of detail should be proportional to the complexity of the comment.

Indicate Changes Made to the Manuscript

When a revision has been made, it is helpful to identify where the change can be found.

For example:

“This explanation has been added to Section 3.2, Page 8, Lines 245–258 of the revised manuscript.”

Some journals request page and line numbers, while others use different systems. Authors should follow the target journal’s instructions.

Use a Consistent Visual Format

A consistent format makes long response letters much easier to navigate.

For example:

Reviewer Comment 1:
The reviewer comment.

Response:
The authors’ response.

Changes in Manuscript:
The corresponding revision.

Authors may also use different formatting styles for reviewer comments and responses, such as indentation, bold headings, or different text colors, provided that the journal permits such formatting.

Address Every Comment

The response letter should be checked systematically before submission to ensure that every comment has been addressed.

This is particularly important when a reviewer includes several questions within a single numbered comment.

A useful final check is to create a simple tracking table containing:

Reviewer	Comment	Response Prepared	Manuscript Revised	Location
Reviewer 1	Comment 1	Yes	Yes	Page X, Lines X–X
Reviewer 1	Comment 2	Yes	Yes	Page X, Lines X–X
Reviewer 2	Comment 1	Yes	No	Explanation provided

This type of internal checklist can help prevent overlooked comments.

Ensure Consistency Between the Response and Manuscript

The response letter and revised manuscript should always be reviewed together.

If the response says that a figure was added, the figure should be present. If the response states that a paragraph was revised, the revised paragraph should actually contain the described information.

Likewise, if numerical values or scientific interpretations were changed, those changes should be consistent throughout the manuscript, figures, tables, and supplementary information.

A Recommended General Template

A professional response can follow this basic structure:

Reviewer Comment:

[Comment from the reviewer]

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. [Direct answer and scientific explanation.]

Changes in the Manuscript:
Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have [describe the change]. The corresponding revision can be found in [section/page/line numbers].

This structure is flexible enough to accommodate both minor corrections and complex technical issues.

Ultimately, a good response letter should allow the reviewer to move through the revision efficiently: identify the concern, understand the authors’ response, and locate the corresponding change in the manuscript.

7. How to Start a Response to Reviewers

The opening sentence of a response to a reviewer may seem simple, but it establishes the tone of the entire response. A professional opening should acknowledge the reviewer’s effort, demonstrate that the comment has been considered seriously, and transition naturally into the scientific response.

The objective is not to use excessively formal or repetitive language. A short, respectful acknowledgment is usually sufficient.

General Opening Statements

For a general comment or an important scientific suggestion, authors can use expressions such as:

“We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment.”

“We appreciate the reviewer for raising this important point.”

“We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion.”

“We appreciate the reviewer’s careful evaluation of our manuscript.”

These expressions are useful when the comment provides an opportunity to improve the manuscript.

When the Reviewer Has Identified a Genuine Problem

If the reviewer has correctly identified an error, omission, or weakness, it is generally better to acknowledge it directly rather than attempting to defend the original manuscript unnecessarily.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for identifying this issue. We agree that the original manuscript did not provide sufficient information regarding the experimental procedure.”

The response can then explain what was corrected.

A direct acknowledgment can demonstrate that the authors have carefully evaluated the comment and are willing to improve the manuscript.

When the Authors Agree With the Reviewer

When a suggestion is accepted, the response can begin with:

“We agree with the reviewer and thank them for this helpful suggestion.”

or:

“We appreciate this valuable suggestion and have incorporated it into the revised manuscript.”

The authors should then explain exactly what was changed.

When the Authors Partially Agree

Some comments may contain an element that the authors accept and another element with which they disagree.

In such cases, the response should separate the two issues rather than simply stating “we agree” or “we disagree.”

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We agree that additional clarification is needed regarding the proposed mechanism; however, we believe that the available experimental evidence does not support the interpretation that…”

This approach acknowledges the valid part of the comment while providing a scientific explanation for the disagreement.

When the Authors Disagree

Disagreement with a reviewer is acceptable when it is scientifically justified. However, the wording should remain objective and respectful.

Instead of:

“The reviewer is wrong.”

a more appropriate formulation would be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s perspective. However, based on the experimental results and the relevant literature, we believe that the proposed interpretation may not be applicable to the present system.”

The response should then provide the evidence supporting the authors’ position.

When the Reviewer Has Misunderstood the Manuscript

Authors should avoid directly blaming the reviewer for misunderstanding the manuscript.

Instead of:

“The reviewer misunderstood our results.”

consider:

“We apologize that this point was not sufficiently clear in the original manuscript. To avoid possible confusion, we have revised this section to clarify that…”

This approach is particularly useful because a misunderstanding may indicate that the original manuscript was not sufficiently clear.

When Additional Data Have Been Added

If new analysis or experimental data have been included, the response can begin with:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have performed additional analysis and incorporated the results into the revised manuscript.”

The authors should then describe the analysis and its findings accurately.

When an Experiment Cannot Be Performed

If the requested experiment cannot be conducted, the response should remain transparent and scientifically justified.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Unfortunately, the requested experiment could not be performed within the scope of the present study because [scientific or practical reason]. Nevertheless, we have clarified this limitation in the revised manuscript and have added a discussion of its potential implications.”

The explanation should be genuine. Authors should never claim that an experiment was performed when it was not.

Avoiding Repetitive Language

When responding to dozens of comments, repeatedly using exactly the same phrase can make the response letter sound mechanical.

For example, using:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment.”

at the beginning of every single response may become repetitive.

Authors can vary the wording naturally:

• “We appreciate this helpful suggestion.”
• “Thank you for raising this important point.”
• “We agree that this aspect requires clarification.”
• “We appreciate the reviewer’s careful observation.”
• “This is an important point, and we have addressed it as follows.”

The goal is not to use complicated language but to maintain a professional and natural tone throughout the response letter.

The Most Important Principle

Regardless of the wording chosen, the opening sentence should not replace the actual response.

A sentence such as:

“We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment.”

does not address the scientific issue by itself.

The substantive part of the response should immediately follow and clearly explain what the authors think, what evidence supports their position, and what has been changed in the manuscript.

A professional reviewer response therefore follows a simple principle:

Acknowledge the comment → address the concern → provide scientific justification → explain the action taken.

8. How to Respond When You Agree with the Reviewer

When a reviewer identifies a valid issue or makes a constructive suggestion that can improve the manuscript, the most appropriate approach is usually to acknowledge the comment clearly and explain what action has been taken.

Agreeing with a reviewer does not mean that the response should simply say “Thank you” or “We agree.” A strong response should demonstrate that the authors understood the concern and addressed it appropriately in the revised manuscript.

Acknowledge the Comment

Begin by recognizing the value of the reviewer’s observation.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We agree that the original manuscript did not provide sufficient information regarding the experimental procedure.”

This immediately establishes a constructive tone.

Explain What Was Changed

After acknowledging the comment, clearly describe the action taken.

For example:

“Accordingly, we have added detailed information regarding the sample preparation procedure, including the concentration, mixing time, and drying temperature, to Section 2.2 of the revised manuscript.”

This is much more informative than simply stating:

“The manuscript has been revised.”

Identify Where the Change Was Made

When possible, provide the location of the revision.

For example:

“The corresponding information has been added to Page 5, Lines 142–156 of the revised manuscript.”

Page and line numbers are particularly useful during peer review because they allow the reviewer to verify the change quickly.

However, authors should follow the formatting requirements of the target journal if it specifies a different approach.

When the Reviewer Requests Additional Explanation

Sometimes a reviewer agrees with the underlying research but believes that an explanation is insufficient.

For example:

Reviewer Comment:
“The mechanism proposed by the authors should be explained in greater detail.”

A suitable response might be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We agree that the original discussion of the proposed mechanism was too brief. We have therefore expanded this section by discussing the interaction between the active sites and the target species and by adding relevant references to support the proposed mechanism.”

This type of response shows both acknowledgment and substantive action.

When Additional References Are Added

If the reviewer recommends additional literature, explain how the references were incorporated.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have added the recommended references and expanded the discussion of previous studies to better clarify the relationship between the present work and the existing literature.”

Authors should independently verify all references before including them, particularly when recommendations originate from AI-assisted tools.

When a Figure or Table Is Revised

If the reviewer identifies a problem with a figure or table, the response should specify what was changed.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The labels in Figure 4 have been revised to improve readability, and the figure caption has been expanded to provide the experimental conditions.”

If additional data have been added:

“Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the corresponding data have been added to Table 2, and the results are now discussed in Section 3.3.”

When an Error Is Identified

If the reviewer finds a genuine error, it is usually best to acknowledge it directly.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for identifying this error. The reported value has been corrected from 2.5 to 2.8, and the corresponding value has also been checked and corrected in Figure 5 and Table 1.”

Authors should check the entire manuscript for related occurrences rather than correcting only the specific location identified by the reviewer.

When the Revision Is Substantial

For major revisions, the response can briefly explain the broader changes.

For example:

“We agree with the reviewer that the discussion required further clarification. Accordingly, Section 4 has been substantially revised to provide a more detailed interpretation of the experimental results and to distinguish the observed findings from the proposed mechanism.”

The response should then identify the relevant changes and, when appropriate, summarize the additional analysis or evidence.

A Useful Response Pattern

When agreeing with a reviewer, the following sequence is usually effective:

1. Acknowledge

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation.”

2. Agree

“We agree that additional clarification was necessary.”

3. Explain the action

“We have therefore expanded the discussion…”

4. Identify the location

“The revised text can be found in Section 3.2, Page X, Lines X–X.”

This approach is concise, professional, and easy for reviewers to follow.

Avoid Over-Apologizing

When authors make a genuine mistake, an appropriate acknowledgment is useful. However, excessive apologies can make the response unnecessarily emotional or defensive.

For example, instead of repeatedly writing:

“We sincerely apologize for this terrible mistake…”

a simple statement is usually sufficient:

“We apologize for the oversight and have corrected the issue in the revised manuscript.”

The purpose of the response is to demonstrate that the problem has been identified and appropriately addressed.

Agreement Should Be Reflected in the Manuscript

One of the most important rules is consistency.

If the authors state that they agree with a reviewer and have revised the manuscript, the corresponding change should actually be present in the revised version.

Before submitting the revision, authors should compare the response letter with the manuscript and verify that every claimed modification has been implemented correctly.

Ultimately, when authors agree with a reviewer, the strongest response is not merely an expression of appreciation. It is a clear demonstration that the comment was understood, the appropriate action was taken, and the revised manuscript now addresses the issue effectively.

9. How to Respond When You Partially Agree With the Reviewer

Not every reviewer comment requires a simple “agree” or “disagree” response. In many cases, a reviewer may identify a legitimate issue but make an interpretation or recommendation that the authors only partially accept. These situations require particular care because the response must acknowledge the valid aspect of the comment while clearly explaining the authors’ scientific position on the remaining issue.

A partial agreement can occur when the reviewer identifies a genuine weakness but proposes a solution that is not necessary, when additional clarification is appropriate but the reviewer’s interpretation is not fully supported, or when the authors agree with the underlying concern but have a different scientific explanation.

Separate the Valid Concern From the Disagreement

The first step is to identify exactly which part of the comment is reasonable and which part requires clarification or disagreement.

For example, suppose a reviewer writes:

“The authors should perform XPS analysis to prove the formation of the proposed chemical bonds.”

The authors may agree that additional evidence would strengthen the discussion but disagree that XPS is the only appropriate method or that it is essential to establish the conclusion.

A professional response could be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We agree that additional evidence would strengthen the discussion of the proposed interaction. However, we believe that the available FTIR and XPS results, together with the relevant literature, provide sufficient support for the interpretation presented in this study.”

The response acknowledges the useful aspect of the comment without accepting an unnecessarily strong conclusion.

Avoid a Defensive Tone

Partial disagreement can easily sound defensive if the authors focus on proving that the reviewer is wrong.

Avoid statements such as:

“The reviewer is only partially correct.”

or:

“There is no reason to perform this experiment.”

Instead, explain the scientific reasoning objectively.

For example:

“While we agree that additional characterization could provide complementary information, we consider the requested analysis to be beyond the scope of the present study because…”

The emphasis should be on the scientific rationale rather than on the disagreement itself.

Explain What Was Changed

If the authors accept part of the reviewer’s suggestion, the corresponding action should be clearly described.

For example:

“Following the reviewer’s suggestion, we have expanded the discussion of the proposed mechanism and added two relevant references. However, we have not stated that the proposed interaction is definitively established, and the corresponding conclusion has been revised to reflect the limitations of the available evidence.”

This is particularly valuable because it demonstrates that the authors did not simply reject the comment.

Use Scientific Caution

When evidence is incomplete, scientific language should reflect the appropriate level of certainty.

For example, instead of:

“The FTIR results prove the formation of a chemical bond.”

a more appropriate statement may be:

“The FTIR results are consistent with the formation of the proposed interaction.”

Similarly:

• “proves” → “supports”
• “demonstrates conclusively” → “suggests”
• “confirms” → “is consistent with”

The appropriate wording depends on the strength of the evidence.

When the Reviewer Requests an Unnecessary Analysis

A reviewer may recommend an additional analysis that is useful but not essential for answering the scientific question.

In such cases, the response should explain why the existing evidence is sufficient.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to perform an additional analysis. We agree that this analysis could provide complementary information; however, the primary objective of the present study is to evaluate…, and the existing characterization results provide sufficient evidence to address this objective. To clarify this point, we have expanded the relevant discussion and explicitly acknowledged this limitation.”

This approach is much stronger than simply stating that the requested analysis is unnecessary.

When the Authors Accept the Concern but Choose a Different Solution

Sometimes the reviewer correctly identifies a problem but the proposed solution is not the only way to address it.

For example:

“We agree with the reviewer that the reproducibility of the measurements required further clarification. Rather than adding a new experimental technique, we have provided the number of independent measurements, included the standard deviations, and expanded the statistical analysis.”

This demonstrates that the authors addressed the underlying concern even though they did not follow the reviewer’s exact recommendation.

A Recommended Structure

When partially agreeing with a reviewer, a useful structure is:

1. Acknowledge the comment

“We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable observation.”

2. Identify the valid point

“We agree that additional clarification is needed regarding…”

3. Explain the different interpretation

“However, based on…, we believe that…”

4. Provide evidence

“This interpretation is supported by…”

5. Explain the action taken

“Accordingly, we have revised the relevant section and clarified…”

This structure keeps the response constructive and scientifically focused.

The Goal Is Resolution, Not Victory

The purpose of a response to reviewers is not to “win” an argument. The objective is to resolve the scientific concern and help the editor and reviewer understand the authors’ position.

A successful partial-disagreement response should leave the reviewer with the impression that the authors:

• Understood the concern
• Took the valid aspect seriously
• Considered the recommendation objectively
• Provided scientific justification
• Made appropriate revisions
• Remained respectful throughout the discussion

In many cases, this approach can be more persuasive than either blindly accepting every suggestion or rejecting every criticism.

The best response is therefore often neither “Yes” nor “No”, but a scientifically justified explanation of what the authors agree with, what they do not, why, and what they have done about it.

10. How to Respond When You Disagree With the Reviewer

Disagreement between authors and reviewers is a normal part of scientific peer review. Reviewers may interpret data differently, request analyses that the authors consider unnecessary, or make assumptions that are not fully supported by the manuscript or available evidence.

Authors are not required to accept every reviewer comment. However, disagreement should always be handled carefully, objectively, and respectfully. The purpose of a response is not to prove that the reviewer is wrong, but to provide sufficient scientific reasoning for the editor and reviewer to understand the authors’ position.

Disagree With the Interpretation, Not the Person

The most important principle is to focus on the scientific issue rather than the reviewer.

Avoid statements such as:

“The reviewer is wrong.”

“The reviewer clearly does not understand our work.”

“This comment is unreasonable.”

Instead, explain why the interpretation or recommendation may not apply to the present study.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. However, based on the experimental results and relevant literature, we believe that this interpretation may not fully apply to the system investigated in the present study.”

This communicates disagreement without creating an adversarial tone.

Provide Scientific Evidence

A disagreement is most convincing when it is supported by evidence.

Depending on the nature of the comment, evidence may include:

• Experimental results
• Additional calculations
• Statistical analysis
• Characterization data
• Established scientific principles
• Published literature
• Methodological considerations
• Theoretical models

For example, if a reviewer questions the assignment of an FTIR peak, the response should explain the basis for the assignment and provide relevant literature rather than simply stating that the assignment is correct.

Clarify the Scope of the Study

Sometimes a reviewer requests an analysis or experiment that is interesting but outside the objectives of the study.

In such cases, the authors can respectfully explain the scope.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to investigate this additional aspect. While we agree that such an investigation would provide valuable complementary information, it is beyond the primary scope of the present study, which focuses on…”

However, simply describing something as “beyond the scope” is not always sufficient. The authors should explain why the existing study can still support its main conclusions without the requested work.

Distinguish Between “Not Necessary” and “Not Possible”

These situations should not be confused.

If an experiment is technically possible but the authors believe it is unnecessary, they should provide a scientific justification for why the existing evidence is sufficient.

If the experiment genuinely cannot be performed, the authors should explain the relevant limitation honestly.

For example:

“We agree that this experiment would provide additional information. However, the measurement could not be performed because the required instrumentation was not available during the experimental period. We have therefore acknowledged this limitation in the revised manuscript.”

Authors should never imply that an experiment was conducted when it was not.

Use Additional Literature Carefully

Published literature can be particularly useful when disagreeing with a reviewer’s interpretation.

For example:

“Previous studies have reported that [scientific observation]. Consistent with these reports, the present results indicate that…”

However, references should be selected because they genuinely support the scientific argument—not simply because they appear to agree with the authors.

All cited references should be independently verified before submission.

Avoid Overstating the Evidence

When disagreeing with a reviewer, there can be a temptation to make the authors’ own conclusion sound stronger.

This should be avoided.

For example, if the data only support an association, do not claim that they prove a mechanism simply because the reviewer questioned the mechanism.

Appropriate scientific language may include:

• “suggests”
• “supports”
• “is consistent with”
• “may be attributed to”
• “could be associated with”

The appropriate level of certainty should always reflect the available evidence.

Consider Revising the Manuscript Even When You Disagree

Disagreeing with a reviewer does not necessarily mean that no manuscript change is required.

Sometimes the best response is:

“We respectfully disagree with the interpretation; however, we recognize that the original text could be clearer. We have therefore revised this section to better explain the basis for our interpretation.”

This is often a very effective strategy.

The authors maintain their scientific position while acknowledging that the manuscript can be improved.

When a Reviewer Requests an Analysis That Is Scientifically Inappropriate

In some cases, a reviewer may suggest a method that is not appropriate for the particular data or experimental system.

For example, the reviewer may recommend a model, equivalent circuit, statistical test, or characterization approach that does not adequately describe the system.

The response should explain the technical reason for not adopting the recommendation.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. However, the proposed model assumes [specific condition], which is not applicable to the present system. For this reason, we retained the original approach and have provided additional justification and references in the revised manuscript.”

This type of response is much more persuasive than simply refusing the suggestion.

A Recommended Structure for Disagreement

A professional disagreement can generally follow this sequence:

1. Acknowledge

“We appreciate the reviewer’s comment.”

2. State the position

“However, we respectfully believe that…”

3. Explain the scientific reasoning

“This is because…”

4. Provide evidence

“This interpretation is supported by…”

5. Describe any revision

“Nevertheless, to clarify this point, we have revised…”

This structure allows authors to defend their scientific position without appearing dismissive.

The Editor Is Also Reading the Response

Authors should remember that the response letter is not written exclusively for the reviewer who made the comment. The editor will also evaluate how the authors handled disagreements.

A respectful, evidence-based response demonstrates scientific maturity and can help the editor understand why a particular recommendation was not adopted.

By contrast, an emotional or dismissive response can create unnecessary concerns even when the underlying scientific argument is valid.

When Should Authors Accept the Comment Instead?

Sometimes authors initially disagree with a reviewer but, after reconsidering the issue, realize that the reviewer has identified a genuine weakness.

In such cases, changing the manuscript and acknowledging the issue is often the strongest approach.

Scientific peer review is not a competition. The objective is to improve the reliability, clarity, and quality of the published research.

A successful disagreement therefore does not mean persuading the reviewer that they were wrong. It means presenting a clear, scientifically defensible argument and, where appropriate, improving the manuscript so that the scientific position is better understood.

11. How to Respond When an Additional Experiment Is Requested

Requests for additional experiments are among the most challenging reviewer comments authors may receive. A reviewer may identify a limitation in the existing evidence and request additional characterization, control experiments, longer-term testing, or another analysis to strengthen the manuscript.

Such requests should be evaluated carefully rather than automatically accepted or rejected. The appropriate response depends on the scientific purpose of the requested experiment, its feasibility, its relevance to the reviewer’s concern, and whether the existing evidence is sufficient to support the manuscript’s conclusions.

First, Understand Why the Reviewer Requested the Experiment

Before deciding how to respond, authors should identify the underlying concern.

For example, a reviewer may request XPS analysis not simply because XPS is commonly used, but because they want stronger evidence for a proposed surface interaction.

Similarly, a reviewer may request additional EIS measurements because they are concerned about the reliability or interpretation of the reported electrochemical response.

Understanding the reason behind the request is often more important than the specific technique suggested by the reviewer.

When the Requested Experiment Has Already Been Performed

If the authors have already conducted the requested experiment but did not include the results in the original manuscript, the response should explain this clearly and provide the relevant data.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The requested analysis had already been performed but was not included in the original manuscript. We have now incorporated the corresponding results in Figure 6 and expanded the discussion in Section 3.4.”

The authors should ensure that the newly included data are properly analyzed and discussed rather than simply added as an isolated figure.

When the Experiment Can Be Performed

If the requested experiment is scientifically relevant and feasible, performing it may be the most straightforward way to address the reviewer’s concern.

The response should then describe:

• What experiment was performed
• Under what conditions
• What the results showed
• Where the new data were added
• How the findings affect the interpretation

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In response, we performed three additional measurements under the same experimental conditions. The results were consistent with the original observations and have now been included in Figure 7.”

If new experimental results affect the interpretation or conclusions, the manuscript should be revised accordingly.

When the Experiment Is Not Available

Sometimes authors cannot perform the requested experiment because the required instrument, material, sample, or experimental conditions are no longer available.

In such cases, transparency is essential.

A professional response may state:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Unfortunately, the requested measurement could not be performed because the original samples were no longer available. We have therefore clarified this limitation in the revised manuscript and strengthened the discussion using the characterization data currently available.”

The explanation should be factual and scientifically relevant.

When the Experiment Is Beyond the Scope of the Study

A reviewer may request an experiment that would generate interesting additional information but is not essential to answer the research question.

In such cases, the authors may respectfully explain why the requested work is outside the scope of the study.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We agree that this experiment could provide complementary information; however, the primary objective of the present study is to evaluate…, and the available experimental evidence is sufficient to address this objective. We have clarified this point and acknowledged the limitation in the revised manuscript.”

However, “beyond the scope” should not be used as a generic excuse. The authors should explain why the existing evidence remains sufficient for the conclusions being made.

When the Requested Experiment Is Not Scientifically Necessary

A reviewer may recommend an additional experiment even though the concern can be addressed through another type of analysis or clarification.

For example, a reviewer may request a new characterization technique when existing data already provide the necessary evidence.

In this situation, authors can address the underlying concern without necessarily performing the exact requested experiment.

For example:

“We agree that additional evidence would strengthen the discussion. However, the specific measurement suggested by the reviewer is not essential for evaluating the parameter in question. To address the underlying concern, we have instead provided additional analysis of the existing data and expanded the relevant discussion.”

The alternative approach should be scientifically justified.

When the Requested Experiment Would Require Major New Work

Some requests may involve substantial additional research, such as long-term durability tests, extended cycling experiments, biological assays, or experiments requiring specialized facilities.

Authors should consider whether the request is essential to the central conclusion of the manuscript.

If the experiment is critical, performing it may be necessary for a successful revision.

If it is useful but not essential, the authors may explain the limitation and appropriately narrow their claims.

Never Invent Experimental Results

This is one of the most important principles in responding to reviewers.

Authors should never report an experiment that was not actually performed, invent numerical results, fabricate characterization data, or claim that an analysis produced a particular outcome without evidence.

If an experiment cannot be performed, the appropriate response is an honest explanation.

Scientific integrity is more important than satisfying every reviewer request.

Revise the Claims When Necessary

Sometimes an additional experiment cannot be performed, but the reviewer has correctly identified that the original conclusion is too strong.

In this situation, the authors may need to weaken or qualify the claim.

For example:

Original:

“The results confirm the formation of a strong chemical bond.”

Revised:

“The results are consistent with the formation of the proposed interaction.”

This approach can address the reviewer’s concern without requiring unsupported claims.

Additional Experiments Should Be Integrated Into the Manuscript

When new experiments are performed, the results should be integrated into the scientific narrative.

This may require updates to:

• Results and Discussion
• Figures
• Tables
• Statistical analysis
• Conclusions
• Abstract
• Supplementary information

The response letter should accurately describe these changes.

A Practical Decision Framework

When a reviewer requests an additional experiment, authors can ask:

1. What scientific concern is the reviewer trying to address?

2. Is the requested experiment essential to the main conclusion?

3. Can the experiment reasonably be performed?

4. Is an alternative analysis capable of addressing the same concern?

5. If the experiment cannot be performed, should the manuscript’s claim be narrowed?

6. Does the response need to acknowledge a limitation?

This framework helps authors avoid two common extremes: blindly performing unnecessary experiments and rejecting legitimate scientific concerns without adequate justification.

Ultimately, the strongest response to an experimental request is not necessarily “yes” or “no.” It is a scientifically reasoned explanation showing that the reviewer’s underlying concern has been understood and appropriately addressed.

12. How to Respond When You Cannot Perform the Requested Experiment

Not every additional experiment requested by a reviewer can be performed during the revision process. Samples may no longer be available, specialized equipment may be inaccessible, the required experimental conditions may not be feasible, or the requested work may require substantially more time and resources than are reasonably available.

The inability to perform an experiment does not automatically mean that the manuscript cannot be revised successfully. However, the response should be transparent, scientifically justified, and focused on addressing the underlying concern raised by the reviewer.

Do Not Simply Say “We Cannot Do It”

A short response such as:

“We cannot perform this experiment.”

is unlikely to satisfy a reviewer because it does not explain why the experiment cannot be performed or how the underlying scientific concern has been addressed.

A stronger response should explain the limitation and, where possible, provide an alternative solution.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Unfortunately, the requested experiment could not be performed because the original samples were no longer available. To address the underlying concern, we have provided additional analysis of the available characterization results and expanded the relevant discussion in the revised manuscript.”

Be Honest About the Reason

The explanation should reflect the actual circumstances.

Possible legitimate reasons may include:

• The original samples are no longer available
• The required instrument is unavailable
• The material is unstable or has degraded
• The experiment requires conditions that cannot be reproduced
• The measurement is not technically applicable to the studied system
• The requested analysis requires specialized facilities that were not accessible
• The experiment would require a substantially different research design

The response should avoid unnecessary excuses or exaggerated explanations.

Address the Underlying Scientific Concern

The most important question is:

Why did the reviewer request this experiment?

For example, if a reviewer requests XPS because they want evidence for a proposed chemical interaction, the authors should determine whether other available characterization techniques can provide relevant evidence.

If the reviewer requests additional EIS measurements because of concerns about reproducibility, the authors might address the issue through replicate measurements, statistical analysis, or additional validation of the impedance data—if such data are genuinely available.

The goal is not necessarily to reproduce the reviewer’s exact recommendation, but to address the scientific concern responsibly.

Provide Alternative Evidence When Available

If the requested experiment cannot be performed but relevant evidence already exists, the authors can provide that evidence.

For example:

“Although the requested measurement could not be performed, the conclusion is supported by the combined results of FTIR, XRD, and SEM-EDS. We have expanded the discussion of these results and added relevant references to clarify the basis of our interpretation.”

The alternative evidence must genuinely support the conclusion. It should not be presented as equivalent to the requested experiment if it is not.

Acknowledge the Limitation

Sometimes the most scientifically appropriate response is to acknowledge that the requested experiment represents a limitation of the current study.

For example:

“We acknowledge that the absence of this measurement limits the extent to which the proposed mechanism can be directly verified. We have therefore revised the corresponding statement to avoid overstating the available evidence and have included this limitation in the revised manuscript.”

This approach can be particularly effective because it demonstrates scientific caution rather than attempting to conceal a limitation.

Consider Revising the Scientific Claim

If the requested experiment was intended to verify a strong conclusion, and the authors cannot provide the requested evidence, they should consider whether the original claim is too strong.

For example:

Original statement:

“These results confirm the proposed adsorption mechanism.”

A more cautious version might be:

“These results support the proposed adsorption mechanism, although additional experimental evidence would be required for direct confirmation.”

This distinction is important. Scientific writing should reflect the strength of the evidence actually available.

When the Requested Experiment Is Not Appropriate

Sometimes the problem is not that the experiment is unavailable, but that the proposed technique is not suitable for the particular research question.

In this situation, authors should explain the technical reason.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. However, the proposed analysis is not directly applicable to the present system because [specific scientific reason]. Instead, we have used [appropriate method] to evaluate the relevant parameter and have clarified this methodological consideration in the revised manuscript.”

Such a response should be supported by appropriate scientific literature when necessary.

Avoid Blaming the Reviewer

Even when the requested experiment is inappropriate, the response should remain professional.

Avoid:

“The reviewer does not understand the technique.”

Instead:

“We may not have sufficiently clarified the methodological considerations associated with this measurement in the original manuscript. We have therefore added an explanation of why the selected approach is more appropriate for the present system.”

This formulation turns a potentially confrontational situation into an opportunity to improve the manuscript.

When the Reviewer Insists on the Experiment

Occasionally, a reviewer may continue to request an experiment in a subsequent revision round.

At that point, authors should reassess the issue carefully. If the experiment is essential to establish a central conclusion, performing it may be necessary. If it is not feasible or scientifically justified, the authors should provide a stronger explanation supported by evidence and, where appropriate, consult the editor’s guidance.

The response should remain factual and respectful.

Never Fabricate or Simulate Missing Results

If an experiment was not performed, authors should not create:

• Numerical results
• Spectra
• Microscopy images
• Electrochemical curves
• Statistical values
• Tables
• Instrument outputs

to satisfy the reviewer.

Likewise, AI tools should never be used to generate fictional experimental evidence.

A transparent limitation is scientifically acceptable; fabricated data are not.

A Recommended Response Structure

When an experiment cannot be performed, the following structure can be effective:

1. Acknowledge the suggestion

“We appreciate the reviewer for this valuable suggestion.”

2. Explain the limitation

“Unfortunately, the requested experiment could not be performed because…”

3. Address the underlying concern

“Nevertheless, we have addressed the underlying concern by…”

4. Provide available evidence

“The interpretation is supported by…”

5. Revise the claim if necessary

“To avoid overstating the evidence, we have revised the corresponding statement…”

6. Acknowledge the limitation

“This limitation has also been acknowledged in the revised manuscript.”

This approach demonstrates that the authors have taken the reviewer’s concern seriously even when the exact requested experiment could not be completed.

The key principle is simple: when an experiment cannot be performed, do not hide the limitation or invent evidence. Explain the situation honestly, address the underlying scientific concern as far as possible, and ensure that the strength of the manuscript’s conclusions matches the evidence that is actually available.

13. How to Respond to Conflicting Reviewer Comments

When a manuscript is evaluated by multiple reviewers, it is not unusual for reviewers to provide different—or even apparently contradictory—recommendations. One reviewer may ask the authors to provide additional experimental evidence, while another may suggest reducing the scope of the study. One reviewer may consider a particular interpretation convincing, while another may question the same interpretation.

Conflicting comments can be challenging, but they do not necessarily represent a problem with the review process. The authors’ task is to understand the scientific reasoning behind each comment, identify the underlying issues, and provide a coherent response that addresses the concerns without creating contradictions in the revised manuscript.

Identify the Actual Conflict

Not every difference between reviewers represents a genuine contradiction.

For example:

Reviewer 1:
“The discussion of the proposed mechanism should be expanded.”

Reviewer 2:
“The proposed mechanism is discussed in excessive detail and should be shortened.”

These comments clearly require a balanced approach.

However, other comments may appear contradictory while actually addressing different aspects of the manuscript. Authors should therefore first determine exactly what each reviewer is requesting.

Do Not Respond to Reviewers Against Each Other

A common mistake is to write:

“Reviewer 1 agrees with us, but Reviewer 2 does not.”

or:

“Reviewer 1 requested this experiment, whereas Reviewer 2 said it was unnecessary.”

Although the factual situation may be true, framing the response as a competition between reviewers is generally unhelpful.

The authors should instead focus on the scientific issue and explain how they have addressed it.

Look for a Balanced Solution

When two reviewers make opposing suggestions, the best solution may be to revise the manuscript in a way that addresses the valid concerns raised by both.

For example, if one reviewer asks for a more detailed discussion while another considers the discussion too long, the authors might reorganize the section, remove repetitive material, and retain only the most relevant scientific explanation.

A response could state:

“We appreciate both reviewers’ observations regarding the discussion of the proposed mechanism. To address these concerns, we have reorganized this section, removed repetitive explanations, and retained the key mechanistic discussion supported by the experimental evidence.”

This demonstrates that both comments were considered.

When Reviewers Recommend Different Interpretations

Sometimes reviewers disagree about the interpretation of experimental results.

For example, one reviewer may attribute a spectral shift to a chemical interaction, while another may interpret it as a change in physical environment.

In such cases, the authors should examine the available evidence carefully and avoid presenting an interpretation as definitive if the data do not support that level of certainty.

The response may state:

“We appreciate the different perspectives regarding the interpretation of this result. Based on the available experimental evidence and relevant literature, we have revised the discussion to clarify that the observed change is consistent with the proposed interaction, while acknowledging that alternative contributions cannot be completely excluded.”

This approach is often scientifically stronger than forcing the data to support one interpretation.

When One Reviewer Requests an Experiment and Another Does Not

A request from one reviewer should not automatically be dismissed because another reviewer did not mention it.

Instead, authors should evaluate whether the requested experiment is necessary for the central scientific conclusions.

If it is useful and feasible, performing it may still strengthen the manuscript.

If it is not necessary, the authors should provide a scientifically justified response to the reviewer who requested it.

The response should be based on the scientific merits of the request—not on whether another reviewer supported it.

Follow the Editor’s Guidance

The editor has the overall responsibility for evaluating the manuscript and deciding how conflicting reviewer recommendations should be handled.

If the reviewers’ requests are genuinely incompatible and cannot reasonably be reconciled, the authors may explain the conflict clearly in the response letter and, where appropriate, respectfully request editorial guidance.

For example:

“We appreciate the differing perspectives of the reviewers regarding this issue. We have addressed both concerns as far as possible by revising the relevant section. We would be grateful for the Editor’s guidance if further clarification is required.”

The editor’s instructions should always take priority over assumptions about what one reviewer may prefer.

Maintain Internal Consistency

When responding to conflicting comments, the revised manuscript should not contain contradictory statements simply because the authors attempted to satisfy each reviewer independently.

For example, if one section states that a mechanism is strongly established while another states that the mechanism remains uncertain, the manuscript may become internally inconsistent.

The authors should therefore review:

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Results and Discussion
• Conclusions
• Figures and captions
• Tables
• Supplementary information

after implementing major revisions.

Explain Compromises Clearly

Sometimes the best solution is a compromise.

For example, if one reviewer asks for a very extensive discussion and another asks for a shorter manuscript, the authors may retain the essential scientific discussion while moving supporting details to the Supplementary Information.

A response could state:

“To address both concerns, we have condensed the main discussion and transferred the additional supporting analysis to the Supplementary Information.”

This provides a clear explanation of how the competing requests were handled.

Do Not Ignore a Reviewer Because Another Reviewer Disagrees

Each reviewer comment should still receive an appropriate response.

Ignoring a comment because another reviewer offered a different opinion can make the revision appear incomplete.

Instead, explain the authors’ final scientific position and, when relevant, acknowledge that different interpretations exist.

A Practical Strategy for Conflicting Comments

When faced with contradictory reviewer comments, authors can follow these steps:

1. Identify the underlying scientific issue.

2. Determine whether the comments are genuinely contradictory.

3. Evaluate the evidence independently of the reviewers’ opinions.

4. Look for a solution that addresses the valid concerns of both reviewers.

5. Revise the manuscript consistently.

6. Explain clearly how the conflicting comments were handled.

7. Seek editorial guidance when the conflict cannot reasonably be resolved.

The most important principle is to avoid treating peer review as a contest between reviewers. The goal is to produce the strongest scientifically defensible manuscript possible while making the reasoning behind the revisions transparent to the editor and reviewers.

14. How to Respond to a Reviewer Who Misunderstood the Manuscript

Sometimes a reviewer raises a concern because a particular statement, method, figure, or interpretation in the manuscript was not sufficiently clear. In these situations, the authors may feel that the reviewer has misunderstood the study. However, directly telling a reviewer that they “misunderstood” the manuscript is rarely the most effective approach.

A misunderstanding during peer review can actually provide useful information: if a technically important point was unclear to an experienced reviewer, other readers may also have difficulty understanding it. The response should therefore address the reviewer’s concern while also considering whether the manuscript itself needs clarification.

Avoid Directly Blaming the Reviewer

Statements such as:

“The reviewer misunderstood our manuscript.”

or:

“The reviewer did not read the manuscript carefully.”

can sound defensive or confrontational.

A more professional approach is to acknowledge that the original explanation may not have been sufficiently clear.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We apologize that this point was not sufficiently clear in the original manuscript. We have revised the relevant section to clarify the distinction between…”

This response does not necessarily mean that the authors accept the reviewer’s interpretation. It simply recognizes that the manuscript could have communicated the point more effectively.

Identify Why the Misunderstanding Occurred

Authors should carefully examine the relevant part of the manuscript.

Ask:

• Was the terminology ambiguous?
• Was an important definition missing?
• Was the experimental procedure insufficiently described?
• Was a figure or table difficult to interpret?
• Was the scientific reasoning explained too briefly?
• Was an important reference omitted?
• Was a conclusion stated too strongly?

Identifying the source of the confusion can help determine the appropriate revision.

Clarify the Scientific Meaning

After acknowledging the concern, explain what the authors actually intended.

For example:

“The reviewer appears to interpret the reported increase in Rct as evidence of a change in the electrochemical reaction mechanism. Our intention was instead to use the increase in Rct as an indication of enhanced charge-transfer resistance associated with the protective film. We have clarified this distinction in the revised manuscript.”

This is much more effective than simply saying that the reviewer is incorrect.

Revise Ambiguous Statements

If a sentence can reasonably be interpreted in more than one way, rewrite it.

For example:

Original:

“The coating prevents the electrochemical reaction.”

This statement may be too broad.

A more precise version might be:

“The coating inhibits the electrochemical charge-transfer processes occurring at the metal/electrolyte interface.”

The revised wording provides a more scientifically precise explanation and reduces the possibility of further misunderstanding.

Clarify Figures and Tables

Misunderstandings can also result from unclear figures or tables.

A reviewer may interpret a graph incorrectly because:

• The axes are not adequately labeled
• Units are missing
• Different datasets are difficult to distinguish
• The caption lacks experimental information
• Error bars are not explained
• A fitting curve is not clearly identified
• The legend is incomplete

In such cases, revising the figure or caption may be more effective than writing a lengthy response.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for pointing out this ambiguity. We have revised Figure 5 and its caption to clearly distinguish the experimental data from the fitted curves and have added the corresponding units to the axes.”

Use Evidence to Clarify the Interpretation

When a misunderstanding concerns scientific interpretation, provide the evidence supporting the authors’ position.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. However, the interpretation that the observed peak originates from species X is not consistent with the experimental conditions and the reported literature. The assignment used in our manuscript is based on the characteristic range reported for species Y, as supported by References 32–35.”

The response should focus on evidence rather than asserting that the reviewer is simply mistaken.

When the Reviewer Makes an Incorrect Assumption

Sometimes the reviewer may assume that an experiment was performed under conditions that differ from those actually used.

In this case, the response should clearly state the correct information and revise the manuscript if necessary.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We would like to clarify that the measurements were performed at 25 °C rather than 40 °C as may have been inferred from the original description. To prevent further confusion, we have explicitly stated the measurement temperature in Section 2.3.”

This approach corrects the misunderstanding without assigning blame.

When the Manuscript Was Actually Unclear

If the reviewer’s misunderstanding reveals a genuine weakness in the writing, it is often better to acknowledge this.

For example:

“We agree that the original wording could lead to this interpretation. We have therefore revised the paragraph to distinguish between the experimentally observed result and the proposed mechanism.”

This can turn a potentially negative reviewer comment into an opportunity to improve the manuscript.

Do Not Overcorrect

Authors should also avoid making extensive changes that introduce new scientific claims simply to prevent one particular misunderstanding.

The revision should remain consistent with the actual data and the original research objectives.

The goal is clarity, not unnecessary expansion.

A Recommended Response Structure

When a reviewer appears to have misunderstood the manuscript, a useful structure is:

1. Acknowledge the concern

“We appreciate the reviewer’s comment.”

2. Clarify the intended meaning

“We would like to clarify that…”

3. Provide scientific justification

“This interpretation is based on…”

4. Acknowledge any lack of clarity

“We recognize that the original wording may have caused confusion.”

5. Describe the revision

“We have therefore revised the relevant section to clarify…”

This structure allows authors to defend their scientific interpretation while demonstrating that they take the reviewer’s concern seriously.

A Misunderstanding Can Be an Opportunity for Improvement

A reviewer misunderstanding does not necessarily mean that the reviewer was careless or that the manuscript was poorly reviewed. Scientific manuscripts often contain highly specialized concepts, and even small ambiguities can lead to different interpretations.

A professional response therefore asks not only:

“Why did the reviewer misunderstand this?”

but also:

“How can we make the manuscript clearer so that the intended meaning is immediately understandable?”

In many cases, improving the manuscript’s clarity while providing a concise scientific explanation is the most effective way to resolve such comments and reduce the likelihood of the same issue being raised again in a subsequent review round.

15. How to Respond to Requests for More References

Requests for additional references are among the more common comments authors receive during peer review. A reviewer may ask the authors to cite recent studies, discuss relevant previous research, compare their findings with published work, or include specific literature that appears to be missing.

Although adding references may seem straightforward, simply increasing the number of citations does not necessarily improve a manuscript. References should be selected because they are relevant, credible, and genuinely support the scientific discussion.

Understand Why the Reviewer Requested More References

Before adding citations, authors should determine the purpose of the request.

A reviewer may be asking for references because:

• Important previous studies have not been discussed.
• The background section is incomplete.
• A scientific claim lacks supporting evidence.
• The authors have not adequately compared their results with previous work.
• The proposed mechanism requires stronger literature support.
• The field has developed substantially since the manuscript was prepared.
• The novelty of the present work needs to be established in relation to previous studies.

Understanding the reason behind the request helps authors select appropriate references rather than simply adding citations.

When the Reviewer Suggests Specific References

Reviewers sometimes recommend particular papers for citation.

If the suggested references are relevant, authors should consider incorporating them into the appropriate section of the manuscript.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for pointing out these relevant studies. The suggested references have been carefully examined and incorporated into the revised manuscript, and the discussion has been expanded to better position the present work in relation to previous research.”

However, authors should not cite a paper simply because a reviewer suggested it. The reference should genuinely contribute to the scientific discussion.

Verify Every Suggested Reference

References should be checked carefully before inclusion.

Authors should verify:

• The title
• Authors
• Journal
• Publication year
• DOI
• Scientific relevance
• The specific claim supported by the reference

This is particularly important when references have been identified or formatted using AI tools, because AI systems can occasionally generate incorrect or nonexistent citations.

When the Suggested Reference Is Not Directly Relevant

Authors may determine that a suggested paper is not sufficiently relevant to the specific research question.

In this situation, it is acceptable to respectfully explain why it was not included.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer for suggesting this reference. We carefully examined the study; however, its experimental system and research objective differ substantially from those investigated in the present work. We therefore believe that including it as direct support for the present interpretation could be misleading.”

The response should remain factual and respectful.

When the Reference Is Useful but Not Directly Applicable

Sometimes a suggested paper is relevant to the general topic but does not directly support the specific claim.

In this case, the reference may still be useful if it is cited appropriately.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for suggesting this study. We have included the reference in the Introduction to provide additional background on the broader application of this material, while clarifying that the experimental system differs from that investigated in the present study.”

The citation should not be used to imply evidence that the paper does not actually provide.

Strengthen Unsupported Scientific Claims

A reviewer may identify a statement that lacks adequate literature support.

For example:

“The reviewer suggested providing additional references to support the proposed adsorption mechanism.”

A suitable response could be:

“We appreciate this suggestion. We have added several relevant studies supporting the proposed mechanism and revised the discussion to more clearly distinguish established findings from the interpretation proposed in the present study.”

This can substantially improve the scientific credibility of the manuscript.

Use Recent Literature Where Appropriate

For rapidly developing research fields, reviewers may expect the manuscript to reflect recent developments.

Authors should consider whether important recent studies have appeared since the original manuscript was prepared.

However, “recent” should not automatically mean “better.” Older foundational studies may remain essential when they establish:

• Fundamental mechanisms
• Classical models
• Standard analytical methods
• Established theoretical principles

A strong literature discussion often combines foundational references with relevant recent research.

Avoid Excessive Citation

Adding dozens of references simply to satisfy a request can make the manuscript unnecessarily dense.

Each citation should have a purpose.

For example, instead of citing ten papers after a simple established statement, authors may select a few highly relevant and authoritative references.

The objective is to demonstrate understanding of the literature—not merely to increase the reference count.

Use References to Compare Results

References are particularly useful when discussing whether the current findings agree with or differ from previous research.

For example:

“The increase in corrosion resistance observed in the present study is consistent with the findings reported by previous studies on similar nanocomposite coatings. However, the magnitude of the improvement observed here is higher than that reported for…”

This type of comparison helps establish the significance of the research rather than merely listing previous publications.

References and Novelty

Adding literature can also help authors explain what is new about their work.

A strong discussion should not only say:

“Previous studies have reported X.”

It should also explain:

“However, previous studies have not investigated Y under the conditions examined in the present work.”

This distinction helps reviewers understand the research gap and the contribution of the manuscript.

Do Not Use References as a Substitute for Evidence

A citation does not automatically prove a scientific statement.

For example, if a reviewer questions whether a proposed mechanism is actually demonstrated by the experimental data, adding several references may not fully resolve the concern.

The authors may need to:

• Reanalyze the data
• Modify the interpretation
• Add additional evidence
• Reduce the strength of the claim

References should support the scientific reasoning rather than replace it.

A Recommended Response Structure

When additional references are requested, a useful response structure is:

1. Acknowledge the suggestion

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion.”

2. Explain what was done

“We have carefully reviewed the relevant literature and added several recent studies…”

3. Explain the purpose

“These references have been incorporated to provide additional support for the proposed mechanism and to better compare our findings with previous research.”

4. Identify the location

“The corresponding discussion has been added to Section 3.3, Page X, Lines X–X.”

If a suggested reference was not included, explain the scientific reason clearly and respectfully.

The Goal Is Better Scientific Context

The purpose of responding to a reference request is not simply to satisfy the reviewer by increasing the number of citations. The real objective is to strengthen the manuscript’s scientific context, support appropriate claims, demonstrate awareness of previous research, and clearly position the contribution of the present study.

A carefully selected reference can strengthen an argument. An irrelevant reference can weaken it. Therefore, relevance and scientific accuracy should always take priority over the number of citations.

16. How to Respond to Comments About Experimental Methodology

Comments about experimental methodology are among the most technically important reviewer comments because they can directly affect the reliability, reproducibility, and interpretation of the research. A reviewer may ask for additional information about sample preparation, experimental conditions, instrument settings, control experiments, calibration procedures, or data processing.

A professional response should address the specific methodological concern clearly and provide enough information for the reviewer to understand how the experiment was conducted and why the selected methodology is appropriate.

Why Methodological Comments Matter

A manuscript should provide sufficient methodological information for other researchers to understand and, where reasonably possible, reproduce the reported work.

A reviewer may therefore identify missing information such as:

• Sample composition
• Sample preparation
• Concentration
• Temperature
• Reaction time
• pH
• Mixing conditions
• Instrument model
• Measurement parameters
• Number of replicates
• Calibration procedure
• Data-processing method
• Statistical analysis
• Control conditions

Missing methodological details can make otherwise strong experimental results difficult to evaluate.

Respond Directly to the Specific Concern

When a reviewer asks for additional experimental information, avoid a generic response such as:

“The methodology has been revised.”

Instead, provide the missing information.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The original manuscript did not clearly specify the drying conditions used during sample preparation. We have now added the drying temperature (80 °C), duration (12 h), and atmosphere to Section 2.2 of the revised manuscript.”

This allows the reviewer to verify the correction immediately.

When Information Was Accidentally Omitted

Sometimes the experiment was conducted correctly, but an important detail was unintentionally left out of the manuscript.

In this case, acknowledge the omission and provide the information.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The measurements were performed in triplicate, but this information was inadvertently omitted from the original manuscript. We have now clarified the number of independent measurements in Section 2.4.”

There is generally no need for an elaborate defense if the problem is simply an omission.

When the Reviewer Questions Experimental Conditions

A reviewer may ask why a particular condition was selected.

Examples include:

• Why was this concentration used?
• Why was the pH set to this value?
• Why was the temperature selected?
• Why was a particular reaction time used?
• Why was a specific coating thickness selected?
• Why was a particular electrolyte concentration used?

The response should provide a scientific rationale.

For example:

“The concentration of 100 mg/L was selected based on preliminary experiments, which indicated that concentrations above this value did not produce a significant additional improvement in removal efficiency. This explanation has now been added to Section 2.3.”

If the choice was based on previous literature, the relevant references should be provided.

When the Reviewer Questions Reproducibility

Reproducibility is particularly important for experimental studies.

A reviewer may ask whether measurements were repeated or whether the reported values represent averages.

Authors should clearly state:

• Number of independent experiments
• Number of measurements
• How variability was evaluated
• Whether error bars represent standard deviation, standard error, or another parameter

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. All adsorption experiments were performed in triplicate, and the results are reported as mean ± standard deviation. This information has been added to Section 2.5.”

Authors should only report replicates that were actually performed.

When the Reviewer Questions the Experimental Technique

A reviewer may question whether a particular analytical method is appropriate.

For example, they may ask why:

• XRD was selected for phase identification
• XPS was used for surface chemical-state analysis
• FTIR was used to identify functional groups
• BET was used to evaluate surface properties
• EIS was used to assess corrosion resistance
• TGA was used to investigate thermal stability

The response should explain the relationship between the technique and the scientific question.

For example:

“XPS was employed because the objective was to investigate the elemental composition and chemical states of the material surface. The corresponding methodological explanation has been added to the revised manuscript.”

When Instrument Parameters Are Requested

If the reviewer requests additional instrument information, provide the relevant parameters where appropriate.

Depending on the technique, this may include:

XRD

• Radiation source
• Scan range
• Step size
• Scan rate
• Voltage/current

FTIR

• Spectral range
• Resolution
• Number of scans
• Sample preparation method

SEM

• Accelerating voltage
• Working distance
• Magnification
• Coating conditions

XPS

• X-ray source
• Pass energy
• Calibration reference
• Analysis conditions

EIS

• Frequency range
• AC amplitude
• DC potential
• Equivalent circuit
• Fitting procedure

The exact information should reflect what was actually used during the experiment.

When the Reviewer Questions Data Processing

Methodological comments may concern how raw experimental data were processed.

For example:

• Baseline correction
• Peak fitting
• Equivalent circuit fitting
• Background subtraction
• Normalization
• Calibration
• Statistical treatment
• Kinetic model fitting

The response should explain the procedure clearly and, when appropriate, provide references or validation.

For example:

“The impedance spectra were fitted using the equivalent circuit Rs–(Rfilm‖CPE1)–(Rct‖CPE2). The fitting procedure and the criteria used to evaluate the quality of the fit have now been described in Section 2.6.”

If the reviewer questions the validity of the model, simply repeating the circuit is unlikely to be sufficient. The authors may need to provide additional justification or validation.

When a Control Experiment Is Requested

Control experiments can be important for establishing causality.

If the requested control was performed, provide the results and explain what they demonstrate.

If it was not performed, determine whether it is essential to the central conclusion. If it cannot be added, explain the limitation honestly and consider whether the conclusion should be narrowed.

When the Reviewer Suggests a Different Method

A reviewer may recommend an alternative methodology.

The authors should evaluate whether the suggested method is scientifically appropriate rather than automatically replacing the original method.

If the original method remains appropriate, the response can explain why.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The proposed method is useful for evaluating…, but the objective of the present measurement was specifically to determine…. Therefore, we retained the original method and have added additional justification for its selection.”

Correcting a Genuine Methodological Problem

If the reviewer identifies a real methodological weakness, the strongest response is usually to acknowledge and correct it.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for identifying this issue. We agree that the original description of the calibration procedure was incomplete. We have corrected the methodology and added the relevant calibration information to the revised manuscript.”

If the methodological problem affects previously reported results, authors should carefully reassess the affected data rather than merely changing the description.

Methodological Accuracy Is More Important Than Reviewer Satisfaction

Authors should never change experimental details simply because a reviewer expects a particular procedure if that procedure was not actually used.

For example, authors should not report:

• A different instrument model
• A different temperature
• A different number of replicates
• A different sample preparation method
• A different fitting procedure

simply to make the manuscript appear more rigorous.

The response should always describe what was actually done.

A Recommended Structure

For methodology-related comments, a useful response structure is:

Reviewer Comment:
[Specific methodological concern]

Response:
“We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. [Direct answer and scientific explanation.]”

Changes in the Manuscript:
“We have added/revised [specific methodological information] in Section X, Page X, Lines X–X.”

This structure provides both the scientific answer and a clear indication of where the corresponding information can be found.

Ultimately, a strong response to a methodological comment should demonstrate that the authors understand not only what was done, but also why it was done, how it was validated, and how the methodology supports the reliability of the reported results.

17. How to Respond to Comments About Figures and Tables

Figures and tables are essential components of a scientific manuscript. They allow researchers to present complex experimental results, comparisons, trends, and statistical information in a concise and accessible format. Consequently, reviewers frequently provide comments regarding figure quality, data presentation, labeling, captions, statistical information, or the interpretation of graphical results.

A professional response should address the specific concern and, when necessary, explain how the figure or table has been revised.

Common Reviewer Comments About Figures and Tables

Reviewers may ask authors to:

• Improve figure resolution
• Correct axis labels
• Add missing units
• Improve legends
• Increase font size
• Clarify figure captions
• Add error bars
• Explain statistical significance
• Include additional experimental data
• Reorganize tables
• Correct numerical values
• Provide raw or supporting data
• Improve the comparison between samples
• Explain unexpected trends

These comments should be addressed individually rather than with a general statement that “the figures have been improved.”

Improving Figure Quality

If a reviewer identifies poor image quality, authors should replace the original figure with a higher-resolution version.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for pointing out the insufficient resolution of Figure 3. The figure has been replaced with a higher-resolution version to improve the visibility of the experimental data and labels.”

If the journal specifies minimum resolution requirements, authors should follow those requirements.

Correcting Axis Labels and Units

Missing or incorrect units can make a figure difficult to interpret.

For example, a reviewer may point out that the x-axis lacks units or that a quantity has been incorrectly labeled.

A suitable response might be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The units of the x-axis have now been added, and the corresponding label has been corrected in the revised Figure 4.”

Authors should check all figures for similar problems rather than correcting only the figure specifically mentioned by the reviewer.

Improving Figure Captions

A figure caption should provide enough information for readers to understand what is being shown without repeatedly referring to the main text.

A reviewer may request additional information such as:

• Experimental conditions
• Sample identity
• Measurement technique
• Number of replicates
• Meaning of symbols
• Statistical notation

For example:

“We agree that the original caption did not provide sufficient information. The caption of Figure 5 has been expanded to identify the experimental conditions and clarify the meaning of the symbols and error bars.”

Adding Error Bars

Reviewers may ask authors to include error bars to demonstrate experimental variability.

If replicate measurements were actually performed, authors should report the appropriate statistical measure.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. The experiments were performed in triplicate, and the results are now presented as mean ± standard deviation. The corresponding error bars have been added to Figure 6.”

Authors should clearly state what the error bars represent.

They should never add error bars to data when the necessary replicate measurements were not actually performed.

Statistical Significance in Figures

A reviewer may request statistical comparisons between groups.

If appropriate statistical analysis has been performed, authors should explain the test used and the meaning of the statistical markers.

For example:

“Following the reviewer’s suggestion, statistical significance was evaluated using one-way ANOVA followed by an appropriate post hoc test. The statistical results have been added to Figure 7 and described in Section 2.5.”

The statistical method should be appropriate for the experimental design.

Correcting Numerical Errors

If a reviewer identifies an incorrect value in a figure or table, the authors should verify the original data and correct the value wherever it appears.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for identifying this numerical error. The value has been corrected from 18.4 to 16.8 in Figure 4. We also checked the corresponding value in Table 2 and the Results section and corrected it where necessary.”

This final sentence is important because numerical inconsistencies often occur in multiple locations.

Adding a Missing Figure or Table

Sometimes a reviewer requests additional data presentation.

If the requested information is available, the authors can add a new figure or table.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. To provide a clearer comparison between the investigated samples, we have added the requested data in the new Figure 8 and discussed the observed differences in Section 3.5.”

The new figure should be referenced appropriately throughout the manuscript.

Responding to a Request for Raw Data

Some reviewers may request access to underlying data to verify the reported results.

If the journal permits supplementary data, authors may provide the relevant information as supplementary material or through the journal’s designated data-sharing mechanism.

The response should accurately describe what has been provided.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The underlying numerical data used to generate Figure 5 have been provided in Supplementary Table S2.”

Clarifying Unexpected Trends

A reviewer may question an unusual trend visible in a figure.

For example, a reviewer may ask why one sample shows a substantially higher value than the others.

The response should not simply repeat the observed trend. Instead, the authors should provide a scientifically justified explanation, if one is supported by the data and literature.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The higher value observed for Sample B may be associated with its higher surface area and greater number of accessible active sites. We have expanded the discussion and added relevant references to clarify this interpretation.”

If the available evidence is insufficient to establish the cause, the authors should use appropriately cautious language.

When the Reviewer Interprets the Figure Differently

A reviewer may draw a different conclusion from a graph or spectrum.

In this situation, authors should explain their interpretation using the underlying data and relevant scientific principles.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s interpretation. However, the apparent increase in the signal should not be interpreted as an increase in concentration because the measurements were normalized to…. We have clarified this point in the revised figure caption and Results section.”

Tables Require the Same Level of Attention

Tables should be checked for:

• Consistent units
• Correct decimal places
• Consistent significant figures
• Complete sample names
• Appropriate headings
• Correct statistical notation
• Consistency with figures and text

A reviewer may also request that a large table be simplified or reorganized.

A suitable response could be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Table 3 has been reorganized to improve readability, and redundant information has been removed.”

Check Consistency Across the Manuscript

After revising a figure or table, authors should check all related sections.

For example, if a value changes in Table 2, that value should also be checked in:

• Results
• Discussion
• Abstract
• Conclusions
• Supplementary information
• Related figures

Inconsistencies between figures, tables, and text can create new reviewer concerns.

Do Not Manipulate Figures to Satisfy a Reviewer

Scientific figures should accurately represent the underlying data.

Authors should never:

• Remove inconvenient data without justification
• Alter data points
• Change the scale to create a misleading impression
• Invent error bars
• Modify spectra or images to produce a desired result
• Generate fictional experimental data

Legitimate image processing and data presentation should follow accepted scientific practices and the journal’s requirements.

A Recommended Response Structure

For figure- and table-related comments, a useful response is:

Reviewer Comment:
[Reviewer comment]

Response:
“We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. [Explain the issue and the action taken.]”

Changes in the Manuscript:
“Figure/Table X has been revised accordingly, and the corresponding discussion has been updated in Section X, Page X, Lines X–X.”

A strong response should make it easy for the reviewer to see what was wrong, what was changed, and where the change can be found.

Ultimately, figures and tables should not be treated as merely decorative elements of a manuscript. They are part of the scientific evidence, and their accuracy, clarity, and transparency are essential to effective scientific communication.

18. How to Respond to Comments About Results and Data Interpretation

Comments about the results and their interpretation require particular attention because they often address the central scientific contribution of a manuscript. A reviewer may question whether the reported results are sufficiently supported, ask for additional analysis, challenge an interpretation, identify inconsistencies, or suggest alternative explanations for the observed findings.

A strong response should distinguish clearly between what the data directly show and what the authors infer from those data. This distinction is essential for maintaining scientific accuracy and avoiding overinterpretation.

Distinguish Results From Interpretation

Experimental results are observations obtained from measurements or calculations. Interpretation involves explaining what those observations may mean.

For example:

Observation:

“The charge-transfer resistance increased from 120 to 850 Ω cm².”

Interpretation:

“This increase suggests that the coating provides greater resistance to electrochemical charge transfer.”

The first statement directly describes the data. The second provides a scientific interpretation.

When responding to reviewers, authors should make this distinction explicit.

When a Reviewer Questions Whether the Data Support a Conclusion

A reviewer may state:

“The experimental results do not sufficiently support the authors’ conclusion.”

The authors should carefully evaluate whether the reviewer has identified a genuine weakness.

If the data are sufficient, explain the evidence clearly.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. The conclusion is based on the combined results of EIS, polarization measurements, and surface characterization. The revised manuscript now explicitly discusses how these independent observations collectively support the proposed interpretation.”

If the evidence is not sufficient for a strong conclusion, the appropriate response may instead be to revise the claim.

Avoid Overinterpreting Experimental Data

One of the most common problems in scientific manuscripts is presenting a plausible interpretation as if it were experimentally proven.

For example:

“The FTIR spectrum proves the formation of a chemical bond.”

may be too strong.

A more scientifically appropriate statement might be:

“The FTIR results are consistent with the proposed interaction.”

Similarly:

• “proves” → “supports”
• “confirms” → “suggests” or “is consistent with”
• “causes” → “may contribute to”
• “demonstrates conclusively” → “provides evidence for”

The appropriate terminology depends on the strength and nature of the evidence.

When the Reviewer Proposes an Alternative Explanation

A reviewer may suggest that the observed phenomenon could have another explanation.

For example:

“The increase in adsorption capacity may be caused by the higher surface area rather than the proposed chemical interaction.”

A strong response should consider the alternative explanation objectively.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer for raising this important point. We agree that the increase in surface area may contribute to the enhanced adsorption capacity. However, the FTIR results and the changes in surface chemistry also suggest the involvement of specific interactions. We have therefore revised the discussion to acknowledge the possible contribution of both factors rather than attributing the improvement exclusively to one mechanism.”

This type of response is often more scientifically convincing than simply rejecting the alternative explanation.

Use Multiple Pieces of Evidence

When a conclusion depends on several characterization techniques, explain how the results complement each other.

For example, in a materials science study:

• XRD may provide information about crystalline phases.
• FTIR may provide information about functional groups.
• XPS may provide information about surface chemical states.
• SEM/EDS may provide information about morphology and elemental distribution.
• BET may provide information about surface area and pore characteristics.
• EIS may provide information about electrochemical resistance.

A reviewer may question whether one individual technique is sufficient to support a conclusion. Rather than relying on a single result, authors can explain how multiple independent observations contribute to the interpretation.

When the Reviewer Identifies an Unexpected Result

Unexpected results should not automatically be dismissed as experimental error.

A reviewer may ask why one sample behaves differently from the others.

The authors should consider possible explanations based on the actual data.

For example:

“The lower adsorption capacity observed at the highest adsorbent dosage may be associated with particle aggregation and the resulting reduction in the effective accessible surface area. We have added this possible explanation to the revised discussion and have appropriately qualified the statement.”

If the cause cannot be established experimentally, use cautious language such as:

• “may be attributed to”
• “could be related to”
• “may result from”
• “is possibly associated with”

When Results Conflict With Previous Studies

A reviewer may point out that the current results differ from previously published findings.

This does not necessarily indicate an error.

Differences may arise from variations in:

• Material composition
• Synthesis conditions
• Experimental temperature
• pH
• Concentration
• Measurement technique
• Sample preparation
• Surface properties
• Experimental duration
• Data-processing methods

The response should explain the most plausible differences without forcing the results to agree with previous literature.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for highlighting this difference. The lower value observed in the present study may be related to the different synthesis temperature and surface composition compared with the material investigated in the cited study. We have added this comparison to the revised discussion.”

When the Reviewer Requests Additional Data Analysis

Sometimes the existing data are sufficient, but the reviewer asks for a more rigorous analysis.

Examples include:

• Statistical testing
• Error analysis
• Kinetic modeling
• Isotherm modeling
• Equivalent circuit fitting
• Residual analysis
• Correlation analysis
• Reproducibility assessment
• Sensitivity analysis

If the analysis is appropriate and can be performed using genuine data, it should be added and clearly described.

The response should explain both the method and the resulting conclusion.

Do Not Perform Analysis Merely to Obtain a Desired Result

Additional analysis should be scientifically justified.

Authors should not repeatedly test different models, fitting ranges, statistical methods, or equivalent circuits simply until they obtain the most favorable result.

The selected analytical method should be appropriate for the data and research question.

For example, if an EIS equivalent circuit is changed in response to a reviewer comment, the authors should explain why the new circuit is physically meaningful and statistically or mathematically appropriate—not simply because it produces a better numerical fit.

When the Reviewer Questions Statistical Significance

If a reviewer asks whether a difference between two groups is statistically meaningful, authors should perform an appropriate statistical analysis when the experimental design and available data permit it.

The response should identify:

• Statistical test
• Significance threshold
• Number of independent observations
• Relevant comparison
• Result

For example:

“Following the reviewer’s suggestion, statistical significance was evaluated using one-way ANOVA with a significance level of p < 0.05. The results have been added to the revised manuscript.”

The exact statistical method should match the data and experimental design.

Correct Genuine Data Errors Immediately

If a reviewer identifies a genuine numerical or analytical error, the authors should correct it transparently.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for identifying this error. After rechecking the original dataset, we confirmed that the reported value was incorrect. The value has been corrected throughout the manuscript, including Figure 4, Table 2, and the corresponding discussion.”

Importantly, the authors should check whether the correction affects other calculations or conclusions.

When the Error Changes the Conclusion

If correcting an error changes a major conclusion, the authors should not conceal this.

The revised manuscript should accurately reflect the corrected analysis, and the response should explain the impact.

Scientific integrity requires the authors to report the corrected result even when it is less favorable than the original result.

A Recommended Response Structure

For comments about results and interpretation, a useful structure is:

1. Acknowledge the concern

“We appreciate the reviewer for raising this important point.”

2. State what the data actually show

“The experimental results demonstrate that…”

3. Explain the interpretation

“These observations suggest that…”

4. Address alternative explanations

“We agree that… may also contribute to this behavior.”

5. Describe the revision

“The discussion has been revised accordingly in Section X.”

This approach helps maintain a clear boundary between experimental evidence and scientific interpretation.

Ultimately, the strongest response to a reviewer questioning the results is not simply to defend the original conclusion. It is to demonstrate that the authors have carefully evaluated the data, considered alternative explanations, applied appropriate analysis, and ensured that the final interpretation does not extend beyond what the evidence can genuinely support.

19. How to Respond to Comments About the Novelty and Originality of the Study

Comments about novelty are particularly important because they address one of the fundamental questions editors and reviewers ask: What does this study contribute that was not already known?

A reviewer may argue that the manuscript does not provide sufficient novelty, that similar studies have already been published, or that the differences between the present work and previous research are not clearly explained.

These comments should be taken seriously. Simply stating that the study is “novel” is rarely sufficient. Authors should demonstrate novelty through a clear comparison with the existing literature and explain precisely what is new.

What Does Novelty Mean?

Novelty does not necessarily mean that every aspect of a study has never been investigated before.

A study may provide a meaningful contribution through:

• A new material
• A new composition
• A new synthesis approach
• A new experimental methodology
• A new application
• A new mechanism
• Improved performance under specific conditions
• A new combination of established materials
• A previously unexplored experimental system
• A more comprehensive analysis
• New evidence that challenges an existing interpretation
• Application of an established method to a previously unexplored problem

The important point is that the contribution should be specific and defensible.

When a Reviewer Says the Study Is Not Novel

A reviewer may write:

“The materials and approach used in this study have already been widely reported.”

The authors should not respond simply:

“Our work is novel.”

Instead, identify the specific differences between the present study and previous research.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding the novelty of the work. We agree that related materials have previously been investigated. However, previous studies have primarily focused on X, whereas the present study investigates Y under Z conditions. To clarify this distinction, we have expanded the comparison with previous studies in the Introduction and Discussion.”

This provides a concrete basis for the novelty claim.

Perform a Direct Literature Comparison

A strong way to demonstrate novelty is to compare the present study with closely related publications.

Useful comparison criteria may include:

• Material composition
• Synthesis method
• Experimental conditions
• Target application
• Performance parameters
• Characterization methods
• Mechanistic investigation
• Stability or durability
• Environmental conditions
• Theoretical or computational analysis

For example, a comparison table may be useful:

Previous studies	Present study
Material A	Material A/B composite
Application X	Application Y
Limited characterization	Comprehensive characterization
Short-term evaluation	Long-term evaluation
Mechanism proposed	Mechanism investigated using multiple techniques

Such a comparison can make the contribution much easier to understand.

When the Reviewer Identifies a Very Similar Paper

This situation requires particular care.

If a reviewer points to a publication that appears very similar to the present study, authors should read the paper carefully and determine exactly what overlaps and what differs.

Do not ignore the reference simply because it weakens the novelty argument.

A professional response might be:

“We thank the reviewer for bringing this relevant study to our attention. We have carefully compared the cited work with the present study. Although both studies investigate similar materials, the previous study focused on…, whereas the present work addresses…. These differences have now been explicitly discussed in the revised manuscript.”

If the papers are genuinely very similar, the authors should honestly reconsider how the novelty is presented.

Avoid Claiming “First” Without Strong Evidence

Statements such as:

“This is the first study to…”

are very strong claims.

Unless the authors have conducted a sufficiently comprehensive literature search, such statements can be challenged easily.

More cautious alternatives include:

• “Few studies have investigated…”
• “Limited attention has been given to…”
• “To the best of our knowledge…”
• “The available literature has not extensively addressed…”
• “This study provides a new perspective on…”

Even these statements should be supported by an appropriate literature review.

Novelty Should Not Be Confused With Performance

A higher performance value does not automatically establish scientific novelty.

For example, achieving a higher adsorption capacity, corrosion inhibition efficiency, or battery capacity may be valuable, but the authors should explain why the improvement occurred and what scientific knowledge the study contributes.

A strong novelty statement combines the result with its scientific significance.

For example:

“In addition to achieving improved adsorption performance, this study provides evidence that the enhanced behavior is associated with the combined contribution of surface area and specific surface interactions.”

When the Reviewer Says the Work Is Incremental

Some studies extend existing knowledge rather than introducing a completely new concept.

That does not necessarily make them scientifically unimportant.

The authors can explain the specific incremental contribution.

For example:

“We acknowledge that the individual components of the proposed system have previously been investigated. The contribution of the present study lies in evaluating their combined effect under conditions that have not previously been systematically examined and in providing a comparative analysis of the resulting surface and electrochemical properties.”

The key is to be precise rather than exaggerating the contribution.

Strengthen the Introduction

Novelty concerns are often connected to an insufficiently developed research gap.

The Introduction should clearly establish:

What is already known → What remains unknown → Why that gap matters → What this study does to address it.

For example:

“Although previous studies have demonstrated…, the influence of… under… conditions remains poorly understood. Therefore, the present study investigates…”

A clear research gap makes the contribution easier to evaluate.

Strengthen the Discussion

Novelty should also appear in the Discussion.

Authors should explain how their findings compare with previous studies and what new understanding emerges from the results.

Simply reporting that the present material performs better is usually insufficient.

The Discussion should answer:

What did this study teach us that was not already clear from previous research?

When the Reviewer Is Correct

Sometimes a reviewer may correctly identify that the original novelty claim is too strong.

In that case, it is better to revise the claim rather than defend an exaggerated statement.

For example:

Original:

“This is the first study to investigate…”

Revised:

“This study provides a systematic investigation of…”

A more accurate claim can strengthen the manuscript because it demonstrates scientific objectivity.

Do Not Manufacture Novelty

Authors should never create artificial differences to make a study appear more original.

For example, simply changing:

• The terminology
• The order of experiments
• The presentation format
• The graphical style

does not create scientific novelty.

Similarly, adding unnecessary experiments solely to create the appearance of originality does not solve a fundamental novelty problem.

A Recommended Response Structure

When responding to a novelty-related comment, authors can use the following structure:

1. Acknowledge the concern

“We appreciate the reviewer’s important comment regarding the novelty of the study.”

2. Recognize previous research

“We acknowledge that related materials/approaches have previously been investigated.”

3. Identify the specific research gap

“However, previous studies have primarily focused on…, while…”

4. Explain the contribution

“The present study addresses this gap by…”

5. Revise the manuscript

“We have clarified this distinction in the Introduction and Discussion and added a comparison with the most relevant previous studies.”

Novelty Should Be Demonstrated, Not Asserted

The strongest response to a novelty concern is not a stronger adjective such as “highly novel” or “completely new.”

It is evidence.

A convincing novelty argument shows:

• What previous researchers have done
• What remains unresolved
• What the present study investigates
• How the present work differs
• What new knowledge or evidence it provides

Ultimately, authors should aim to make the reviewer conclude:

“I can clearly see what is new here and why it matters.”

20. How to Respond to Comments About the English Language and Writing Quality

Reviewers frequently comment on the language, grammar, clarity, organization, or overall readability of a scientific manuscript. Such comments may range from a general recommendation to have the manuscript checked by a native English speaker to specific corrections of unclear sentences or terminology.

Language-related comments should not be treated as merely cosmetic. Clear scientific writing is essential because ambiguity in language can affect how experimental methods, results, and conclusions are understood.

When the Reviewer Says the English Needs Improvement

A reviewer may write:

“The manuscript requires extensive English language editing.”

A professional response could be:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised to improve grammar, sentence structure, terminology, clarity, and overall readability.”

If the manuscript was reviewed by a professional editor or scientific language specialist, this can be stated accurately.

Do Not Become Defensive About Language Comments

Even if the authors believe that the English is already acceptable, arguing extensively about the quality of the language is rarely useful.

The purpose of the revision is to make the manuscript as clear as possible.

A constructive response might be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and revised sentences that could be ambiguous or difficult to follow.”

This keeps the response focused on improvement rather than defending the original writing.

When Specific Sentences Are Unclear

If a reviewer identifies a particular sentence, revise it directly.

For example:

Original:

“The results of the samples were increased after treatment.”

This sentence is ambiguous.

A clearer version might be:

“The corrosion resistance of the coated samples increased after surface treatment.”

The revision should specify exactly what changed, rather than simply correcting grammar.

Scientific Meaning Must Be Preserved

Language editing should never change the scientific meaning of the manuscript.

This is particularly important when revising:

• Technical terminology
• Experimental conditions
• Numerical values
• Statistical statements
• Mechanistic explanations
• Cause-and-effect relationships
• Conclusions

For example, changing:

“may contribute to”

into:

“causes”

is not merely a language correction. It changes the scientific strength of the claim.

A good language revision improves expression without changing what the data actually support.

Correct Technical Terminology

A reviewer may point out inappropriate or inconsistent terminology.

Authors should use terminology that is standard within their research field.

For example, in materials science and corrosion research, terms such as:

• charge-transfer resistance
• corrosion potential
• corrosion current density
• passive film
• surface roughness
• crystallite size
• grain boundary
• adsorption capacity

should be used consistently and accurately.

The same concept should generally not be described using several different terms unless there is a scientific reason to distinguish them.

Maintain Consistent Abbreviations

Authors should define an abbreviation when it first appears and use it consistently afterward.

For example:

“Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) was performed…”

After that, the manuscript can use EIS rather than repeatedly writing the full term.

Reviewers may also identify cases where an abbreviation is used before being defined.

Improve Sentence Structure

Scientific writing often becomes difficult to read when sentences contain too many clauses or ideas.

For example:

“The coating showed improved corrosion resistance because the nanoparticles were dispersed in the polymer and they reduced the penetration of corrosive species and therefore the electrochemical reaction was inhibited which resulted in higher resistance.”

This could be divided into clearer statements:

“The coating exhibited improved corrosion resistance. The incorporation of nanoparticles enhanced the barrier properties of the polymer and reduced the penetration of corrosive species. Consequently, the electrochemical reactions at the metal/electrolyte interface were inhibited.”

The scientific meaning remains the same, but the logical relationships are much clearer.

Avoid Excessive Paraphrasing

Improving English does not mean replacing every sentence with completely different wording.

Excessive rewriting can unintentionally change:

• Scientific meaning
• Logical relationships
• Degree of certainty
• Technical terminology

A good revision should preserve the author’s intended meaning while improving clarity and naturalness.

When the Reviewer Requests Native-Speaker Editing

A reviewer may recommend that the manuscript be checked by a native English speaker.

Authors do not necessarily need to mention the identity of the editor unless required by the journal.

A suitable response is:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The manuscript has been thoroughly edited to improve English grammar, academic style, clarity, and readability.”

If professional language editing was actually performed, the response can state this accurately.

Authors should never claim that a native speaker or professional editing service reviewed the manuscript if that did not happen.

When Language Problems Affect Scientific Interpretation

Sometimes a language problem can create a genuine scientific ambiguity.

For example:

“The inhibitor increased the corrosion rate.”

may actually have been intended to say:

“The inhibitor reduced the corrosion rate.”

This is not a simple grammar issue. It changes the scientific conclusion.

Such errors should be corrected carefully, and the authors should verify all related statements throughout the manuscript.

Check the Entire Manuscript

If a reviewer identifies several language problems, authors should not correct only those individual sentences.

A comprehensive revision should check:

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Materials and Methods
• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusions
• Figure captions
• Table captions
• Supplementary information
• Cover letter
• Response letter

Consistency is especially important for terminology and abbreviations.

Language Editing and AI Humanization Are Not the Same

Grammar correction and AI humanization should also be distinguished.

Language editing primarily focuses on:

• Grammar
• Spelling
• Punctuation
• Syntax
• Clarity
• Academic style

Humanization may additionally address:

• Repetitive sentence patterns
• Unnatural phrasing
• Formulaic expressions
• Excessive structural uniformity
• Generic AI-like wording
• Lack of natural variation in sentence construction

However, both processes should preserve the original scientific meaning.

A Recommended Response Structure

For a general language-related comment, authors can use:

“We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised to improve grammar, sentence structure, terminology, clarity, and overall readability. Particular attention was given to technically important sections to ensure that the scientific meaning and interpretation of the results were preserved.”

For a specific language correction:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The sentence has been revised to improve clarity and eliminate ambiguity. The corresponding change can be found in Section X, Page X, Lines X–X.”

The Goal Is Clear Scientific Communication

The purpose of language revision is not to make the manuscript sound unnecessarily complicated or sophisticated. Scientific writing should be clear, precise, concise, and easy to understand for researchers in the relevant field.

A successful language revision allows readers to understand the methods, results, interpretation, and conclusions without being distracted by grammatical problems or unnatural wording.

Ultimately, the best response to a language-related reviewer comment is to demonstrate that the authors have taken the concern seriously and have improved the manuscript while preserving the accuracy and integrity of the scientific content.

21. How to Respond to Comments About Manuscript Organization and Structure

Reviewers may sometimes agree that the scientific content of a manuscript is valuable but suggest that its organization, structure, or logical flow needs improvement. Such comments may concern the order of sections, repetition, transitions between paragraphs, placement of figures and tables, or the relationship between the Introduction, Results and Discussion, and Conclusions.

Although these comments may appear less important than technical criticisms, manuscript organization can strongly influence how easily readers understand the scientific argument.

Common Organization-Related Reviewer Comments

A reviewer may suggest that:

• The Introduction is too long.
• The research gap is unclear.
• The Results and Discussion should be reorganized.
• Several paragraphs are repetitive.
• Some information belongs in the Materials and Methods section.
• The Discussion lacks a logical sequence.
• Figures or tables should be moved.
• The Conclusions repeat the Results.
• Sections should be combined or divided.
• The manuscript lacks clear transitions between topics.

Each comment should be addressed according to the specific problem identified.

When the Introduction Is Too Long

A long Introduction is not necessarily a problem, but excessive background information can obscure the research gap.

If a reviewer requests shortening, authors can remove:

• Repetitive background information
• General information that is widely established
• Literature that is not directly relevant
• Repeated descriptions of the same research problem

A response might state:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The Introduction has been revised and shortened by removing repetitive background information and retaining the literature most directly relevant to the research gap and objectives of the present study.”

Make the Research Gap Clear

The Introduction should lead logically toward the purpose of the study.

A useful structure is:

Existing knowledge → Current limitation → Research gap → Objective of the present study

For example:

“Although several studies have investigated X, limited attention has been given to Y under Z conditions. Therefore, the present study aims to…”

If a reviewer says the novelty or motivation is unclear, restructuring the Introduction may be more effective than simply adding more references.

When the Results and Discussion Need Reorganization

A reviewer may feel that the Results and Discussion jump between topics.

A logical sequence might be:

1. Material synthesis or preparation
2. Structural characterization
3. Morphological characterization
4. Surface or chemical characterization
5. Functional properties
6. Performance evaluation
7. Mechanistic interpretation

The exact order depends on the research field and experimental design.

A response could state:

“We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. The Results and Discussion section has been reorganized to follow a more logical progression from material characterization to performance evaluation and mechanistic interpretation.”

Avoid Repeating the Same Information

Repetition is common when authors describe the same result in:

• A figure
• A table
• The Results section
• The Discussion
• The Conclusion

The same information does not need to be repeated extensively in each location.

For example, the Results section can describe the observation, while the Discussion explains its significance.

Separate Observation From Explanation

A well-organized Results and Discussion section should make it clear when the authors are reporting an observation and when they are interpreting it.

For example:

Observation:

“The particle size decreased from approximately 80 to 45 nm after treatment.”

Interpretation:

“This reduction may be associated with the inhibition of particle growth during the treatment process.”

Keeping these functions distinct can make the scientific argument easier to follow.

Improve Transitions Between Sections

A reviewer may identify abrupt transitions between topics.

For example, moving directly from SEM results to adsorption kinetics without explaining the connection can make the discussion feel fragmented.

A transition can establish the logical relationship:

“The morphological characteristics discussed above provide a basis for understanding the adsorption behavior. Therefore, the adsorption performance of the synthesized material was subsequently evaluated.”

Such transitions should be meaningful rather than added merely to make the text longer.

When the Reviewer Requests Moving Information

Sometimes information appears in the wrong section.

For example, experimental details may have been included in the Results section, while interpretation may have appeared in Materials and Methods.

If the reviewer requests relocation, the authors can respond:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The experimental details have been moved from the Results section to Section 2.3 to improve the organization of the methodology.”

The authors should then verify that the information has not been accidentally duplicated.

Reorganizing Figures and Tables

Figures and tables should generally appear in a logical sequence and should be introduced in the text before or around their placement according to the journal’s formatting requirements.

If a reviewer suggests reorganization:

“We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Figures 4 and 5 have been reordered to follow the sequence of the corresponding experimental discussion, and the text has been revised accordingly.”

After making the change, check every figure and table citation in the manuscript.

When the Conclusion Is Too Long

The Conclusion should summarize the main findings and contribution without reproducing the entire Discussion.

A concise conclusion usually addresses:

• What was investigated
• What the major findings were
• What the findings mean
• What the main contribution is
• Relevant limitations or future directions, when appropriate

If a reviewer considers the Conclusion repetitive:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. The Conclusion has been revised to remove repetitive descriptions of the experimental results and to focus on the principal findings and scientific implications.”

Do Not Add Structure Without Purpose

Adding more headings does not automatically improve organization.

A manuscript can become harder to read if it contains too many small sections.

The structure should reflect the scientific logic of the work rather than simply dividing the text into many subsections.

Check the Logical Flow After Major Revisions

A common problem during revision is that authors make many individual changes in response to reviewers, but the manuscript gradually becomes fragmented.

After completing the revision, authors should read the manuscript from beginning to end and ask:

• Does the Introduction lead naturally to the research objective?
• Does each Results section build on the previous one?
• Are figures and tables introduced logically?
• Does the Discussion explain the observed results?
• Are conclusions supported by the preceding evidence?
• Are there repeated arguments?
• Are transitions between topics clear?

This final check is particularly important when several reviewers have requested changes independently.

A Recommended Response Structure

For an organization-related comment:

“We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We agree that the organization of the manuscript could be improved. Accordingly, we have reorganized the relevant sections to provide a clearer progression from [topic] to [topic]. Redundant information has also been removed, and the corresponding figure/table references have been updated.”

This response demonstrates that the authors have addressed the structural issue rather than merely making isolated edits.

Good Organization Strengthens the Scientific Argument

A well-organized manuscript allows readers to follow the scientific reasoning without unnecessary effort.

The goal is not simply to make the manuscript look tidy. The structure should help answer a sequence of scientific questions:

What is the problem?

What is already known?

What did the authors do?

What did they observe?

What do the observations mean?

What is the scientific contribution?

A reviewer comment about organization should therefore be viewed as an opportunity to make the manuscript’s scientific argument clearer, more logical, and more persuasive.

22. How to Respond to Comments About the Abstract

The abstract is often the first part of a manuscript that editors, reviewers, and readers examine. It should provide a concise and accurate overview of the research problem, methodology, major findings, and scientific significance.

Reviewers may therefore request revisions to the abstract when it is too general, contains unsupported claims, omits important results, includes excessive methodological detail, or does not accurately reflect the revised manuscript.

Common Reviewer Comments About the Abstract

A reviewer may ask the authors to:

• Clarify the research objective
• Explain the novelty more clearly
• Include important quantitative results
• Reduce unnecessary background information
• Improve the description of the methodology
• Avoid unsupported claims
• Correct numerical values
• Reduce excessive length
• Ensure consistency with the main manuscript
• Clarify the practical or scientific significance

These comments should be addressed carefully because the abstract must remain consistent with the complete paper.

Make the Research Objective Clear

The abstract should quickly communicate what problem the study addresses.

Instead of providing several sentences of general background, authors should move efficiently toward the research objective.

For example:

“In this study, a g-C₃N₅/CuFe₂O₄ nanocomposite was synthesized and evaluated for the removal of tetracycline from aqueous solution.”

This is clearer and more informative than a lengthy general statement about environmental pollution.

Include the Most Important Methodological Information

The abstract does not need to reproduce the Materials and Methods section.

However, it should normally provide enough information for readers to understand the general approach.

Depending on the study, this may include:

• Material or system investigated
• Main synthesis or preparation approach
• Principal characterization techniques
• Main experimental evaluation
• Modeling or statistical approach, when relevant

The goal is to provide context without overwhelming the reader with experimental details.

Include Quantitative Results When Appropriate

One of the most common weaknesses in scientific abstracts is describing results using vague language.

For example:

“The material exhibited excellent adsorption performance.”

This provides little useful information.

A stronger version may include a relevant quantitative result:

“The optimized adsorbent achieved a tetracycline removal efficiency of XX% under the optimized conditions.”

The numerical value should always match the final verified dataset.

Authors should avoid adding numbers to the abstract simply to make it appear more scientific. Every reported value must be accurate and consistent with the manuscript.

Avoid Unsupported Superlatives

Words such as:

• excellent
• outstanding
• remarkable
• superior
• highly efficient
• unprecedented

should be used carefully.

A reviewer may challenge such claims if they are not supported by quantitative comparison.

Instead of:

“The material demonstrated outstanding performance.”

consider:

“The material demonstrated a higher removal efficiency than the reference material under the investigated conditions.”

The second statement is more specific and scientifically verifiable.

Explain the Novelty Clearly

The abstract should communicate what makes the study meaningful.

For example:

“Unlike previous studies that evaluated the individual components separately, the present work investigates their combined effect and examines the relationship between surface characteristics and adsorption performance.”

The novelty statement should correspond to the actual contribution demonstrated in the manuscript.

Ensure Consistency With the Revised Manuscript

This is particularly important after responding to reviewers.

If the authors revise:

• Experimental conditions
• Numerical results
• Statistical analysis
• Interpretation
• Mechanism
• Main conclusions

the abstract should be checked again.

For example, if the revised manuscript changes an adsorption capacity from one value to another, the abstract must also be updated.

Inconsistency between the abstract and main text can create new reviewer concerns.

Do Not Introduce New Information

The abstract should generally summarize information presented in the manuscript.

Authors should avoid introducing:

• New experimental results
• New mechanisms
• New references
• New conclusions

that are not supported or discussed in the main paper.

When the Reviewer Says the Abstract Is Too Long

A concise response could be:

“We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The abstract has been shortened by removing general background information and redundant methodological details while retaining the research objective, principal findings, and main scientific contribution.”

The authors should then verify the journal’s word limit.

When the Reviewer Requests More Results

If the reviewer wants the abstract to include additional results, select only the findings that are central to the study.

For example:

“Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the abstract has been revised to include the key quantitative results obtained from the adsorption experiments and the corresponding kinetic analysis.”

Avoid turning the abstract into a miniature Results section.

When the Reviewer Says the Conclusion Is Too Strong

This is particularly important.

If the reviewer believes that the abstract overstates the findings, the authors should reconsider the wording.

For example:

Original:

“These results confirm the complete mechanism of adsorption.”

Revised:

“These results support the proposed adsorption mechanism.”

This change may appear small, but it can substantially improve the scientific accuracy of the abstract.

A Recommended Abstract Structure

Although requirements vary between journals, a useful scientific abstract often follows this general sequence:

Background/problem → Objective → Method → Key results → Conclusion/significance

For example:

“The removal of pharmaceutical contaminants from water remains a significant challenge. This study investigates the use of X for the removal of Y. The material was synthesized using Z and characterized using A, B, and C. Under optimized conditions, the material achieved… The results indicate that… These findings demonstrate the potential of X for…”

The exact structure should always follow the target journal’s guidelines.

A Recommended Response to an Abstract Comment

A general response might be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s helpful suggestion. The abstract has been thoroughly revised to provide a clearer statement of the research objective, highlight the main quantitative findings, clarify the scientific contribution, and ensure consistency with the revised manuscript. Unsupported or overly strong statements have also been removed.”

The Abstract Should Represent the Final Manuscript

The abstract should be the final concise version of the scientific story, not simply a shortened copy of the original abstract.

After all reviewer comments have been addressed, authors should perform a final comparison between the abstract and the complete manuscript to ensure that:

• The objective is consistent
• The reported methods are accurate
• Numerical results are correct
• The interpretation is appropriately cautious
• The novelty claim is defensible
• The conclusion reflects the final evidence

A strong abstract gives the editor and reviewer confidence that the revised manuscript has a clear scientific message and that the major conclusions are supported by the reported results.

23. How to Respond to Comments About the Introduction and Literature Review

The Introduction establishes the scientific context of a manuscript and explains why the research was necessary. It should demonstrate sufficient knowledge of previous work while leading logically toward the specific research gap addressed by the study.

Reviewers may therefore ask authors to expand the literature review, remove irrelevant information, include recent studies, clarify the research gap, or better explain the motivation and objectives of the work.

Common Reviewer Comments About the Introduction

A reviewer may state that:

• The Introduction is too short.
• The Introduction is too long.
• Important references are missing.
• The literature review is outdated.
• The research gap is unclear.
• The novelty is not sufficiently explained.
• The motivation for the study is weak.
• The objectives are unclear.
• The Introduction contains excessive general information.
• Recent studies should be discussed.

Each of these comments requires a slightly different response.

When the Reviewer Requests More Literature

If important literature is missing, authors should identify studies that directly relate to the research question.

A suitable response might be:

“We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. The Introduction has been expanded to include recent studies concerning [specific topic]. These studies provide a more comprehensive overview of the current state of the field and help clarify the research gap addressed in the present work.”

The added references should be relevant rather than included merely to increase the reference count.

Include Recent Research

A literature review should generally reflect the current state of the field, particularly when the research area is rapidly developing.

Authors should consider recent publications addressing:

• The same material
• Similar experimental systems
• Comparable applications
• Related mechanisms
• Competing technologies
• Recent methodological developments

However, recent references should complement rather than replace important foundational studies.

When the Reviewer Says the Literature Review Is Outdated

A response could state:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. The literature review has been updated by incorporating recent studies published in the field, particularly those addressing [topic]. This revision provides a more current overview of the research landscape.”

Authors should also check whether the newly added literature changes their interpretation of the research gap.

Clearly Establish the Research Gap

One of the most important functions of the Introduction is to explain what remains unresolved.

A weak structure may simply list previous studies:

“Several researchers have investigated X. Other studies have investigated Y. Many studies have investigated Z.”

The reader may still ask:

So what is missing?

A stronger structure identifies the limitation:

“Although X has been extensively investigated, the relationship between X and Y under Z conditions remains insufficiently understood.”

This naturally leads to the objective of the present study.

Avoid an Excessively General Introduction

Reviewers sometimes criticize authors for spending too much space explaining basic information that is already well established.

For example, an article about a specific nanocomposite does not necessarily require several paragraphs explaining the general history of nanotechnology.

General background should be included only when it helps establish the relevance of the research problem.

Connect the Literature to the Present Study

A literature review should not be a simple collection of citations.

The authors should explain what previous studies demonstrate and how those findings relate to the current work.

For example:

“Previous studies have demonstrated the potential of CuFe₂O₄-based materials for pollutant removal. However, most investigations have focused on… The influence of combining CuFe₂O₄ with g-C₃N₅ on… remains less explored.”

This creates a logical connection between previous research and the present study.

When a Reviewer Says the Research Motivation Is Unclear

The motivation should explain why the research problem is worth investigating.

A useful sequence is:

Problem → limitation of existing approaches → potential solution → remaining challenge → objective

For example:

“Conventional adsorbents often suffer from limited regeneration or separation efficiency. Magnetic composites may overcome the separation problem; however, their adsorption performance depends strongly on surface chemistry and accessible active sites. Therefore, the present study investigates…”

The exact reasoning should reflect the actual research.

Clearly State the Objectives

The final part of the Introduction should normally tell the reader what the study actually does.

For example:

“Accordingly, this study aims to synthesize X, characterize its structural and surface properties, evaluate its performance toward Y, and investigate the underlying mechanism.”

The objectives should correspond directly to the experiments and results presented later.

When the Reviewer Questions the Research Gap

If a reviewer says:

“The research gap is not clearly established.”

do not simply add the phrase “there is a research gap.”

Instead, explicitly explain:

1. What has already been investigated.
2. What remains unknown.
3. Why that unresolved issue matters.
4. How the present study addresses it.

A suitable response might be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We agree that the research gap was not sufficiently explicit in the original manuscript. We have therefore revised the final paragraphs of the Introduction to clearly distinguish established knowledge from the unresolved issue addressed in this study and to explain how the present work addresses this limitation.”

When the Reviewer Requests a Specific Reference

If the suggested paper is directly relevant, incorporate it at the appropriate point.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for suggesting this relevant study. The reference has been incorporated into the Introduction, where it is discussed in relation to previous approaches for…”

If the paper is not relevant enough to support the argument, explain this respectfully rather than citing it artificially.

Avoid Citation Dumping

A paragraph containing a long sequence of references does not necessarily constitute a good literature review.

For example:

“Several studies have investigated X [1–15].”

is less informative than explaining what those studies collectively demonstrate.

A better approach is:

“Previous studies have demonstrated that X can improve…, primarily because…. However, these investigations have largely focused on…, leaving the effect of Y insufficiently understood [1–5].”

The citations should support specific scientific statements.

Avoid Misrepresenting Previous Studies

Authors should read the cited literature carefully.

A paper should not be cited as evidence for a claim that it does not actually support.

This is particularly important when responding to reviewers because inaccurate citations can create additional criticism.

Strengthen the Final Paragraph

The final paragraph of the Introduction should usually connect the research gap to the study objective.

A useful pattern is:

“Despite these advances, [specific limitation] remains unresolved. To address this issue, the present study investigates [specific objective]. Particular attention is given to [key variables/mechanism/performance].”

This creates a clear transition into the Materials and Methods section.

When the Reviewer Says the Introduction Is Repetitive

Remove statements that repeat:

• The same research problem
• The same advantage of a material
• The same research gap
• The same novelty claim

A concise Introduction is generally more persuasive than one that repeatedly emphasizes the same point.

A response might state:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Repetitive background information has been removed, and the Introduction has been reorganized to provide a more concise progression from the research background to the identified gap and study objectives.”

A Recommended Response Structure

For most Introduction-related comments:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We have revised the Introduction to [specific action]. In particular, [describe the new literature/research gap/motivation/objective]. These changes are presented in Section 1, Page X, Lines X–X.”

This gives the reviewer a direct answer and makes the revision easy to verify.

The Introduction Should Answer Three Fundamental Questions

By the end of the Introduction, the reader should understand:

What is already known?

What is still unknown?

What does this study contribute to addressing that gap?

If these three questions are clearly answered, the Introduction provides a strong foundation for the rest of the manuscript.

A well-written Introduction does more than provide background information. It creates the scientific rationale for the study and allows the reader to understand why the research was necessary before encountering the experimental methods and results.

24. How to Respond to Comments About the Materials and Methods Section

The Materials and Methods section is critical for evaluating the reliability and reproducibility of a scientific study. Reviewers need sufficient information to understand exactly how the experiments were performed, how the data were obtained, and how the resulting measurements were analyzed.

A reviewer may therefore ask for missing experimental details, question the appropriateness of a method, request clarification of experimental conditions, or recommend additional controls or validation.

Common Reviewer Comments About Materials and Methods

Reviewers may ask authors to clarify:

• Materials and their purity
• Suppliers and product information
• Sample preparation
• Synthesis conditions
• Experimental concentrations
• Temperature and pressure
• Reaction time
• pH
• Equipment and instrument models
• Measurement parameters
• Calibration procedures
• Number of replicates
• Control experiments
• Data-processing procedures
• Statistical methods
• Software used for analysis
• Fitting or modeling procedures

These details should be addressed accurately and transparently.

Provide Sufficient Experimental Detail

A reader should be able to understand how the experiment was conducted without needing to contact the authors for basic methodological information.

For example, instead of:

“The samples were synthesized using a hydrothermal method.”

a more informative description might specify:

“The precursor solution was transferred to a Teflon-lined autoclave and maintained at 180 °C for 12 h before cooling naturally to room temperature.”

The exact details should, of course, reflect what was actually performed.

Do Not Invent Missing Experimental Details

This is particularly important when responding to reviewers.

If the original manuscript omitted a parameter, authors should first consult their laboratory records, instrument files, notebooks, or raw data.

They should not estimate or invent:

• Temperature
• Reaction time
• Concentration
• Number of replicates
• Instrument settings
• Sample mass
• Scan rate
• Measurement conditions

A scientifically plausible value is still incorrect if it was not actually used.

Materials and Chemical Information

When appropriate, provide relevant information about the materials used.

Depending on the study, this may include:

• Chemical name
• Purity
• Supplier
• Product number
• Solvent
• Grade
• Preparation procedure

For example:

“Ferric chloride hexahydrate (analytical grade) was obtained from [supplier] and used without further purification.”

The level of detail should follow the target journal’s requirements.

Clarify Sample Preparation

Sample preparation can strongly affect experimental results.

Reviewers may ask about:

• Washing
• Drying
• Grinding
• Calcination
• Filtration
• Centrifugation
• Sonication
• Heat treatment
• Storage conditions

If these details were omitted, they should be added to the revised manuscript.

Explain Experimental Conditions

Conditions such as temperature, pH, concentration, time, and atmosphere can significantly influence experimental outcomes.

A reviewer may therefore ask why a particular condition was selected.

The response should provide a scientific justification when available.

For example:

“The reaction temperature of 80 °C was selected based on preliminary experiments showing that lower temperatures resulted in incomplete conversion, whereas higher temperatures did not provide a significant improvement.”

Only provide such an explanation if it is supported by actual experimental work.

Instrumentation and Measurement Parameters

For characterization techniques, reviewers may request specific instrument details.

Depending on the technique, relevant information may include:

XRD

• Radiation source
• Voltage/current
• Scan range
• Step size
• Scan rate

FTIR

• Spectral range
• Resolution
• Number of scans
• Measurement mode

SEM/FE-SEM

• Accelerating voltage
• Working distance
• Sample preparation

XPS

• X-ray source
• Pass energy
• Charge correction
• Calibration reference

EIS

• Frequency range
• AC amplitude
• DC bias
• Electrolyte
• Equivalent circuit
• Fitting software

TGA

• Heating rate
• Temperature range
• Atmosphere
• Sample mass

Only include parameters that correspond to the actual experiment.

Explain Data Processing

A reviewer may ask how raw measurements were converted into the reported results.

For example, an adsorption study may require explanation of how:

• Removal efficiency was calculated
• Adsorption capacity was calculated
• Calibration curves were generated
• Kinetic models were fitted
• Isotherm parameters were obtained

Similarly, an EIS study may need to explain:

• Equivalent circuit selection
• Fitting procedure
• Quality of fit
• Statistical or physical justification

The methodology should be sufficiently clear for another researcher to understand the analysis.

Number of Replicates

The number of independent experiments should be clearly stated when relevant.

For example:

“All experiments were performed independently in triplicate, and the results are reported as mean ± standard deviation.”

However, authors should never claim triplicate experiments if only one experiment was actually performed.

Statistical Analysis

If statistical analysis is used, the Methods section should identify:

• Statistical software
• Statistical test
• Significance level
• Number of independent observations
• Relevant comparison

For example:

“Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant.”

The method should be appropriate for the experimental design.

When the Reviewer Questions the Choice of Method

A reviewer may ask why a particular analytical or experimental method was selected.

The response should connect the method to the research objective.

For example:

“EIS was selected because it enables evaluation of the electrochemical response of the coating over a broad frequency range and provides information regarding interfacial resistance and capacitive behavior.”

If the method has recognized limitations, these should also be acknowledged where appropriate.

When an Alternative Method Is Suggested

A reviewer may recommend another experimental technique.

Authors should evaluate whether the suggested method is necessary.

If the method was not available or is outside the scope of the study, the response should explain this honestly.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We agree that technique X could provide additional information regarding…. However, this analysis was beyond the scope of the present study. We have therefore clarified this limitation in the revised manuscript and avoided making conclusions that would require direct confirmation by this technique.”

When Additional Experiments Are Requested

Additional experiments should be considered carefully.

Ask:

• Is the requested experiment essential to the main conclusion?
• Can it realistically be performed?
• Is the necessary sample still available?
• Does the journal allow substantial additional experimentation during revision?
• Would the experiment materially strengthen the manuscript?

If the experiment is performed, report the new results transparently.

If it cannot be performed, provide a scientifically reasonable explanation rather than pretending that the existing data answer the question.

When a Methodological Limitation Exists

Acknowledging a limitation can actually strengthen a response.

For example:

“We agree that the absence of long-term stability measurements limits the extent to which the durability of the coating can be evaluated. We have therefore added this limitation to the revised manuscript and have moderated the corresponding conclusion.”

This is preferable to making an unsupported claim about long-term performance.

A Recommended Response Structure

For a methodology-related reviewer comment, authors can use:

Response:
“We thank the reviewer for this important comment. The experimental procedure has been clarified by adding information regarding [specific parameter]. The reason for selecting [condition/method] has also been explained based on [scientific justification].”

Then specify:

“The corresponding changes have been made in Section X, Page X, Lines X–X.”

The Methods Section Should Support Reproducibility

The ultimate purpose of the Materials and Methods section is not simply to satisfy reviewers. It is to allow other researchers to understand and reproduce the work.

A strong Methods section therefore answers:

What materials were used?

How were the samples prepared?

Under what conditions were the experiments performed?

How were the measurements obtained?

How were the data processed and analyzed?

How was experimental reliability assessed?

When authors respond to methodological reviewer comments with this principle in mind, the resulting manuscript becomes more transparent, reproducible, and scientifically credible.

25. How to Respond to Comments About Statistical Analysis and Experimental Reproducibility

Statistical analysis and experimental reproducibility are essential for determining whether reported differences are reliable and whether the conclusions are supported by sufficient evidence. Reviewers may question the number of replicates, statistical tests, error bars, significance levels, or the way variability has been reported.

These comments should be addressed carefully because inappropriate statistical treatment can lead to misleading conclusions even when the underlying experimental data are valid.

Why Statistical Analysis Matters

Experimental measurements naturally contain variability. Differences between samples may result from genuine scientific effects, experimental variation, measurement uncertainty, or random error.

Statistical analysis helps determine whether an observed difference is sufficiently supported by the available data.

For example, if two samples show removal efficiencies of 82% and 85%, the difference may or may not be statistically meaningful depending on the variability and number of independent measurements.

Therefore, reporting only the average value is often insufficient.

Clearly Report the Number of Replicates

A reviewer may ask:

“How many independent experiments were performed?”

The response should provide the actual number.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. Each experiment was performed independently in triplicate, and the results are presented as mean ± standard deviation. This information has now been added to Section 2.5.”

If only duplicate measurements were performed, report duplicates. Do not change the number simply because triplicate measurements are more commonly expected.

Distinguish Technical and Biological/Experimental Replicates

Where relevant, authors should distinguish between repeated measurements of the same sample and genuinely independent experiments.

For example, measuring the same prepared sample three times is not necessarily equivalent to preparing three independent samples.

This distinction can be particularly important in:

• Biological studies
• Materials synthesis
• Adsorption experiments
• Electrochemical measurements
• Cell-based experiments

The manuscript should describe the experimental design accurately.

Explain What Error Bars Represent

Error bars should always be defined.

They may represent:

• Standard deviation
• Standard error
• Confidence interval
• Measurement uncertainty
• Another statistical quantity

For example:

“The error bars represent the standard deviation of three independent measurements.”

A reviewer should not have to guess what an error bar means.

Select an Appropriate Statistical Test

Different experimental designs require different statistical approaches.

Depending on the study, reviewers may expect methods such as:

• t-test
• One-way ANOVA
• Two-way ANOVA
• Post hoc comparisons
• Regression analysis
• Nonparametric tests
• Correlation analysis

The statistical method should be selected based on the experimental design and data characteristics, rather than chosen simply because it produces a desirable p-value.

Statistical Significance Does Not Automatically Mean Scientific Importance

A statistically significant difference is not necessarily a practically important difference.

For example, a very small difference may become statistically significant when a large number of observations are available.

Conversely, a scientifically meaningful difference may fail to reach statistical significance when the sample size is small.

Authors should therefore distinguish between:

Statistical significance

and

Scientific or practical significance.

A strong Discussion considers both.

When a Reviewer Requests Statistical Testing

A suitable response might be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Statistical analysis has now been performed to evaluate the differences among the investigated groups. One-way ANOVA followed by an appropriate post hoc test was used, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. The corresponding results have been added to Figure 6 and described in Section 3.4.”

The exact statistical procedure should correspond to the actual analysis performed.

When the Data Do Not Support Statistical Analysis

Not every dataset can be subjected to every statistical test.

If the experimental design does not provide sufficient independent observations, authors should not manufacture replicates or apply an inappropriate test.

A scientifically responsible response may be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. However, the available measurements do not provide sufficient independent observations for the proposed statistical analysis. We have therefore avoided applying an inappropriate statistical test and have revised the manuscript to report the experimental limitation more explicitly.”

If additional experiments can reasonably be performed, collecting appropriate independent data may be preferable.

When the Reviewer Questions Reproducibility

Reproducibility involves more than simply reporting an average value.

Authors should provide sufficient information regarding:

• Sample preparation
• Experimental conditions
• Number of independent experiments
• Instrumentation
• Data processing
• Statistical analysis

For example:

“To improve reproducibility, we have expanded the Methods section to provide additional information regarding sample preparation, experimental conditions, measurement parameters, and data analysis.”

When Results Show High Variability

A reviewer may ask why the error bars are relatively large.

Authors should investigate the possible source of variability rather than simply removing the error bars.

Possible causes may include:

• Sample heterogeneity
• Variation in synthesis
• Measurement uncertainty
• Surface heterogeneity
• Experimental conditions
• Instrumental limitations

If the cause is known, explain it. If it is uncertain, do not present speculation as established fact.

For example:

“The relatively large variation may be associated with differences among independently prepared samples. We have clarified this point and reported the individual experimental variability more transparently.”

Do Not Remove Outliers Without Justification

An unusual data point should not automatically be deleted because it negatively affects the average or statistical significance.

If an outlier is excluded, there should be a scientifically defensible reason, such as:

• Demonstrated instrument malfunction
• Documented experimental failure
• Clearly defined exclusion criterion established before analysis

The exclusion procedure should be transparent.

Avoid P-Hacking

Authors should not repeatedly change:

• Statistical tests
• Data subsets
• Exclusion criteria
• Significance thresholds
• Replicate selection

until a statistically significant result is obtained.

Such practices can produce misleading conclusions.

The analysis should be determined by the research question and experimental design.

When the Reviewer Requests Confidence Intervals

Confidence intervals can provide additional information about the uncertainty surrounding an estimated parameter.

If appropriate, authors can report them alongside or instead of other measures of variability.

For example:

“Following the reviewer’s suggestion, 95% confidence intervals have been added to the reported estimates.”

Again, the calculation should be based on the actual independent observations.

Regression and Correlation Analysis

Reviewers may question whether an apparent relationship between two variables is statistically supported.

For example, an author may claim that increasing surface area causes an increase in adsorption capacity simply because both variables increase together.

Correlation analysis can help evaluate the relationship, but correlation alone does not establish causation.

A scientifically cautious statement might be:

“A positive correlation was observed between surface area and adsorption capacity.”

rather than:

“The increase in surface area caused the increase in adsorption capacity.”

unless additional evidence supports a causal interpretation.

Reproducibility of Characterization Results

For characterization techniques such as XRD, FTIR, Raman, XPS, SEM, or EIS, reproducibility may involve repeated measurements or independent sample preparation.

If a reviewer asks whether the reported spectrum or micrograph is representative, authors should explain how representative data were selected.

For example:

“The presented spectrum is representative of three independently prepared samples, which showed consistent characteristic features.”

Only make this statement if such measurements were actually performed.

A Recommended Response Structure

A strong response to a statistical or reproducibility comment can follow this structure:

Response:
“We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have clarified the experimental replication and statistical analysis used in the study. Specifically, [number] independent experiments were performed, and the results are reported as [statistical measure]. The statistical significance was evaluated using [test], with [threshold] considered significant.”

Then indicate:

“The corresponding information has been added to Section X, Page X, Lines X–X, and the relevant figures/tables have been revised accordingly.”

Transparency Is More Important Than a Favorable Result

The purpose of statistical analysis is not to make the results appear stronger. Its purpose is to accurately communicate the degree of evidence supporting the findings.

A scientifically strong response therefore reports:

• The actual number of experiments
• The actual variability
• The appropriate statistical method
• The limitations of the dataset
• The uncertainty associated with the conclusions

When handled transparently, statistical and reproducibility-related reviewer comments can significantly strengthen the credibility of the manuscript and make the reported findings more convincing.

26. How to Respond to Comments Requesting Additional Experiments

Requests for additional experiments are among the most challenging comments authors may receive during peer review. A reviewer may believe that an additional experiment is necessary to verify a proposed mechanism, strengthen a conclusion, provide missing evidence, or address an important limitation.

Such requests should not be accepted or rejected automatically. Authors should first determine whether the requested experiment is genuinely necessary to support the manuscript’s central claims.

Why Reviewers Request Additional Experiments

A reviewer may request an additional experiment because:

• The proposed mechanism is not sufficiently supported.
• An important control experiment is missing.
• A key characterization technique was not performed.
• The reported result requires independent confirmation.
• The stability or reproducibility of the material has not been evaluated.
• An alternative explanation has not been excluded.
• The conclusions are stronger than the available evidence.
• The experimental design does not adequately address the research question.

Understanding the reason behind the request is essential before preparing the response.

First Determine Whether the Experiment Is Essential

Not every suggested experiment is mandatory.

Ask:

Does the requested experiment address a fundamental weakness in the manuscript?

Is it necessary to validate one of the main conclusions?

Can the existing data adequately answer the reviewer’s question?

Would the new experiment provide genuinely new information, or merely duplicate existing evidence?

If the experiment is essential, performing it may be the strongest possible response.

When the Additional Experiment Has Been Performed

If the experiment can be performed and the results are available, clearly describe the new evidence.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Following the reviewer’s recommendation, we performed additional stability experiments to evaluate the performance of the material after repeated cycles. The new results have been added as Figure 8 and discussed in Section 3.7.”

The response should explain what the new experiment demonstrates and whether it changes the interpretation of the manuscript.

Do Not Simply Add the Data Without Discussion

New experimental results should be integrated into the scientific narrative.

For example, if a reviewer requests a stability test, the manuscript should explain:

• Why stability was evaluated
• How the test was performed
• What was observed
• How the result compares with the initial performance
• What the result means for the proposed application

Simply inserting a new graph without explaining its significance may not fully address the comment.

When the Requested Experiment Is Not Available

Sometimes the requested experiment cannot reasonably be performed.

Possible reasons may include:

• The required instrument is unavailable.
• The original sample has been consumed.
• The experiment requires specialized equipment.
• The measurement is outside the available facilities.
• The requested experiment requires substantially more time than the revision period allows.

In such cases, the response should be honest and scientifically justified.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We agree that the proposed analysis would provide additional information regarding the surface chemical states. However, this measurement could not be performed within the current revision because the required instrumentation was not available. We have therefore acknowledged this limitation in the revised manuscript and moderated the corresponding mechanistic conclusion.”

Do Not Claim That an Experiment Was Performed When It Was Not

This is one of the most important principles in responding to reviewers.

Authors should never report:

• Fabricated experimental results
• Invented characterization data
• Simulated results presented as experimental measurements
• Unperformed control experiments
• Estimated values presented as measured values

If the requested experiment was not performed, it should be stated clearly.

A limitation is scientifically acceptable. Fabricated evidence is not.

When Existing Data Can Address the Concern

Sometimes a reviewer requests a new experiment because they are unaware that the necessary information is already available.

In this situation, the authors can respectfully explain that existing data address the concern.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree that confirming the surface composition is important. However, this information is already provided by the XPS analysis presented in Figure 6, which shows…. To make this point clearer, we have expanded the corresponding discussion and added the relevant quantitative analysis.”

This is often preferable to performing an unnecessary additional experiment.

When an Alternative Characterization Technique Is Suggested

A reviewer may recommend another technique because it could provide complementary evidence.

For example:

• XPS instead of or in addition to EDS
• Raman in addition to FTIR
• TEM in addition to SEM
• BET in addition to morphological analysis
• EIS in addition to polarization measurements

The authors should explain whether the proposed technique is necessary for the specific conclusion.

If the existing techniques are sufficient, explain their complementary evidence.

If the additional technique would substantially strengthen the manuscript and is feasible, performing it may be worthwhile.

When a Control Experiment Is Requested

Control experiments can be particularly important when authors claim that a specific component is responsible for an observed improvement.

For example, if a composite contains components A and B, a reviewer may request testing:

• A alone
• B alone
• A + B

This can help determine whether the combination provides a synergistic effect.

A strong response should explain how the control experiment helps distinguish between competing explanations.

When the Reviewer Requests Long-Term Testing

Long-term stability, durability, cycling, or aging experiments may be requested for materials intended for practical applications.

If such testing is central to the claimed application, the request may be particularly important.

Authors should avoid making broad claims such as:

“The material is highly stable for practical applications.”

when only short-term laboratory measurements have been performed.

Instead, if long-term evidence is unavailable:

“The material demonstrated stable performance under the investigated laboratory conditions.”

This keeps the conclusion within the limits of the available evidence.

When the New Experiment Produces an Unexpected Result

Additional experiments do not always confirm the original hypothesis.

If the new result contradicts an earlier interpretation, the authors should report it honestly.

The appropriate response may involve:

• Revising the proposed mechanism
• Narrowing the conclusion
• Adding a limitation
• Reanalyzing the original data
• Removing an unsupported claim

A reviewer may actually view such transparency positively because it demonstrates scientific integrity.

When the Additional Experiment Does Not Change the Conclusion

If the new experiment confirms the original interpretation, explain how it provides independent support.

For example:

“The additional experiment produced results consistent with the original findings and further supports the proposed interpretation. These results have now been incorporated into the revised Discussion.”

Avoid claiming that the experiment “proves” a mechanism unless the evidence genuinely establishes it.

Additional Experiments and Manuscript Scope

Authors should also consider whether a requested experiment would fundamentally expand the scope of the paper.

For example, a manuscript focused on material synthesis and characterization may receive a request for a complete biological toxicity assessment.

If that analysis would constitute an entirely separate research project, it may be appropriate to explain that the experiment is beyond the scope of the current study.

A possible response is:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We agree that toxicity evaluation would provide valuable information for future application of the material. However, a comprehensive toxicity assessment is beyond the scope of the present study, which focuses on synthesis, characterization, and adsorption performance. We have therefore acknowledged this aspect as a limitation and identified it as an important direction for future research.”

A Recommended Response Structure

For an additional-experiment request, use:

1. Acknowledge the suggestion

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion.”

2. State whether the experiment was performed

“Following the reviewer’s recommendation, we performed…”

or:

“Although we agree that this experiment would provide useful information, it could not be performed because…”

3. Explain the scientific relevance

“The additional experiment was conducted to determine whether…”

4. Describe the result

“The results showed that…”

5. Explain the impact on the manuscript

“Accordingly, the Discussion and Conclusions have been revised…”

The Best Response Is Not Always “Yes”

A professional response to peer review does not mean agreeing with every request.

Authors should be willing to:

• Perform necessary experiments
• Explain why existing evidence is sufficient
• Clarify methodological limitations
• Narrow unsupported conclusions
• Explain why an experiment is outside the scope of the study

The key is to provide a scientifically reasoned response rather than a defensive response.

Ultimately, an additional-experiment comment should be evaluated according to one central question:

What evidence is necessary to make the manuscript’s main scientific claims adequately supported?

If the requested experiment provides that evidence and can reasonably be performed, it may substantially strengthen the manuscript. If it cannot, the authors should transparently explain the limitation and ensure that the manuscript’s claims do not extend beyond the evidence actually available.

27. How to Respond to Comments About the Discussion and Scientific Mechanism

The Discussion is where authors explain the meaning and significance of their findings. Reviewers often focus heavily on this section because a manuscript may contain technically sound experimental data while still presenting an incomplete, unsupported, or overly speculative interpretation.

Comments may concern the proposed mechanism, comparison with previous studies, explanation of unexpected trends, causal claims, or the relationship between different characterization results.

The Difference Between Results and Discussion

The Results section primarily answers:

What did we observe?

The Discussion answers:

What do these observations mean?

For example:

Results:

“The Rct value increased from 120 to 850 Ω cm² after incorporation of the inhibitor.”

Discussion:

“The increase in Rct suggests that the inhibitor suppresses charge-transfer processes at the metal/electrolyte interface, possibly through the formation of a more protective surface film.”

The Discussion should therefore interpret the evidence rather than simply repeat it.

When the Reviewer Says the Discussion Is Too Descriptive

A common criticism is that the Discussion merely repeats the numerical results.

For example:

“The reviewer states that the Discussion is primarily descriptive and does not sufficiently explain the significance of the findings.”

A suitable response might be:

“We appreciate this important observation. The Discussion has been expanded to provide a more detailed interpretation of the experimental findings, including comparison with previous studies and consideration of the factors that may account for the observed behavior.”

The revised section should actually contain more interpretation rather than simply adding more words.

Explain the Mechanism Carefully

Mechanistic explanations are often among the most vulnerable parts of a scientific manuscript.

Authors should distinguish between:

Direct evidence

and

Proposed interpretation.

For example, XPS may provide evidence of changes in surface chemical states, while SEM may show morphological changes. Neither technique necessarily proves a complete reaction mechanism by itself.

Appropriate wording may include:

• “suggests that”
• “supports the proposed mechanism”
• “is consistent with”
• “may be attributed to”
• “may be associated with”

rather than:

• “proves”
• “definitively demonstrates”
• “confirms the complete mechanism”

unless the evidence genuinely supports such certainty.

When a Reviewer Challenges the Proposed Mechanism

A reviewer may state:

“The proposed mechanism is speculative and is not sufficiently supported by the experimental results.”

This should be taken seriously.

A strong response may involve:

1. Identifying the evidence supporting the mechanism.
2. Adding relevant literature.
3. Connecting multiple characterization results.
4. Removing unsupported claims.
5. Clearly labeling the mechanism as a proposed interpretation.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. We agree that the original wording overstated the certainty of the proposed mechanism. We have revised the discussion to present the mechanism as a proposed interpretation supported by the combined XPS, FTIR, and electrochemical results, rather than as a definitive mechanism.”

This is often stronger than attempting to defend an absolute claim.

Use Complementary Evidence

When proposing a mechanism, explain how different techniques contribute to the interpretation.

For example:

FTIR → changes in functional groups

XPS → surface elemental composition and chemical states

SEM → morphology

EDS → elemental distribution

XRD → crystalline phases

BET → surface area and pore characteristics

EIS → interfacial electrochemical behavior

A mechanistic argument becomes more convincing when multiple independent observations point toward the same interpretation.

Avoid Circular Reasoning

A common weakness is using the proposed mechanism to explain the data and then using the same data as proof of the mechanism.

For example:

“The increase in adsorption capacity proves that more active sites were formed, and the increased adsorption capacity demonstrates that the number of active sites increased.”

This is circular.

Instead, authors should identify independent evidence for the proposed explanation.

When Several Mechanisms Are Possible

Scientific systems often involve multiple simultaneous mechanisms.

A reviewer may challenge an explanation that attributes the entire effect to one factor.

For example, improved adsorption may involve:

• Surface area
• Electrostatic interactions
• Hydrogen bonding
• π–π interactions
• Surface functional groups
• Pore structure

Rather than claiming that one mechanism is solely responsible, authors may state:

“The enhanced adsorption performance is likely associated with the combined contribution of increased accessible surface area and specific interactions between the adsorbent surface and tetracycline molecules.”

This is generally more scientifically defensible when several mechanisms are plausible.

When the Reviewer Suggests an Alternative Mechanism

Do not automatically reject the alternative explanation.

Instead, evaluate whether the available evidence supports or contradicts it.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for suggesting this alternative interpretation. We agree that surface-area effects may contribute to the observed improvement. However, the XPS results indicate changes in the surface chemical states following modification, suggesting that surface chemical interactions may also contribute. We have revised the Discussion to acknowledge both effects.”

This demonstrates critical scientific reasoning.

Compare With Previous Literature

The Discussion should explain whether the findings agree with or differ from previous studies.

For example:

“The observed increase in Rct is consistent with previous reports of polymer-based protective coatings, although the magnitude of the increase is higher in the present system.”

If the results differ, explain possible reasons rather than ignoring the discrepancy.

Differences may result from:

• Material composition
• Synthesis conditions
• Surface characteristics
• Experimental environment
• Concentration
• Temperature
• Measurement methodology

Explain Unexpected Trends

Unexpected behavior is not necessarily a weakness.

A reviewer may ask why performance decreases at high adsorbent dosage or why corrosion resistance does not continuously increase with coating thickness.

The authors should provide an evidence-based explanation if possible.

If the cause cannot be established conclusively, acknowledge the uncertainty.

For example:

“The decrease may be associated with particle aggregation at higher concentrations, which could reduce the effective accessible surface area. However, further investigation would be required to conclusively establish this mechanism.”

This is preferable to presenting an unverified explanation as fact.

Avoid Overclaiming Causality

One of the most important principles in scientific Discussion writing is distinguishing association from causation.

If two variables increase simultaneously, that does not automatically prove that one caused the other.

For example:

“The increase in surface area caused the enhanced adsorption.”

is a causal claim.

A more cautious statement is:

“The enhanced adsorption performance may be associated with the increased surface area.”

If additional evidence establishes causality, the stronger statement may be justified.

When the Reviewer Says the Discussion Is Too Long

A longer Discussion is not necessarily a better Discussion.

Remove:

• Repetition of numerical results
• General background that belongs in the Introduction
• Unnecessary descriptions of obvious trends
• Speculation unsupported by evidence
• Repeated explanations of the same mechanism

A concise, evidence-based Discussion is usually more persuasive.

A Recommended Structure for Mechanistic Discussion

For many materials-science studies, the following sequence can work well:

Observation → Comparison → Possible explanation → Supporting evidence → Scientific implication

For example:

“The increase in Rct indicates improved resistance to interfacial charge transfer. Similar behavior has been reported for… The improvement may be associated with the formation of a more compact protective layer. This interpretation is supported by the surface morphology and chemical-state analysis, which show…. These results suggest that…”

This structure helps the reader follow the reasoning step by step.

A Recommended Reviewer Response

For a Discussion or mechanism-related comment:

“We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that the original Discussion did not sufficiently distinguish the experimentally supported observations from the proposed mechanistic interpretation. We have therefore revised this section to incorporate additional comparison with previous studies, discuss alternative explanations, and moderate statements that were not directly supported by the available evidence.”

This type of response demonstrates scientific maturity rather than simply defending the original manuscript.

The Discussion Should Not Go Beyond the Data

A strong Discussion does not necessarily provide the most elaborate mechanism imaginable.

It provides the most scientifically defensible interpretation supported by the available evidence.

If the data support a likely mechanism, describe it as likely.

If they only support an association, describe an association.

If the mechanism remains uncertain, say so.

This approach makes the manuscript more credible and reduces the risk that reviewers will challenge exaggerated interpretations during subsequent review rounds.

28. How to Respond to Comments About Figures, Tables, and Data Presentation

Figures and tables are essential components of a scientific manuscript because they allow readers to evaluate experimental results efficiently. Reviewers may question the quality, clarity, statistical presentation, labeling, consistency, or interpretation of figures and tables.

These comments should be addressed carefully because poor data presentation can make otherwise strong scientific results difficult to evaluate.

Common Reviewer Comments About Figures and Tables

Reviewers may ask authors to:

• Improve figure resolution
• Increase font size
• Clarify axis labels
• Add units
• Correct legends
• Explain symbols
• Add error bars
• Provide statistical information
• Reorganize figures
• Combine related figures
• Separate overcrowded figures
• Improve image quality
• Add missing control data
• Provide raw or supplementary data
• Correct inconsistent numerical values
• Improve table formatting

Ensure Every Figure Has a Clear Purpose

A figure should communicate a specific scientific message.

Before submitting the revised manuscript, ask:

What does this figure demonstrate?

If the answer is unclear, the figure may need to be redesigned or better explained in the text.

For example, an SEM image should not simply be presented as evidence that a material “has a good morphology.” The text should explain the relevant observation, such as particle morphology, size distribution, aggregation, porosity, or surface characteristics.

Improve Figure Resolution

Low-resolution images can make scientific interpretation difficult.

This is especially important for:

• SEM and FE-SEM images
• TEM images
• Optical microscopy
• XRD patterns
• FTIR spectra
• Raman spectra
• XPS spectra
• EIS plots
• Graphs containing multiple datasets

If a reviewer requests higher resolution, replace the original figure with a higher-quality version rather than simply enlarging a low-resolution image.

Make Axis Labels Complete

Every quantitative graph should clearly identify:

• X-axis
• Y-axis
• Variable
• Unit

For example:

Temperature (°C)

is preferable to:

Temperature

when temperature is the measured variable.

Similarly:

Corrosion current density (µA cm⁻²)

is more informative than simply:

Current

Use Consistent Units

Units should be consistent throughout the manuscript.

For example, do not report one figure in:

m²/g

and another table in:

cm²/mg

unless there is a specific reason.

If unit conversion is necessary, verify the calculations carefully.

Explain Symbols and Abbreviations

If a graph contains symbols such as:

• ○
• □
• △
• ×

their meaning should be clear from the legend or caption.

Similarly, abbreviations such as:

• Blank
• Inh.
• CPE
• Rct
• BET

should be defined when necessary.

Figure Captions Should Be Self-Explanatory

A reader should be able to understand the basic content of a figure without searching extensively through the main text.

A useful caption might include:

• What is shown
• Sample identity
• Experimental condition, when important
• Relevant subfigure labels
• Meaning of symbols

For example:

“Figure 5. Nyquist plots of the uncoated and coated steel samples measured in 3.5 wt% NaCl solution.”

is more informative than:

“Figure 5. EIS results.”

Check Figure References

Every figure should be cited in the manuscript.

Check for:

• Missing references
• Incorrect figure numbers
• Duplicate references
• References to deleted figures
• Incorrect subfigure labels

After rearranging figures, search the entire manuscript for every occurrence of “Figure.”

Explain What the Figure Shows

Simply inserting a figure is not sufficient.

The text should identify the important observation.

For example:

“As shown in Figure 6, increasing the inhibitor concentration resulted in a progressive increase in the diameter of the Nyquist semicircles, indicating enhanced interfacial resistance.”

The Discussion can then explain why this behavior occurs.

Do Not Repeat the Entire Figure in the Text

The text should not reproduce every number already visible in a graph.

Instead, highlight the scientifically important trends.

For example, rather than listing ten values:

“The values were 120, 145, 168, 190…”

a more useful statement may be:

“Rct increased progressively with inhibitor concentration, indicating improved resistance to charge transfer.”

Specific numbers should be reported when they are important for the argument.

Include Error Bars When Appropriate

If measurements were replicated, error bars can communicate experimental variability.

However, error bars should not be added artificially.

The caption should clarify what they represent:

“Error bars represent the standard deviation of three independent measurements.”

When a Reviewer Requests Statistical Significance

If appropriate, statistical comparisons can be incorporated using:

• Significance letters
• Asterisks
• Confidence intervals
• Statistical annotations

For example:

p < 0.05

However, statistical annotations should be used only when an appropriate statistical analysis has actually been performed.

Avoid Manipulating Figures to Hide Unfavorable Results

Scientific figures should represent the data accurately.

Authors should not:

• Delete inconvenient data points without justification
• Adjust axes to exaggerate differences
• Select only favorable spectra
• Remove unexplained peaks
• Crop images in a misleading way
• Modify experimental data to improve the appearance

Image processing for legitimate purposes such as brightness or contrast adjustment should not alter the underlying scientific information and should follow journal policies.

When the Reviewer Requests Raw Data

A reviewer or editor may request:

• Raw spectra
• Original microscopy images
• Instrument files
• Electrochemical data
• Replicate measurements
• Numerical datasets

If available, these should be provided through the journal’s requested channel or as supplementary material.

A suitable response is:

“We thank the reviewer for this request. The original numerical data and corresponding raw measurements have been compiled and provided as Supplementary Information.”

If the requested raw data are unavailable, the authors should explain the situation honestly.

Tables Should Complement Figures

A table and figure should not necessarily present exactly the same information.

A figure is often useful for showing:

• Trends
• Relationships
• Spectral patterns
• Comparisons

A table is often better for:

• Exact numerical values
• Statistical parameters
• Model constants
• Fitting results
• Sample compositions

For example, an EIS figure can show Nyquist plots, while a table provides fitted Rs, Rct, CPE parameters, and goodness-of-fit values.

Avoid Overcrowded Figures

If a figure contains too many datasets, labels, or subplots, consider dividing it into separate figures.

However, closely related datasets may be better presented together when direct comparison is scientifically useful.

The goal is readability, not simply reducing the number of figures.

A Recommended Response Structure

For a figure-related comment:

“We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. Figure X has been revised to improve readability. The axis labels and units have been clarified, the font size has been increased, and the figure resolution has been improved. The corresponding caption has also been revised to provide additional information.”

For a table-related comment:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Table X has been revised to improve clarity and consistency. The missing units and definitions of the reported parameters have been added, and the numerical values have been carefully checked against the original experimental data.”

Perform a Final Figure and Table Audit

Before resubmission, check:

• Figure numbering
• Table numbering
• Cross-references
• Units
• Axis labels
• Font sizes
• Legends
• Captions
• Decimal places
• Significant figures
• Error bars
• Statistical annotations
• Consistency between figures and text
• Consistency between tables and text
• Consistency with supplementary information

A single incorrect number in a figure can undermine confidence in the rest of the manuscript.

Clear Data Presentation Strengthens the Manuscript

Figures and tables should not merely decorate the manuscript. They are part of the scientific evidence.

A well-designed figure allows the reviewer to see the trend immediately, while a well-structured table allows precise numerical comparison.

When responding to figure and table comments, the goal should therefore be to make the data accurate, transparent, readable, and scientifically interpretable.

29. How to Respond to Comments About XRD, FTIR, Raman, XPS, and Other Characterization Results

Characterization techniques provide essential evidence regarding the structure, composition, morphology, surface chemistry, and properties of materials. Reviewers frequently request additional interpretation of characterization data or question whether the reported assignments and conclusions are adequately supported.

These comments require particular care because each analytical technique provides specific types of information and has its own limitations.

Common Reviewer Comments About Characterization

A reviewer may ask:

• What is the origin of a specific peak?
• Why is a characteristic peak missing?
• Why has a peak shifted?
• How were the peaks assigned?
• Are the reported phases correctly identified?
• Is the spectrum consistent with the proposed structure?
• Why does the sample differ from the reference material?
• Was background correction performed?
• Were overlapping peaks considered?
• Is the fitting procedure appropriate?
• Are the reported elemental percentages correct?
• Can the characterization data actually support the proposed mechanism?

The response should distinguish between what the technique directly demonstrates and what is inferred from the data.

XRD Analysis

X-ray diffraction is commonly used to identify crystalline phases, determine structural characteristics, and evaluate crystallinity.

A reviewer may ask authors to identify unidentified diffraction peaks.

A suitable response might be:

“We thank the reviewer for this observation. The diffraction pattern has been re-examined using the relevant reference database, and the previously unidentified reflection at approximately XX° has been assigned to the [phase] phase. The corresponding discussion has been revised accordingly.”

The assignment should be based on an appropriate reference database or literature source rather than visual similarity alone.

Do Not Assign Every Peak Automatically

A peak should not be assigned to a phase simply because its position appears close to a known reflection.

Consider:

• Peak position
• Relative intensity
• Multiple characteristic reflections
• Possible overlapping phases
• Instrumental shifts
• Sample preparation
• Reference patterns

If a phase cannot be confidently identified, it is better to describe the peak as an unidentified or additional reflection than to make an unsupported assignment.

Missing XRD Peaks

A reviewer may ask why an expected peak is absent.

Possible explanations may include:

• Low concentration of the phase
• Low crystallinity
• Preferred orientation
• Peak overlap
• Amorphous character
• Instrument detection limitations
• Phase transformation

However, these explanations should be presented as possibilities unless supported by additional evidence.

A cautious response might be:

“The absence of the expected reflection may be associated with the relatively low fraction of the corresponding phase and/or overlap with neighboring reflections. We have revised the discussion to avoid assigning a definitive cause without additional evidence.”

Peak Shifts

Peak shifts can sometimes indicate:

• Lattice distortion
• Substitution
• Residual stress
• Defects
• Changes in lattice parameters
• Instrumental or calibration effects

Authors should not automatically attribute every shift to doping or lattice distortion.

If the shift is small, instrumental calibration and experimental uncertainty should also be considered.

FTIR Analysis

FTIR is frequently used to identify functional groups and chemical bonds.

Reviewers may ask for clarification of specific absorption bands.

A strong response should connect each assignment to:

• Peak position
• Expected functional group
• Relevant literature
• Changes between samples

For example:

“The absorption band at approximately XX cm⁻¹ is attributed to the stretching vibration of [functional group], consistent with previous reports.”

Avoid Overinterpreting FTIR Peaks

A single FTIR peak rarely proves a complete chemical mechanism.

For example, observing a band associated with O–H does not automatically prove a specific hydrogen-bonding mechanism.

A more appropriate interpretation may be:

“The presence of the O–H-related band indicates the existence of hydroxyl groups, which may contribute to hydrogen-bonding interactions.”

Raman Spectroscopy

Raman spectra may provide information about:

• Crystal structure
• Defects
• Disorder
• Carbon-related structures
• Vibrational modes
• Phase composition

If a reviewer asks about changes in Raman peak intensity or position, authors should consider whether the change is due to:

• Structural modification
• Defect density
• Crystallinity
• Stress
• Composition
• Measurement conditions

Again, the explanation should be supported by the available evidence.

XPS Analysis

XPS provides information about surface elemental composition and chemical states.

Reviewers may ask:

• Why was a particular peak assigned to a specific oxidation state?
• What calibration procedure was used?
• Why are several components present?
• Why did the binding energy shift?
• Are the peak-fitting parameters appropriate?
• Why does the surface composition differ from bulk composition?

A suitable response may explain the fitting methodology and the reference used for binding-energy calibration.

XPS Peak Fitting Must Be Scientifically Justified

Peak fitting should not simply be adjusted until the curve looks visually good.

The authors should consider:

• Appropriate background model
• Physically meaningful components
• Reasonable peak positions
• Peak widths
• Consistent constraints
• Chemical plausibility
• Residuals or goodness of fit

A reviewer may reasonably request the raw XPS data or detailed fitting information if the interpretation appears questionable.

SEM and FE-SEM

Microscopy provides morphological information, but authors should avoid making unsupported claims based on a single image.

For example, stating:

“The nanoparticles are uniformly distributed.”

may be difficult to justify from one small field of view.

A more defensible statement may be:

“The representative FE-SEM images indicate relatively uniform particle distribution within the observed regions.”

If particle size is reported, the methodology should explain:

• Number of particles measured
• Image-analysis software
• Selection procedure
• Magnification
• Size-distribution calculation

EDS and Elemental Composition

EDS can provide qualitative or semi-quantitative elemental information.

A reviewer may ask whether reported values are:

• wt%
• at%
• normalized or unnormalized
• based on selected regions
• representative of the whole sample

The response should explicitly state the basis of the reported composition.

For example:

“The elemental percentages reported in Table X correspond to weight percentages obtained from the EDS analysis.”

Do not confuse wt% with at%. They can differ substantially.

BET Analysis

For BET measurements, reviewers may ask about:

• Degassing conditions
• Adsorption gas
• Relative pressure range
• BET surface area
• Pore volume
• Pore-size distribution
• Isotherm classification

The interpretation should be consistent with the actual isotherm and data.

For example, a high calculated surface area should not automatically be interpreted as proof of high adsorption performance without considering surface chemistry and accessibility of adsorption sites.

TGA/DSC Analysis

Thermal analysis can provide information about:

• Moisture loss
• Solvent removal
• Decomposition
• Organic-component degradation
• Phase transitions
• Thermal stability

A reviewer may ask authors to distinguish different mass-loss stages.

A suitable explanation may be:

“The initial mass loss below XX °C is attributed primarily to the removal of physically adsorbed moisture, whereas the subsequent loss is associated with decomposition of the organic component.”

Such assignments should be consistent with the temperature range and supporting characterization data.

Characterization Techniques Should Support One Another

A strong manuscript does not interpret every characterization result independently.

Instead, different techniques can provide complementary evidence.

For example:

XRD → crystalline phases

FTIR → functional groups

XPS → surface chemical states

SEM → morphology

EDS → elemental composition

BET → surface area and pore characteristics

Together, these results can provide stronger evidence for a proposed material structure or mechanism than any single technique alone.

When the Reviewer Says the Characterization Is Insufficient

A reviewer may state:

“The characterization is insufficient to confirm the proposed structure.”

Do not automatically respond by adding every possible characterization technique.

First determine exactly what aspect remains uncertain.

For example, if the question concerns:

• Phase identity → XRD may be most relevant.
• Surface oxidation states → XPS may be appropriate.
• Functional groups → FTIR/Raman may help.
• Morphology → SEM/TEM may be appropriate.
• Surface area → BET may be relevant.

The response should target the scientific uncertainty rather than simply increasing the number of characterization techniques.

When Two Techniques Appear to Contradict Each Other

This can happen frequently.

For example, EDS may show a certain elemental composition while XPS shows a different surface composition.

This does not necessarily mean that one technique is incorrect.

EDS primarily provides information from a relatively larger/deeper interaction volume, whereas XPS is highly surface sensitive.

A suitable discussion might explain that the difference arises from the different sampling depths and analytical principles.

The same principle applies to apparently inconsistent results from other complementary techniques.

A Recommended Response Structure

For a characterization-related comment:

“We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. The characterization data have been carefully re-examined, and the interpretation has been revised accordingly. In particular, the assignment of the feature at approximately XX has been clarified based on [reference/analysis]. We have also revised the discussion to distinguish the experimentally observed features from the proposed interpretation.”

If additional analysis was performed:

“The corresponding analysis has been added to Figure X and discussed in Section X, Page X, Lines X–X.”

Never Force the Data to Match the Expected Structure

One of the most important principles in characterization analysis is that the data should determine the interpretation—not the other way around.

If XRD does not clearly confirm a proposed crystalline phase, do not force the assignment.

If FTIR does not show a predicted functional group, acknowledge the absence.

If XPS fitting does not clearly distinguish two oxidation states, avoid presenting the distinction as definitive.

A scientifically cautious interpretation is generally much more defensible than an exaggerated one.

Characterization Should Answer a Scientific Question

The purpose of characterization is not simply to provide a long list of analytical techniques.

Each technique should help answer a specific question:

What phases are present?

What functional groups exist?

What is the morphology?

What elements are present?

What chemical states exist at the surface?

What are the thermal properties?

What is the surface area and pore structure?

How do these characteristics relate to performance?

When responding to characterization-related reviewer comments, authors should therefore focus not only on explaining individual peaks or images, but on demonstrating how the characterization collectively supports the scientific conclusions of the manuscript.

30. How to Respond to Comments About Electrochemical and Corrosion Results

Electrochemical and corrosion studies often generate detailed reviewer comments because techniques such as potentiodynamic polarization, electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), open-circuit potential, and cyclic polarization involve both experimental and modeling considerations.

Reviewers may question the experimental conditions, equivalent circuit selection, fitting quality, reported corrosion parameters, or the interpretation of electrochemical behavior. These comments should be addressed using both the raw electrochemical evidence and established electrochemical principles.

Common Reviewer Comments About Electrochemical Results

Reviewers may ask:

• Why was this electrolyte selected?
• Why was this exposure time used?
• Was the system stabilized before measurement?
• How many measurements were performed?
• Why was this equivalent circuit selected?
• Is the circuit physically meaningful?
• Why are the reported Rct values unusually high?
• Why does the polarization curve show this behavior?
• Were the Tafel regions correctly selected?
• Are the corrosion parameters reliable?
• Were the EIS spectra validated?
• Was a Kramers–Kronig test performed?
• Why does the fitted curve deviate from the experimental data?
• Why does the inhibition efficiency differ between EIS and polarization?
• Is the proposed corrosion-protection mechanism adequately supported?

Clearly Describe the Electrochemical Conditions

The Methods section should provide sufficient information about the electrochemical experiment, including, where applicable:

• Electrolyte composition
• Electrolyte concentration
• Temperature
• Exposed surface area
• Working electrode
• Counter electrode
• Reference electrode
• Measurement duration
• Potential range
• Scan rate
• Frequency range
• AC perturbation amplitude
• Applied DC potential
• Stabilization procedure

For example, an EIS experiment should specify the frequency range and perturbation amplitude because these parameters directly influence the measurement.

Explain the Stabilization Procedure

Before electrochemical measurements, the system may require stabilization at open-circuit potential.

If a reviewer asks about stabilization, provide the actual procedure used.

For example:

“Prior to EIS measurements, the working electrode was immersed in the electrolyte until the open-circuit potential reached a stable condition.”

If a specific stabilization time was used, report the actual value.

Do not invent a stabilization time simply because it is commonly used in the literature.

Potentiodynamic Polarization

Polarization curves can provide information about:

• Corrosion potential (Ecorr)
• Corrosion current density (Icorr)
• Anodic behavior
• Cathodic behavior
• Passivation
• Tafel slopes

A reviewer may question how Ecorr and Icorr were determined.

The response should explain the actual fitting or extrapolation procedure used.

Be Careful With Tafel Analysis

Tafel extrapolation should be performed using appropriate regions of the polarization curve.

The entire polarization curve should not automatically be treated as a Tafel region.

If the reviewer questions the selected regions, re-examine:

• Linear behavior on the semilog plot
• Potential range
• Presence of diffusion effects
• Passivation
• Mass-transfer limitations
• Surface-film formation

If the data do not exhibit clear Tafel behavior, authors should avoid claiming highly precise Tafel parameters.

Corrosion Potential Alone Does Not Determine Protection

A shift in Ecorr can provide useful information, but corrosion resistance should not be evaluated solely from Ecorr.

Other parameters, particularly Icorr, polarization resistance, and EIS parameters, should also be considered.

For example, a coating may show only a modest change in Ecorr but a substantial reduction in Icorr.

The discussion should therefore consider the overall electrochemical response.

Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy

EIS provides information about the frequency-dependent response of an electrochemical system.

Common parameters include:

• Rs
• Rct
• Rfilm
• Cdl
• CPE parameters
• n
• Warburg-related parameters

The physical meaning of these parameters depends on the selected equivalent circuit.

Equivalent Circuit Selection

One of the most common reviewer concerns is:

“Why was this equivalent circuit selected?”

The answer should not simply be:

“Because it provided the best fit.”

A good equivalent circuit should have both:

Mathematical adequacy

and

Physical meaning.

For example, a circuit such as:

Rs – (Rfilm ∥ CPE₁) – (Rct ∥ CPE₂)

may be appropriate when the system exhibits distinguishable contributions from a surface film/coating and charge-transfer process.

The authors should explain why each circuit element corresponds to a physically meaningful process.

Avoid Overfitting EIS Data

Adding more resistors, capacitors, CPEs, or diffusion elements can improve a numerical fit while making the model physically meaningless.

The simplest physically reasonable circuit should generally be preferred.

A reviewer may therefore ask the authors to justify why additional circuit elements are necessary.

Why CPEs Are Used Instead of Ideal Capacitors

Real electrochemical interfaces rarely behave as ideal capacitors.

A constant phase element (CPE) can account for non-ideal capacitive behavior associated with:

• Surface roughness
• Heterogeneity
• Porosity
• Non-uniform current distribution
• Distribution of relaxation times

Its impedance is commonly expressed as:

[
Z_{CPE}=\frac{1}{Q(j\omega)^n}
]

where (Q) is the CPE coefficient, (\omega) is angular frequency, and (n) describes the deviation from ideal capacitive behavior.

When (n) approaches 1, the behavior becomes closer to that of an ideal capacitor.

High Rct Values Require Careful Interpretation

If a reviewer questions unusually high charge-transfer resistance values, the authors should first verify the raw data and fitting procedure.

Potential issues include:

• Incorrect equivalent circuit
• Incorrect units
• Poor fitting
• Instrument limitations
• Incorrect electrode area normalization
• Data-processing errors
• Physically unrealistic circuit elements

Do not simply defend an unusually high Rct value because it supports the desired conclusion.

If necessary, refit the data using a physically justified circuit and report the revised values.

Check the Goodness of Fit

A low chi-square value or small fitting residual can support the mathematical quality of an EIS fit, but a good numerical fit alone does not prove that the equivalent circuit is physically correct.

The authors should consider:

• Experimental vs fitted spectra
• Residual distribution
• Parameter uncertainty
• Physical plausibility
• Equivalent circuit simplicity
• Consistency with electrochemical behavior

Kramers–Kronig Validation

For EIS measurements, a reviewer may request a Kramers–Kronig consistency test.

Such analysis can help evaluate whether the measured impedance data satisfy important assumptions such as:

• Linearity
• Stability
• Causality

If performed, the results can be included in the Supplementary Information or discussed in the main manuscript according to journal requirements.

If it was not performed, authors should not claim that the data passed the test.

EIS and Polarization Results Should Be Consistent

Reviewers may notice differences between:

• EIS-derived resistance
• Polarization-derived corrosion current
• Inhibition efficiency
• Surface morphology

Different electrochemical techniques do not necessarily produce identical trends.

The authors should explain the complementary information provided by each technique.

For example:

“The increase in Rct observed by EIS is consistent with the decrease in Icorr obtained from polarization measurements, indicating suppression of interfacial corrosion reactions.”

If the trends are inconsistent, the difference should be investigated rather than ignored.

Explain Changes in CPE Parameters Carefully

Changes in CPE parameters may indicate alterations in interfacial heterogeneity or capacitive behavior, but their interpretation depends strongly on the equivalent circuit.

For example, an increase in coating resistance accompanied by a decrease in effective capacitance may be consistent with reduced electrolyte penetration and improved barrier properties.

However, such interpretations should be supported by the overall dataset.

Corrosion Inhibition Efficiency

If inhibition efficiency is calculated from corrosion current density, the equation and reference condition should be clearly stated.

For example:

[
IE(%) =
\frac{I_{corr}^{blank}-I_{corr}^{inh}}
{I_{corr}^{blank}}
\times 100
]

where (I_{corr}^{blank}) and (I_{corr}^{inh}) represent the corrosion current densities in the absence and presence of the inhibitor, respectively.

The exact equation should correspond to the method actually used.

Avoid Mixing Different Definitions

Inhibition efficiency calculated from polarization and that calculated from EIS may use different equations.

The manuscript should clearly distinguish them.

For example, EIS-based efficiency may be calculated from charge-transfer resistance:

[
IE(%) =
\left(1-\frac{R_{ct}^{blank}}{R_{ct}^{inh}}\right)\times100
]

depending on the experimental design and literature convention.

The authors should define the equation and variables explicitly.

When a Reviewer Questions Reproducibility

Electrochemical measurements can be sensitive to:

• Electrode preparation
• Surface condition
• Immersion time
• Temperature
• Solution composition
• Electrode area
• Reference-electrode position

If possible, report the number of independent measurements and demonstrate that the reported spectrum or polarization curve is representative.

When Replicate EIS Spectra Are Available

A response may state:

“The EIS measurements were repeated using independently prepared specimens, and comparable impedance responses were obtained. The spectrum shown in Figure X represents a representative measurement.”

Only make this statement if it is supported by the actual experimental procedure.

When the Reviewer Questions the Physical Meaning of the Model

This is an important opportunity to strengthen the manuscript.

Instead of defending the circuit solely because it provides a low fitting error, explain:

“The high-frequency time constant is attributed to the dielectric response of the protective film, whereas the low-frequency response is associated with charge transfer at the metal/electrolyte interface. Accordingly, the Rs–(Rfilm∥CPE₁)–(Rct∥CPE₂) circuit was selected.”

The exact interpretation should depend on the actual system and data.

A Recommended Response Structure

For an EIS or corrosion-related comment:

“We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have carefully re-examined the electrochemical data and the fitting procedure. The equivalent circuit was selected based on the observed frequency response and the physical processes expected for the investigated system. The fitting quality and physical meaning of the circuit elements have been clarified in the revised manuscript.”

If refitting was performed:

“The spectra were subsequently refitted using the revised circuit, and the corresponding electrochemical parameters in Table X have been updated.”

Verify the Data Before Defending Them

This is particularly important for electrochemical manuscripts.

If a reviewer identifies an apparently unusual:

• Rct
• CPE value
• n value
• Icorr
• Ecorr
• inhibition efficiency
• polarization resistance

the first step should be to check the original data and calculations.

Do not construct an elaborate explanation for a value that may simply result from:

• Unit conversion
• Incorrect normalization
• Incorrect circuit
• Typographical error
• Fitting error
• Data-processing mistake

The Goal Is Scientifically Defensible Electrochemical Interpretation

A strong response to electrochemical reviewer comments should demonstrate that:

The experiment was properly performed.

The data were analyzed appropriately.

The equivalent circuit has physical meaning.

The reported parameters are mathematically and physically reasonable.

The conclusions are supported by the electrochemical evidence.

The strongest manuscripts do not attempt to make every electrochemical result appear perfect. Instead, they transparently explain what the measurements demonstrate, acknowledge their limitations, and avoid interpretations that extend beyond the available evidence.

31. How to Respond to Comments About Comparison With Previous Studies

Reviewers often ask authors to compare their results with previously published studies. Such comparisons help establish whether the reported findings are consistent with the literature, whether they represent an improvement, and what new contribution the manuscript provides.

A manuscript should not claim novelty simply because a material or method is being reported for the first time. The authors should demonstrate how the present work differs from and advances existing research.

Why Comparison With Previous Studies Matters

A reviewer may ask:

• How do the reported results compare with previous studies?
• Is the performance better than existing materials?
• What is the novelty of the present work?
• Why are the reported values different from those in the literature?
• Can the authors provide a comparison table?
• What advantage does the proposed method have over previously reported approaches?

These questions are particularly common in materials science, nanotechnology, corrosion, adsorption, catalysis, and energy-storage research.

Do Not Compare Results Without Considering Experimental Conditions

Numerical comparison is meaningful only when the experimental conditions are sufficiently comparable.

For example, adsorption capacity can depend strongly on:

• Initial contaminant concentration
• Adsorbent dosage
• pH
• Temperature
• Contact time
• Ionic strength
• Adsorbate type
• Calculation method

Similarly, corrosion performance depends on:

• Electrolyte composition
• Temperature
• Exposure time
• Substrate
• Surface preparation
• Coating thickness
• Inhibitor concentration
• Electrochemical measurement conditions

Therefore, a higher reported value does not automatically mean better performance.

Avoid Making Unsupported “Superior Performance” Claims

For example:

“Our material showed superior adsorption performance compared with all previously reported adsorbents.”

This is an extremely broad claim and is difficult to defend.

A more scientifically appropriate statement may be:

“Under the investigated experimental conditions, the present material exhibited a higher adsorption capacity than several previously reported materials.”

The conditions and references should then be clearly identified.

Use Comparison Tables When Appropriate

A comparison table can be particularly useful when multiple studies need to be evaluated.

A table may include:

Material	Target contaminant	Conditions	Adsorption capacity	Equilibrium time	Reference

For corrosion studies, useful parameters may include:

Inhibitor/Coating	Substrate	Electrolyte	Concentration	IE (%)	Method	Reference

The exact parameters should be selected according to the research question.

Compare Like With Like

Before comparing values, check whether the studies used:

• The same units
• Comparable experimental conditions
• Similar calculation methods
• Similar sample definitions
• Similar measurement techniques

For example, an adsorption capacity reported in mg/g should not be compared directly with a value reported in mmol/g without conversion.

Similarly, BET surface area obtained under different analytical conditions may not be directly comparable.

Explain Why Your Results Differ

Differences from previous studies do not necessarily indicate that one study is incorrect.

Differences may result from:

• Material composition
• Particle size
• Surface chemistry
• Synthesis conditions
• Crystallinity
• Porosity
• Defect concentration
• Experimental environment
• Instrumentation
• Data-analysis methodology

A useful discussion might state:

“The higher adsorption capacity observed in the present study may be associated with differences in surface chemistry and accessible surface area compared with the previously reported material.”

The explanation should remain appropriately cautious unless direct evidence supports the proposed reason.

When Your Results Are Lower Than Previous Studies

Do not hide an unfavorable comparison.

A lower value can still be scientifically meaningful if the present material offers other advantages, such as:

• Better stability
• Easier synthesis
• Lower toxicity
• Lower cost
• Better recyclability
• Faster kinetics
• Improved selectivity
• Better mechanical properties

The scientific contribution may involve optimization or a different application rather than simply achieving the highest numerical value.

When the Reviewer Says the Novelty Is Unclear

A useful response is:

“We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have expanded the comparison with previously reported studies and clarified the specific contribution of the present work. In particular, the present study differs from previous reports in terms of [material design/methodology/application/mechanistic analysis], as discussed in Section X.”

The revised Introduction and Discussion should then clearly explain the distinction.

Do Not Define Novelty Solely as “First Report”

Statements such as:

“This is the first study to…”

should be used cautiously.

It can be difficult to prove that no previous study has ever reported something similar.

A safer formulation may be:

“To the best of our knowledge, limited studies have investigated…”

or:

“Few studies have systematically examined…”

provided that the literature search genuinely supports the statement.

When a Reviewer Provides Additional References

If the suggested papers are relevant, they should be examined carefully and incorporated where appropriate.

A response may state:

“We appreciate the reviewer for drawing our attention to these relevant studies. The suggested references have been incorporated into the revised manuscript, and their findings have been compared with the results obtained in the present work.”

The authors should not cite a paper without actually understanding its methodology and conclusions.

Distinguish Between Performance and Mechanism

Two materials may show similar performance but operate through different mechanisms.

Conversely, two materials may have different performance values but share a similar underlying mechanism.

Therefore, comparison should consider both:

What the material does

and

Why it behaves that way.

This can make the Discussion much more scientifically valuable.

Compare More Than One Parameter

For example, in corrosion research, comparing only inhibition efficiency may be insufficient.

Consider:

• Icorr
• Ecorr
• Rct
• Rp
• Stability
• Exposure time
• Inhibitor concentration
• Electrolyte
• Surface morphology

For adsorption:

• qmax
• Removal efficiency
• Equilibrium time
• Kinetic model
• Isotherm model
• Regeneration
• Selectivity

For catalysts:

• Conversion
• Selectivity
• Yield
• Reaction time
• Catalyst loading
• Stability
• Recyclability

This creates a more meaningful comparison.

Do Not Compare Different Systems as Though They Were Identical

For example, comparing an organic inhibitor in acidic solution directly with a polymer coating in neutral NaCl may not be scientifically meaningful merely because both are described as “corrosion inhibitors.”

The context must be considered.

A Recommended Response Structure

For a comparison-related reviewer comment:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The performance of the present system has been compared with previously reported materials under comparable experimental conditions. The comparison has been added to Table X and discussed in Section X. We have also clarified the factors that may account for differences between the present results and those reported in the literature.”

What to Do When No Direct Literature Comparison Exists

Sometimes there is no truly comparable study.

In that case, do not manufacture a comparison.

Instead:

“Direct comparison with previously reported systems is difficult because the available studies employ substantially different experimental conditions and evaluation methods. We have therefore discussed the closest relevant studies while clearly noting these differences.”

This is more credible than presenting an inappropriate comparison.

Comparison Should Support the Scientific Contribution

The purpose of a literature comparison is not simply to demonstrate that your numerical value is larger.

A good comparison should help answer:

What does this study add to what is already known?

The answer might be:

• A new material
• A new synthesis strategy
• Improved performance
• Better stability
• A new mechanism
• Improved understanding of structure–property relationships
• A more sustainable approach
• Application under previously unexplored conditions
• More comprehensive characterization

When comparison with previous studies is handled carefully, it strengthens both the novelty claim and the scientific significance of the manuscript.

32. How to Respond to Comments About Novelty and Scientific Contribution

Novelty is one of the most important factors considered by editors and reviewers. A manuscript may contain technically correct experiments and well-presented results but still face rejection if its scientific contribution is unclear.

Reviewers may therefore ask authors to explain what is genuinely new, how the work differs from previous studies, and why the findings are significant.

Common Reviewer Comments About Novelty

A reviewer may state:

• “The novelty of this work is unclear.”
• “Similar studies have already been reported.”
• “The authors should better explain the originality of the study.”
• “What is the major scientific contribution?”
• “The manuscript does not provide sufficient advancement over previous work.”
• “The proposed material has already been reported.”
• “The novelty is mainly incremental.”

These comments require more than simply adding the word “novel” to the manuscript.

What Does Scientific Novelty Mean?

Novelty can arise from several different aspects of research.

For example:

• A new material or composition
• A new synthesis strategy
• A new experimental approach
• A previously unexplored application
• A new mechanism
• A new structure–property relationship
• A significant performance improvement
• A new combination of established components
• A new theoretical or computational framework
• A new understanding of an existing phenomenon

The authors should identify which type of contribution their study actually provides.

Do Not Confuse Novelty With Complexity

A study does not automatically become novel because it uses:

• More characterization techniques
• More sophisticated equipment
• More experimental conditions
• A larger number of figures
• A complex statistical model

Novelty concerns the new scientific knowledge or capability provided by the study, not simply the amount of work performed.

Clearly Distinguish the Present Study From Previous Work

A strong novelty statement follows this logic:

Previous studies have established X. However, they have not adequately addressed Y. The present study addresses this limitation by Z.

For example:

“Previous studies have investigated CuFe₂O₄-based adsorbents for pharmaceutical contaminant removal. However, the influence of integrating CuFe₂O₄ with g-C₃N₅ on surface properties and adsorption behavior remains insufficiently understood. The present study therefore focuses on the synthesis, characterization, and adsorption mechanism of the resulting composite.”

The exact claim should be supported by the literature.

When the Reviewer Says Similar Work Already Exists

Do not immediately argue that the studies are completely different.

First identify the actual overlap.

Then explain the meaningful distinction.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. We agree that related materials have previously been investigated. However, the present study differs from those reports in terms of [composition/synthesis method/application/experimental conditions/mechanistic analysis]. These distinctions have now been clarified in the Introduction and Discussion.”

This is much more convincing than simply stating:

“Our work is novel.”

Use a Direct Comparison

When several closely related studies exist, a comparison table can be particularly effective.

Possible columns include:

• Material
• Synthesis method
• Target application
• Experimental conditions
• Key performance parameter
• Mechanistic analysis
• Main limitation
• Present study

The table should reveal the scientific gap rather than merely list papers.

Novelty Does Not Require the Highest Performance

A common misconception is that a new study must outperform every previous study.

That is not necessarily true.

A study may be scientifically valuable because it provides:

• Better mechanistic understanding
• Improved stability
• A simpler synthesis
• Lower energy consumption
• Reduced use of hazardous chemicals
• Better recyclability
• Improved selectivity
• New application conditions

Scientific contribution should therefore be evaluated in context.

Avoid Unsupported “First” Claims

Statements such as:

“This is the first study in the world…”

are extremely difficult to establish.

A safer approach is:

“To the best of our knowledge, only limited studies have investigated…”

or:

“To the best of our knowledge, the systematic evaluation of X under Y conditions has not been extensively reported.”

Even these statements should be based on a thorough literature search.

When the Reviewer Says the Work Is Incremental

This is a more serious criticism.

The authors should identify whether the study provides a meaningful advance beyond simply combining known components.

For example, if materials A and B are already known and the manuscript simply combines them, the authors need to demonstrate what new knowledge results from the combination.

Possible contributions include:

• Synergistic behavior
• New interfacial interactions
• Improved structure
• New mechanism
• New functionality
• Significant performance improvement
• New application

Simply stating that “A and B were combined for the first time” may not be sufficient.

Demonstrate Synergy Carefully

If the authors claim synergy between two components, the claim should be supported by appropriate comparison.

For example, compare:

A alone

B alone

A + B

If the composite performs better than both individual components, this may support a synergistic effect, but the mechanism still needs to be discussed carefully.

A stronger claim requires appropriate quantitative and mechanistic evidence.

When the Reviewer Requests a Clearer Contribution Statement

A response might be:

“We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have revised the final paragraph of the Introduction to explicitly state the scientific contribution of the present work. The revised text clarifies how the proposed system differs from previously reported approaches and identifies the specific knowledge gap addressed by this study.”

The corresponding Discussion and Conclusion should use consistent language.

Novelty Should Appear Throughout the Manuscript

The contribution should not appear only in one sentence in the Introduction.

It should be reflected consistently in:

• Abstract
• Introduction
• Results and Discussion
• Conclusion

For example:

Abstract: Briefly state the main contribution.

Introduction: Establish the gap.

Results: Provide evidence addressing the gap.

Discussion: Explain what the evidence means.

Conclusion: State the resulting scientific contribution.

Do Not Overstate the Contribution

A common problem is transforming a limited experimental observation into a broad scientific claim.

For example:

“This study provides a complete understanding of the corrosion mechanism.”

may be too strong if the study contains only polarization, EIS, and SEM data.

A more defensible statement may be:

“The combined electrochemical and surface-characterization results provide insight into the factors contributing to the observed corrosion protection.”

The second statement accurately reflects the evidence.

When the Reviewer Says the Study Has Limited Significance

Authors should explain why the findings matter.

Scientific significance may relate to:

• Fundamental understanding
• Practical application
• Environmental impact
• Industrial relevance
• Material design
• Process optimization
• Methodological advancement

For example:

“The significance of the present work lies not only in the improved adsorption performance but also in establishing a relationship between the composite’s surface characteristics and its adsorption behavior.”

A Recommended Response Structure

For a novelty-related comment:

“We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this important point. We agree that the distinction between the present work and previous studies should be stated more explicitly. Accordingly, we have revised the Introduction and Discussion to clarify the specific research gap, compare the present approach with closely related reports, and explicitly identify the scientific contribution of this study.”

Then provide the exact location of the changes.

The Best Novelty Statement Answers One Question

Ultimately, a reviewer should be able to answer:

“After reading this paper, what do I know now that I did not know before?”

If the manuscript provides a clear answer to that question, its scientific contribution becomes much easier to recognize.

A strong response to novelty-related criticism therefore does not attempt to convince the reviewer that the manuscript is “new” through adjectives. Instead, it demonstrates what is new, why it matters, how it differs from previous work, and what evidence supports the claimed contribution.

33. How to Respond to Comments About Methodology and Experimental Design

The methodology is the foundation of a scientific manuscript. Even strong results can be questioned if the experimental procedure is insufficiently described, difficult to reproduce, or not appropriately designed.

Reviewers frequently examine whether the experimental design can actually support the conclusions presented in the manuscript. Their comments may concern sample preparation, experimental conditions, controls, replication, characterization procedures, data processing, and statistical analysis.

Common Reviewer Comments About Methodology

A reviewer may ask:

• Why was this experimental condition selected?
• How were the samples prepared?
• How many independent samples were tested?
• Were the experiments repeated?
• What were the control groups?
• Why was this concentration selected?
• Why was this temperature used?
• What instrument and measurement conditions were employed?
• Was the experimental procedure sufficiently described?
• Can the experiment be reproduced based on the information provided?
• Were appropriate statistical methods used?
• Were the samples prepared under identical conditions?

These questions should be answered precisely rather than with general statements.

Reproducibility Is Essential

Another researcher should ideally be able to reproduce the experiment using the information provided in the manuscript.

Depending on the study, this may require reporting:

• Chemical identities
• Purities
• Supplier information
• Concentrations
• Sample ratios
• Reaction temperature
• Reaction time
• pH
• Atmosphere
• Mixing conditions
• Heating rate
• Cooling conditions
• Washing procedure
• Drying conditions
• Calcination conditions
• Instrument model
• Measurement parameters

The exact information required depends on the research field.

Explain Why Experimental Conditions Were Selected

A reviewer may ask:

“Why was a concentration of 100 mg/L selected?”

A weak response would be:

“This concentration was selected based on previous studies.”

A stronger response explains the scientific or practical rationale and cites the relevant literature.

For example:

“The concentration range was selected based on previously reported experimental conditions and to provide sufficient resolution for evaluating the adsorption behavior across the investigated range.”

If the choice was dictated by experimental limitations, that can also be explained honestly.

Distinguish Independent Replicates From Repeated Measurements

This distinction is particularly important.

Three measurements of the same sample are not necessarily equivalent to three independently prepared samples.

Authors should clarify whether reported replicates represent:

• Independent sample preparations
• Repeated instrumental measurements
• Repeated experiments
• Technical replicates

This can materially affect statistical interpretation.

Report the Number of Replicates

When appropriate, indicate:

“All experiments were performed in triplicate.”

However, this statement should only be used if three independent or appropriately defined measurements were actually performed.

If different experiments used different numbers of replicates, report the number for each relevant experiment.

Control Groups

Controls are essential for determining whether an observed effect can reasonably be attributed to the variable being investigated.

Depending on the study, controls may include:

• Blank sample
• Untreated substrate
• Pure component
• Solvent control
• Negative control
• Positive control
• Commercial reference material

For example, if a composite material contains A and B, testing A, B, and A+B can help establish the contribution of each component.

When a Reviewer Requests an Additional Control

First determine whether the control addresses a genuine experimental uncertainty.

If it does and can be performed, adding it may substantially strengthen the manuscript.

If it cannot be performed, explain why and acknowledge the limitation rather than inventing a result.

Randomization and Sample Selection

For studies involving multiple samples or image analysis, reviewers may question how the samples or measurement regions were selected.

For example, particle-size analysis should ideally avoid selecting only visually favorable particles.

If ImageJ or another software package was used, explain the selection and measurement procedure sufficiently to make the analysis reproducible.

Instrument Parameters Matter

Reporting only the instrument name is often insufficient.

For example, an XRD Methods section may need information such as:

• Radiation source
• Wavelength
• 2θ range
• Step size
• Scan rate

Similarly, an FTIR experiment may require:

• Measurement mode
• Spectral range
• Resolution
• Number of scans

For EIS:

• Frequency range
• AC amplitude
• DC condition
• Electrolyte
• Electrode area

The appropriate details depend on the technique.

Sample Preparation Can Affect the Results

Reviewers may ask about:

• Grinding
• Drying
• Washing
• Polishing
• Degassing
• Heat treatment
• Storage
• Surface cleaning

These steps can significantly influence characterization and performance.

For example, BET measurements are sensitive to sample degassing conditions, while corrosion measurements can be highly sensitive to electrode surface preparation.

Methodology Should Match the Research Question

A sophisticated experimental technique is not automatically an appropriate technique.

The selected method should be capable of answering the specific scientific question.

For example:

XRD is useful for crystalline-phase identification.

XPS is useful for surface chemical states.

SEM provides morphological information.

BET provides surface-area and pore-structure information.

EIS evaluates frequency-dependent electrochemical behavior.

The response to a reviewer should therefore explain why the selected method is appropriate for the specific claim.

Statistical Analysis

When quantitative comparisons are made, reviewers may request statistical analysis.

Depending on the experimental design, appropriate approaches may include:

• Mean ± standard deviation
• Confidence intervals
• t-tests
• ANOVA
• Regression analysis
• Nonlinear fitting
• Appropriate post-hoc tests

The statistical method should correspond to the structure of the data.

Do not add statistical tests simply because a reviewer requested “statistics” without considering whether the test is appropriate.

Report Uncertainty Where Appropriate

Experimental results should not always be presented as a single exact number.

For example:

52.4 ± 2.1 m²/g

can be more informative than:

52.4 m²/g

when the uncertainty represents meaningful experimental variability.

The manuscript should explain what the uncertainty represents.

Significant Figures

Avoid reporting more precision than the experiment supports.

For example:

25.387492%

may imply unrealistic precision if the underlying measurement does not justify it.

Use a reasonable number of significant figures consistent with the instrument and calculation.

When the Reviewer Questions a Method

Do not immediately defend the original procedure.

Ask:

Is the method scientifically appropriate?

If the method is sound, explain its rationale and cite appropriate literature.

If the method has a limitation, acknowledge it and clarify its impact.

If the method is genuinely inappropriate, revise the analysis or repeat the experiment if possible.

When the Method Was Based on a Published Procedure

A response can state:

“The experimental procedure was adapted from a previously reported method, with modifications described in detail in Section 2.3.”

However, simply citing another paper does not eliminate the need to describe important modifications and experimental parameters.

When the Reviewer Requests More Experimental Details

A suitable response is:

“We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We agree that additional experimental details are necessary to improve reproducibility. The Methods section has therefore been expanded to include the sample preparation conditions, reaction time, temperature, concentration, and relevant instrumental parameters.”

Then ensure that those details actually appear in the revised manuscript.

Avoid Changing the Method After Seeing the Results Without Disclosure

Methodological decisions should not be presented retrospectively in a way that misrepresents how the experiment was originally performed.

If the analysis has been changed during revision, clearly explain what was changed and why.

For example:

“Following the reviewer’s suggestion, the original data were reanalyzed using [method]. The revised analysis is now reported in Section X.”

When the Reviewer Questions Experimental Reproducibility

A strong response may include:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding reproducibility. The revised manuscript now provides additional information regarding reagent concentrations, sample preparation, reaction conditions, measurement parameters, and the number of independent experiments.”

If supplementary experimental details are provided, refer to the relevant supplementary section.

A Recommended Response Structure

For methodology-related comments:

“We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We agree that the original description of the experimental procedure was not sufficiently detailed. We have therefore expanded Section X to clarify [specific details]. These additions are intended to improve reproducibility and allow readers to better understand the experimental conditions used in the study.”

Do Not Invent Missing Experimental Information

This is particularly important when preparing responses to reviewers.

If you do not know:

• The exact temperature
• Number of replicates
• Instrument parameters
• Sample preparation time
• Concentration
• Measurement conditions

do not guess.

Instead, verify the laboratory records, original instrument files, notebooks, or raw data.

If the information cannot be recovered, state the limitation honestly.

A Strong Methodology Is Transparent, Not Excessively Complicated

The goal of the Methods section is not to make the experiment appear sophisticated.

It is to make the procedure:

Clear

Reproducible

Scientifically justified

Appropriate for the research question

Consistent with the reported results

When responding to methodology-related reviewer comments, authors should therefore focus on transparency and scientific justification rather than simply adding more technical details.

34. How to Respond to Comments About Statistical Analysis and Data Reliability

Statistical analysis allows authors to distinguish meaningful experimental trends from random variation and provides readers with a better understanding of the reliability of the reported results. Reviewers may therefore question whether the statistical methods are appropriate, whether enough measurements were performed, or whether the reported differences are actually significant.

These comments should be addressed using the original experimental data rather than by adding statistical tests solely to make the results appear more convincing.

Common Reviewer Comments About Statistics

Reviewers may ask:

• How many independent experiments were performed?
• What do the error bars represent?
• Are the differences statistically significant?
• Which statistical test was used?
• Why was this statistical test selected?
• Were the assumptions of the test satisfied?
• Why are no error bars shown?
• Are the reported values mean ± standard deviation?
• Was the sample size sufficient?
• Were multiple comparisons corrected?
• Are the fitted parameters statistically reliable?

Mean ± Standard Deviation

When repeated measurements are available, results are often reported as:

Mean ± standard deviation (SD)

The manuscript should clearly state what the number of measurements represents.

For example:

“Data are presented as mean ± SD based on three independent experiments.”

Do not report SD if only a single measurement was performed.

Standard Deviation Is Not the Same as Standard Error

These quantities have different meanings.

Standard deviation (SD) describes variability among observations.

Standard error (SE or SEM) describes uncertainty in the estimated mean.

Authors should use the quantity appropriate for the purpose of the analysis and define it clearly.

Biological or Experimental Replicates vs. Technical Replicates

This distinction can be important.

Repeated measurements of the same sample may provide technical reproducibility but do not necessarily establish independent experimental reproducibility.

For example:

• Measuring one prepared sample three times → technical replicates
• Independently preparing three samples and measuring each → independent replicates

The manuscript should accurately describe which type was used.

Choosing the Appropriate Statistical Test

The statistical test should be determined by the experimental design.

Depending on the data, researchers may use:

• t-test
• One-way ANOVA
• Two-way ANOVA
• Nonparametric tests
• Regression analysis
• Correlation analysis
• Appropriate post-hoc comparisons

The exact choice depends on factors such as:

• Number of groups
• Independent vs paired observations
• Data distribution
• Variance structure
• Number of factors
• Research question

Do not select a statistical test simply because it is commonly used in similar papers.

Statistical Significance Does Not Equal Scientific Importance

A statistically significant difference is not necessarily scientifically meaningful.

For example, a very small difference may achieve statistical significance with a sufficiently large sample size.

Conversely, a scientifically meaningful effect may fail to reach statistical significance when the sample size is small.

The Discussion should therefore consider both:

Statistical significance

and

Scientific significance.

Report the Actual Statistical Evidence

When appropriate, provide:

• p-value
• Confidence interval
• Effect size
• Number of replicates
• Statistical test
• Significance threshold

For example:

“The treated samples exhibited significantly higher adsorption capacity than the control (p < 0.05, one-way ANOVA).”

The exact statistical method should be identified.

Avoid Saying “Significant” Without Statistical Evidence

In scientific writing, the word significant can imply statistical significance.

Instead of:

“A significant increase was observed.”

when no statistical test was performed, consider:

“A clear increase was observed.”

If statistical significance was tested, report the relevant evidence.

Error Bars Must Be Explained

A reviewer may ask:

“What do the error bars represent?”

The figure caption should specify whether they represent:

• SD
• SEM
• Confidence interval
• Measurement uncertainty
• Another defined quantity

For example:

“Error bars represent the standard deviation of three independent measurements.”

When No Statistical Analysis Was Performed

Do not add artificial statistics during revision.

If the original experiment was performed only once, acknowledge that limitation.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The original measurements were performed as single measurements, and therefore a statistical significance analysis could not be reliably performed retrospectively. We have clarified this limitation in the revised manuscript.”

If repeating the experiment is feasible, however, obtaining independent replicates may substantially strengthen the study.

When the Reviewer Questions Sample Size

Sample size should be considered in relation to:

• Experimental variability
• Expected effect size
• Study design
• Available resources
• Statistical objectives

A small number of replicates can limit the strength of statistical conclusions.

If the sample size is limited, avoid making overly broad claims.

Correlation Does Not Prove Causation

A reviewer may question claims based on correlation.

For example:

“Increasing surface area caused higher adsorption capacity.”

If the evidence only demonstrates correlation, a more cautious statement is:

“Adsorption capacity increased with increasing surface area, suggesting that surface area may contribute to the observed adsorption behavior.”

Additional evidence is required to establish causality.

Regression Analysis

When fitting kinetic, isotherm, thermal, or electrochemical data, reviewers may ask why a particular model was selected.

Do not select a model solely because it provides the highest R².

Consider:

• Physical meaning
• Parameter plausibility
• Residual distribution
• Model assumptions
• Experimental uncertainty
• Appropriate nonlinear fitting where applicable

A high R² alone does not establish that a model is physically correct.

Avoid Relying Exclusively on R²

Two models can have similar R² values while providing very different physical interpretations.

Depending on the analysis, authors may also consider:

• Adjusted R²
• RMSE
• Chi-square
• Residual analysis
• AIC/BIC
• Parameter uncertainty

The appropriate criteria depend on the model and data type.

Statistical Analysis of Spectroscopic Data

For characterization data, statistical analysis may be appropriate when comparing quantitative parameters such as:

• Peak intensity
• Peak area
• Particle size
• Surface area
• Elemental composition
• Thermal decomposition temperature

However, not every spectrum requires statistical testing.

A reviewer asking for “statistical analysis” does not necessarily mean that every peak in an FTIR or XRD pattern must undergo a significance test.

Statistical Treatment of Particle-Size Measurements

If particle-size distribution is reported, provide information about:

• Number of particles analyzed
• Selection procedure
• Measurement software
• Mean or median
• Distribution range
• Standard deviation, if appropriate

For example:

“Particle sizes were determined from 100 particles using ImageJ.”

The number and selection procedure should reflect the actual analysis performed.

Statistical Reliability of Electrochemical Results

Electrochemical measurements can show significant specimen-to-specimen variability.

When possible, replicate measurements can help establish the reliability of:

• Icorr
• Ecorr
• Rct
• Rp
• Inhibition efficiency
• Other fitted parameters

If only one spectrum is reported, it may be useful to explain whether it is representative and whether independent measurements were performed.

When a Reviewer Requests More Data

If the reviewer asks for additional measurements, distinguish between:

Additional statistical analysis of existing data

and

New experimental measurements.

Statistical analysis cannot create information that was never measured.

If additional experiments are necessary, they should be performed where feasible.

A Recommended Reviewer Response

For a statistical-analysis comment:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. The statistical treatment of the experimental results has been clarified in the revised manuscript. The reported values are now presented as mean ± SD based on [number] independent measurements, and the statistical significance was evaluated using [test]. The corresponding information has been added to the Methods section and figure captions.”

Only use this wording when it accurately describes the actual analysis.

Do Not Manufacture Statistical Significance

Authors should never:

• Invent replicate measurements
• Create artificial error bars
• Alter numerical values to obtain p < 0.05
• Select only favorable replicates
• Remove outliers without scientific justification
• Change the statistical test solely to obtain a desired result

If the data are not statistically significant, that is a legitimate scientific result.

When Results Are Not Statistically Significant

A useful response may be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Statistical analysis indicated that the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). We have therefore revised the corresponding statement to avoid implying a statistically significant difference.”

This demonstrates scientific transparency.

Statistics Should Strengthen, Not Replace, Scientific Reasoning

Statistical analysis is one component of evidence.

A strong scientific argument combines:

Reliable experimental measurements

• Appropriate statistical analysis
• Physically meaningful interpretation
• Relevant literature
• Appropriate consideration of uncertainty

The purpose of statistics is not to make a manuscript look more rigorous. It is to accurately communicate the reliability and variability of the evidence.

The Golden Rule

When responding to statistical reviewer comments, always ask:

What do the original data actually allow us to conclude?

The revised manuscript should reflect that answer—even when the result is less impressive than originally hoped.

35. How to Respond to Comments About References and Literature Review

References are not merely supporting citations; they establish the scientific context of the manuscript, demonstrate awareness of previous research, and help readers understand how the present study relates to the existing body of knowledge.

Reviewers may therefore request additional references, question the relevance of cited studies, identify missing foundational papers, or ask authors to update an outdated literature review.

Common Reviewer Comments About References

A reviewer may ask:

• Please include more recent references.
• Several important studies are missing.
• The literature review is outdated.
• The authors should cite the following papers.
• The manuscript relies too heavily on old references.
• Some references are not directly relevant.
• The novelty claim is not adequately supported by the literature.
• The authors should compare their findings with recent studies.
• The Introduction should better establish the research gap.
• The reference list contains formatting inconsistencies.

Use References to Establish the Research Gap

The Introduction should not simply contain a long list of citations.

A useful literature review develops a logical progression:

What is already known → What remains unclear → Why the gap matters → What this study addresses

For example:

“Previous studies have demonstrated the potential of X for Y. However, most reported systems have focused on Z, while the influence of A on B remains insufficiently understood. Therefore, the present study investigates…”

This makes the citations serve a scientific purpose.

Avoid Citation Dumping

A sentence containing ten references is not necessarily a stronger scientific statement.

For example:

“Many studies have investigated corrosion inhibitors [1–15].”

is less informative than explaining what those studies actually established.

Instead:

“Previous studies have shown that organic molecules containing heteroatoms and π-electron systems can interact with metal surfaces and reduce corrosion rates through adsorption-based surface-film formation [1–5].”

The references now support a specific scientific claim.

Use Recent Literature Appropriately

Reviewers frequently request newer references because rapidly developing fields can change substantially over a few years.

Recent literature can be particularly important for:

• AI-assisted scientific writing
• Nanomaterials
• Energy storage
• Advanced coatings
• Catalysis
• Environmental remediation
• Machine learning
• Emerging characterization methods

However, recent references should not replace foundational studies when older papers established the underlying theory or methodology.

A balanced literature review often includes both:

Foundational references

and

Recent developments.

Do Not Add References Solely to Satisfy a Reviewer

Every added reference should be relevant.

Authors should read the suggested paper and determine:

• What it actually reports
• Whether it supports the claim
• Whether it is directly comparable
• Whether it changes the interpretation of the manuscript

Adding irrelevant citations can make the manuscript weaker rather than stronger.

When a Reviewer Requests Specific Papers

A reviewer may recommend several papers.

If they are relevant:

“We thank the reviewer for these helpful suggestions. The recommended studies have been carefully examined and incorporated into the revised manuscript where appropriate.”

If some are not directly relevant, authors can explain this respectfully.

For example:

“We appreciate the suggested references. After careful consideration, we found that these studies focus primarily on [different system], whereas the present manuscript addresses [specific system]. We have nevertheless added the most relevant references and clarified the distinction in the revised Discussion.”

There is no requirement to cite a paper merely because a reviewer suggested it if it is genuinely irrelevant.

Be Careful With Self-Citation

Authors should avoid excessive self-citation.

Self-citations are appropriate when previous work by the same research group is genuinely relevant, but the manuscript should not cite the authors’ previous publications simply to increase citation counts.

The same principle applies to citations suggested by reviewers or editors.

Check Whether References Actually Support the Claim

A common problem is citation mismatch.

For example:

“X increases corrosion resistance [25].”

But reference 25 may actually report X only under completely different conditions.

Before submission, verify that each important claim is supported by the cited source.

Avoid Citing Review Articles for Everything

Review papers are useful for:

• General background
• Broad research trends
• Historical development

However, when making a specific experimental or mechanistic claim, the original research paper may be more appropriate.

For example, if discussing a specific adsorption capacity, cite the original study that reported that value rather than only a review summarizing it.

Compare With Previous Studies Using the Correct Conditions

A reference should not be used as a direct benchmark unless the experimental conditions are sufficiently comparable.

For example, compare:

• Same target material
• Similar electrolyte
• Similar temperature
• Similar concentration
• Similar measurement method
• Similar sample preparation

Otherwise, explain the differences explicitly.

When a Reviewer Says the Literature Review Is Too Short

Do not simply add pages of references.

Identify the missing scientific context.

The revised Introduction may need to address:

• Development of the field
• Current state of the art
• Major approaches
• Their limitations
• Current research gap
• Motivation for the present work

The goal is to make the scientific rationale clearer.

When the Reviewer Says the Literature Review Is Too Long

Remove references that do not directly contribute to the research question.

The Introduction should not become a comprehensive textbook chapter.

Keep literature that helps establish:

1. The problem
2. The current state of knowledge
3. The limitation or gap
4. The motivation for the present study

Reference Formatting

Before resubmission, check:

• Author names
• Journal names
• Year
• Volume
• Pages/article number
• DOI
• Reference numbering
• Citation order
• Journal-specific formatting

Reference-management software can help, but the final reference list should still be manually checked.

DOI and Metadata Errors

Incorrect bibliographic information can create problems during editorial processing.

Check whether:

• DOI belongs to the cited paper
• Title matches the DOI
• Authors are correct
• Journal information is correct
• Publication year is correct

Do not copy metadata blindly from search engines or citation generators.

When a Reference Has Been Retracted

Authors should verify important references, particularly those supporting major conclusions.

If a cited study has been retracted or seriously questioned, it may need to be replaced or discussed appropriately.

When a Reviewer Questions a Citation

A reviewer may state:

“Reference [32] does not support this statement.”

The appropriate response is to verify the source.

If the reviewer is correct:

“We thank the reviewer for identifying this issue. The original reference did not adequately support the statement. We have replaced it with a more appropriate reference and revised the corresponding sentence.”

If the reference does support the claim, explain the connection clearly rather than responding defensively.

A Recommended Response Structure

For a literature-related comment:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The literature review has been updated to include recent and relevant studies addressing [topic]. We have also expanded the comparison with previous reports and clarified the research gap that motivates the present study.”

If specific references were added:

“The relevant references have been incorporated into Sections X and Y.”

Avoid Artificially Inflating the Reference List

A manuscript with 100 references is not automatically stronger than one with 40 carefully selected references.

The important question is:

Does each citation help establish, support, compare, or contextualize a scientific claim?

If the answer is no, the reference may not be necessary.

References Should Tell a Scientific Story

A strong literature review allows the reader to understand:

What has already been discovered?

What remains uncertain?

What limitations exist in previous approaches?

Why is another study necessary?

What specific contribution does the present work provide?

When responding to reviewer comments about references, the goal should therefore be more than satisfying a request for additional citations. The revised literature review should make the manuscript’s scientific context, research gap, and contribution clearer and more convincing.

36. How to Respond to Comments About Language, Grammar, and Scientific Writing

Reviewers frequently comment on the language quality of a manuscript, particularly when the text contains grammatical errors, awkward expressions, excessive repetition, unclear sentences, or inconsistent terminology.

Language-related comments should not be treated as merely cosmetic. Poor writing can make a scientifically strong study difficult to understand and may create ambiguity about the experimental procedure, results, or conclusions.

Common Reviewer Comments About Language

A reviewer may state:

• “The manuscript requires extensive English editing.”
• “The English language should be improved.”
• “There are numerous grammatical errors.”
• “The manuscript is difficult to read.”
• “Some sentences are unclear.”
• “The authors should improve the academic style.”
• “The manuscript contains repetitive statements.”
• “The terminology is inconsistent.”
• “The manuscript should be proofread by a native English speaker.”

Correct Grammar Without Changing Scientific Meaning

The primary goal of language editing should be to improve the expression of the science—not to change the science itself.

For example:

“The results indicate that the increasing concentration significantly improve the corrosion resistance.”

can be corrected to:

“The results indicate that increasing the concentration significantly improves corrosion resistance.”

The scientific meaning remains unchanged.

Improve Sentence Structure

Scientific manuscripts often contain very long sentences containing several independent ideas.

For example:

“The material showed excellent adsorption performance, which may be attributed to its high surface area, and the FTIR results also indicated the presence of functional groups, and therefore the material can be considered a promising adsorbent.”

This can be divided into clearer statements:

“The material exhibited high adsorption performance. This behavior may be associated with its relatively high surface area. The FTIR results also indicated the presence of functional groups that may contribute to adsorption.”

Shorter sentences can improve readability without reducing scientific depth.

Avoid Excessive Passive Voice

Passive voice is common in scientific writing and is not inherently incorrect.

For example:

“The samples were analyzed using XRD.”

is perfectly acceptable.

However, excessive passive constructions can make a manuscript unnecessarily difficult to read.

A balanced scientific style can use both active and passive constructions where appropriate.

Improve Academic Tone

Academic writing should be:

• Precise
• Objective
• Concise
• Evidence-based
• Professionally worded

Avoid unnecessarily promotional expressions such as:

“This amazing material showed an incredibly excellent performance.”

A more appropriate formulation is:

“The material exhibited improved performance under the investigated conditions.”

Avoid Overuse of “Very,” “Highly,” and Similar Intensifiers

Scientific writing is stronger when quantitative evidence replaces subjective intensifiers.

Instead of:

“The material showed a very high adsorption capacity.”

consider:

“The material exhibited an adsorption capacity of XX mg g⁻¹.”

The numerical evidence communicates the magnitude more effectively.

Maintain Consistent Terminology

The same scientific concept should generally be described using consistent terminology.

For example, do not alternate unnecessarily between:

• “adsorbent material”
• “adsorption agent”
• “adsorption substance”
• “adsorbent”

if they refer to exactly the same thing.

Consistency is particularly important for:

• Material names
• Abbreviations
• Experimental parameters
• Chemical species
• Measurement techniques
• Statistical terms

Define Abbreviations Once

An abbreviation should generally be defined at its first meaningful occurrence.

For example:

“Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) was performed…”

Afterward, “EIS” can be used consistently.

Avoid repeatedly defining the same abbreviation.

Check Singular and Plural Usage

Scientific English frequently contains errors such as:

“The results shows…”

which should be:

“The results show…”

Similarly:

“The sample were…”

should be:

“The sample was…”

These seemingly minor errors can significantly affect the perceived quality of a manuscript when they occur repeatedly.

Pay Attention to Articles

Use of a, an, and the is a common difficulty for non-native English writers.

For example:

“The sample was placed in an electrolyte.”

rather than:

“The sample was placed in a electrolyte.”

Careful proofreading is particularly useful for these errors.

Improve Transitions Between Ideas

Scientific writing should have logical connections between sentences and paragraphs.

Useful transitions include:

• “However,”
• “In contrast,”
• “Therefore,”
• “Furthermore,”
• “Accordingly,”
• “In addition,”
• “These findings suggest that…”
• “Taken together,…”

These should be used naturally rather than inserted into every paragraph.

Avoid Repetition

A manuscript may repeatedly state the same conclusion in:

• Results
• Discussion
• Conclusion

Some repetition is necessary, but excessive repetition makes the manuscript longer without adding information.

For example, if the same sentence appears several times:

“The composite exhibited excellent adsorption performance.”

it can be replaced in subsequent sections with more specific discussion of the mechanism or implication.

Improve Paragraph Structure

A strong scientific paragraph often follows:

Topic sentence → Evidence → Interpretation → Implication

For example:

“The surface morphology changed substantially following modification. FE-SEM images revealed… This change may be associated with… These morphological differences may contribute to…”

This structure makes complex scientific arguments easier to follow.

Language Editing Should Not Introduce New Scientific Claims

This is especially important when using AI-assisted editing or professional humanization.

An editor should not transform:

“The results suggest…”

into:

“The results prove…”

unless the scientific evidence genuinely supports the stronger statement.

Similarly, editing should not introduce mechanisms, numerical values, references, or conclusions that were not present in the original research.

When a Reviewer Requests Professional English Editing

A suitable response is:

“We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised to improve grammar, sentence structure, terminology, readability, and overall academic style. Particular attention was given to maintaining the original scientific meaning while improving clarity.”

If the manuscript was professionally edited, state this accurately.

When the Reviewer Identifies Specific Language Errors

Do not simply reply:

“Corrected.”

A more professional response is:

“We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. The sentence has been revised for grammatical accuracy and clarity in Section X, Page X, Lines X–X.”

If multiple errors were identified, review the entire manuscript rather than correcting only the quoted sentence.

When the Manuscript Has Extensive Language Problems

If the reviewer says the manuscript requires extensive editing, perform a complete language review rather than making isolated corrections.

Check:

• Grammar
• Sentence structure
• Word choice
• Terminology
• Articles
• Tenses
• Prepositions
• Punctuation
• Capitalization
• Abbreviations
• Consistency
• Academic tone

Language Quality and Scientific Quality Are Different

Improving English does not automatically make the science stronger.

A manuscript can have excellent English but weak experimental design.

Conversely, a scientifically strong study can be difficult to evaluate because of poor language.

The revision process should therefore address both independently:

Scientific revision: data, methodology, analysis, interpretation.

Language revision: grammar, clarity, structure, terminology, readability.

A Final Language Audit

Before resubmission, search the manuscript for common problems such as:

• “results shows”
• “results indicates”
• “data was”
• “researches”
• “informations”
• “discussed about”
• “according to our results it can be seen that”
• excessive use of “very”
• inconsistent tense
• inconsistent abbreviations
• repeated conclusions

Also read the manuscript from beginning to end rather than relying exclusively on automated grammar software.

Language Editing Should Preserve the Author’s Voice

The goal is not to make every manuscript sound identical.

A professional revision should make the writing:

Natural

Clear

Precise

Academic

Scientifically faithful

without unnecessarily replacing the author’s technical style with generic or formulaic language.

For reviewer responses, the strongest approach is therefore to show that the manuscript was not merely “proofread,” but carefully revised to improve clarity and readability while preserving the accuracy and intended scientific meaning of the work.

37. How to Respond to Comments About the Abstract

The abstract is often the first part of a manuscript that editors and reviewers read. It should provide a concise and accurate overview of the research problem, methodology, principal findings, and scientific significance.

Reviewers may request revisions when the abstract is too general, contains unsupported claims, omits important quantitative results, or does not accurately reflect the main manuscript.

Common Reviewer Comments About the Abstract

A reviewer may ask:

• The abstract is too vague.
• The objectives are unclear.
• Important quantitative results are missing.
• The abstract contains unnecessary background.
• The conclusions are overstated.
• The novelty is not clear.
• The abstract does not reflect the revised manuscript.
• The abstract should be shortened.
• The abstract contains unexplained abbreviations.
• The abstract should include the most important numerical findings.

The Abstract Should Reflect the Entire Study

A useful abstract generally answers four questions:

What problem was investigated?

What was done?

What were the most important findings?

Why do those findings matter?

For example:

“This study investigated X to address the limitation of Y. A Z-based material was synthesized using…. The material exhibited…. These findings demonstrate….”

The exact structure should follow the target journal’s requirements.

Keep the Background Brief

The abstract is not an Introduction.

Avoid spending most of the abstract explaining general background.

Instead of:

“Environmental pollution is one of the most serious problems facing humanity. Water pollution has attracted considerable attention…”

move quickly toward the specific research problem.

For example:

“The removal of tetracycline from aqueous systems remains challenging because of its persistence and complex interactions with conventional adsorbents.”

State the Objective Clearly

The reader should understand exactly what the study investigated.

For example:

“This study aimed to synthesize a magnetic g-C₃N₅/CuFe₂O₄ nanocomposite and evaluate its performance for tetracycline adsorption.”

This is clearer than:

“In this study, a new material was prepared and investigated.”

Include the Most Important Methodological Information

The abstract does not need every experimental detail.

However, include information necessary to understand the study, such as:

• Material or system investigated
• Main experimental approach
• Important operating conditions, where relevant
• Main analytical techniques, if central to the study

Include Quantitative Results

One of the most common weaknesses in abstracts is the absence of numerical findings.

Instead of:

“The material showed excellent adsorption performance.”

provide the relevant result:

“The maximum adsorption capacity reached XX mg g⁻¹ under the optimized conditions.”

Similarly, for corrosion studies:

“The inhibitor reduced the corrosion current density by XX% and increased the charge-transfer resistance to XX Ω cm².”

Quantitative results make the abstract substantially more informative.

Do Not Include Every Result

An abstract should not become a compressed Results section.

Select the findings that best communicate the main contribution.

Usually, the most important quantitative result, key mechanism, and principal application-related finding are sufficient.

Avoid Unsupported Superlatives

Terms such as:

• “excellent”
• “outstanding”
• “remarkable”
• “exceptional”
• “highly efficient”

should be used cautiously.

Whenever possible, replace subjective language with measurable evidence.

Instead of:

“The material exhibited outstanding adsorption performance.”

write:

“The material exhibited a maximum adsorption capacity of XX mg g⁻¹.”

The Abstract Should Not Claim More Than the Manuscript Demonstrates

If the manuscript reports laboratory-scale results, avoid claiming:

“The material is suitable for industrial application.”

unless sufficient evidence exists.

A more appropriate conclusion may be:

“The findings demonstrate the potential of the material for tetracycline removal under the investigated laboratory conditions.”

Avoid New Information

Every major claim in the abstract should be supported by the manuscript.

Do not introduce:

• New experimental results
• New mechanisms
• New numerical values
• New references
• New conclusions

that do not appear in the main text.

Be Careful With Abbreviations

Avoid unnecessary abbreviations in the abstract.

If an abbreviation is essential, define it at first use.

For example:

“Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS)…”

Afterward, EIS can be used.

Follow the Journal’s Abstract Format

Some journals require:

• Structured abstracts
• Unstructured abstracts
• Specific word limits
• Specific headings
• No abbreviations
• No references
• A graphical abstract

The response to a reviewer should account for the journal’s exact requirements.

When the Reviewer Says the Abstract Is Too Long

Do not simply remove random sentences.

Prioritize:

1. Objective
2. Method
3. Key findings
4. Scientific implication

Remove:

• General background
• Repeated conclusions
• Excessive methodological details
• Secondary results
• Generic statements

When the Reviewer Says the Abstract Is Too General

Add concrete information.

For example:

Instead of:

“The synthesized material showed good properties.”

write:

“XRD confirmed the formation of the expected crystalline phases, while FE-SEM revealed particle sizes in the range of XX–XX nm.”

Only include characterization results that are genuinely important to the central message.

When the Reviewer Says the Novelty Is Missing

The abstract should communicate the contribution without exaggeration.

For example:

“Unlike previously reported systems, the present study combines X and Y to investigate Z under…”

The exact distinction should be supported by the literature.

A Recommended Response to an Abstract Comment

“We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. The abstract has been substantially revised to improve clarity and conciseness. The research objective has been stated more explicitly, the principal quantitative findings have been added, and statements that could be interpreted as overly broad have been moderated. The revised abstract now more accurately reflects the main findings and contribution of the manuscript.”

Abstract Quality Checklist

Before resubmission, verify that the abstract contains:

• Clear research problem
• Clear objective
• Main methodology
• Most important results
• Key numerical findings where appropriate
• Main scientific implication
• Accurate novelty/contribution
• No unsupported claims
• No unnecessary references
• Appropriate abbreviations
• Compliance with the journal’s word limit

The Abstract Is a Scientific Summary, Not an Advertisement

The strongest abstracts are concise, quantitative, and evidence-based.

The goal is not to convince the reader that the study is “excellent.” The goal is to allow the reader to understand what was investigated, what was discovered, and why the findings matter within a very limited number of words.

38. How to Respond to Comments About Figures and Tables

Figures and tables are essential components of a scientific manuscript because they allow complex experimental results to be presented efficiently. Reviewers frequently evaluate whether the figures and tables are clear, scientifically informative, appropriately labeled, and consistent with the discussion.

A reviewer may request changes when figures are difficult to read, captions are incomplete, important data are missing, or tables contain unnecessary information.

Common Reviewer Comments About Figures and Tables

A reviewer may state:

• “The quality of the figures should be improved.”
• “The labels in Figure X are too small.”
• “The figure caption is insufficient.”
• “Please provide higher-resolution images.”
• “The authors should add error bars.”
• “The data presented in Figure X should be tabulated.”
• “The table contains too much information.”
• “The authors should explain the results shown in Figure X.”
• “Figures X and Y appear redundant.”
• “The axes and units are not clearly defined.”
• “The authors should include additional characterization.”

Every Figure Should Have a Clear Purpose

Before revising a figure, ask:

What scientific message should the reader obtain from this figure?

A figure should not be included simply because the corresponding measurement was performed.

For example, an SEM image should help communicate information about:

• Morphology
• Particle size
• Surface structure
• Agglomeration
• Coating coverage

Similarly, an XRD pattern should communicate information such as:

• Phase composition
• Crystallinity
• Structural changes
• Peak shifts or additional phases

Figure Captions Should Be Self-Explanatory

A good caption should allow the reader to understand the basic content of the figure without searching extensively through the main text.

Depending on the figure, the caption may identify:

• Sample names
• Experimental conditions
• Measurement technique
• Units
• Subfigure descriptions
• Meaning of symbols
• Error-bar definitions

For example:

Figure X. XRD patterns of the synthesized samples: (a) pristine material, (b) modified material, and (c) composite.

This is more useful than:

Figure X. XRD results.

Use Consistent Labels

Across all figures, maintain consistency in:

• Font
• Font size
• Units
• Sample names
• Abbreviations
• Axis notation
• Decimal formatting
• Symbols

For example, if the manuscript uses Z′ (Ω) and Z″ (Ω) in one figure, avoid switching to a different notation elsewhere without justification.

Axes Must Include Units

Whenever applicable, axes should include both the parameter and its unit.

For example:

Temperature (°C)

rather than:

Temperature

Similarly:

Wavenumber (cm⁻¹)

rather than simply:

Wavenumber.

Improve Figure Resolution

Low-resolution figures can make:

• Peak labels
• Axis numbers
• Legends
• Microscopy details
• Spectral features

difficult to interpret.

When possible, use appropriate high-resolution or vector formats according to the journal’s requirements.

However, increasing the resolution of an inherently poor image does not create missing scientific information.

Do Not Manipulate Scientific Images Improperly

Image processing should not alter the scientific interpretation.

Generally acceptable processing may include:

• Appropriate brightness adjustment
• Contrast adjustment
• Cropping
• Background correction

provided that the processing is applied appropriately and does not selectively hide or create features.

For microscopy, spectroscopy, electrophoresis, and other scientific images, follow the journal’s image-integrity policies.

SEM and TEM Images

For microscopy images, include:

• Scale bars
• Appropriate magnification
• Clear sample identification
• Representative images

A reviewer may ask whether the displayed image is representative.

If multiple regions or samples were examined, explain how representative images were selected.

Particle-Size Analysis

If particle size is discussed, the manuscript should explain:

• Number of particles analyzed
• Measurement method
• Software used
• Selection procedure
• Statistical treatment

If the reviewer requests a particle-size distribution, provide one only when the underlying image data support it.

Spectroscopic Figures

For FTIR, Raman, XPS, UV–Vis, and related data:

• Label important peaks where appropriate
• Use readable axes
• Include units
• Clearly identify samples
• Avoid excessive overlap
• Explain relevant spectral changes in the text

Do not label every minor feature unless it contributes to the scientific argument.

XRD Figures

For XRD patterns, consider including:

• 2θ axis
• Intensity axis
• Phase assignments where justified
• Relevant reference peaks
• Sample identification
• Appropriate peak labels

If phase identification is central to the manuscript, the corresponding discussion should explain why the assigned phases are supported by the data.

EIS Figures

For EIS results, reviewers may expect appropriate presentation of:

• Nyquist plots
• Bode plots
• Experimental data
• Equivalent-circuit fitting
• Fit quality
• Relevant parameters

When fitting is performed, clearly distinguish measured data from fitted curves.

For example:

Symbols represent experimental data, whereas solid lines represent the fitted spectra.

If an equivalent circuit is used, explain why it is physically appropriate for the investigated system.

Tables Should Not Duplicate Figures Unnecessarily

A common problem is presenting exactly the same information in both a figure and a table.

Ask whether the table provides additional value.

For example:

A figure may show the overall trend.

A table may provide exact numerical values.

Using both can be justified when readers benefit from both visual interpretation and precise numerical data.

Avoid Overloaded Tables

Tables containing dozens of columns can become difficult to read.

Consider:

• Removing nonessential columns
• Moving supplementary information to Supporting Information
• Splitting a large table into logical sections

The main manuscript should emphasize the most relevant information.

Numerical Consistency

Check that numerical values in:

• Figures
• Tables
• Main text
• Supplementary information

are consistent.

A reviewer may identify discrepancies such as:

Figure 5: 82.4%

Table 2: 84.2%

Text: 83.1%

Such inconsistencies can undermine confidence in the manuscript even when they are simple typographical errors.

Significant Figures Should Be Consistent

Avoid presenting one parameter as:

52.3

and another comparable parameter as:

52.3478291

unless the different precision is scientifically justified.

Use a consistent and defensible number of significant figures.

When a Reviewer Requests Error Bars

First determine whether the original experiment contains sufficient replicate measurements.

If independent replicates exist, calculate and report the appropriate uncertainty.

If no replicates exist, do not manufacture error bars.

A suitable response may be:

“We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Because the original measurements were performed without independent replicates, statistically meaningful error bars cannot be calculated retrospectively. We have clarified this limitation in the revised manuscript.”

When a Reviewer Requests an Additional Figure

Determine whether the requested figure can be generated from existing raw data.

For example:

• A residual plot can be generated from existing fitting data.
• A particle-size distribution may be generated from original microscopy measurements.
• A comparison plot may be generated from existing numerical results.

However, if the requested figure requires a new experiment, it should not be presented as though it had been part of the original study.

When Figures Need to Be Reorganized

Sometimes several figures can be combined.

For example:

Figure 3a: SEM

Figure 3b: EDS mapping

Figure 3c: EDS spectrum

This can make the relationship between complementary characterization results clearer.

However, avoid combining figures simply to reduce the number of figures if readability suffers.

A Recommended Response to Figure-Related Comments

“We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. Figure X has been revised to improve readability and scientific clarity. The axis labels, font size, sample identification, and figure caption have been updated, and the relevant experimental conditions have been clarified.”

For a requested additional figure:

“Following the reviewer’s suggestion, Figure X has been added to provide a more direct comparison of the investigated samples.”

When the Reviewer Says a Figure Does Not Support the Claim

Do not automatically modify the text to make the figure appear supportive.

First determine whether:

1. The interpretation is actually supported.
2. The figure is inappropriate.
3. Additional analysis is required.
4. The claim is too strong.

If the claim is too strong, revise the claim.

For example:

“These results prove the formation of a protective film.”

may need to become:

“These results are consistent with the formation of a protective surface film.”

The second statement better reflects the level of evidence.

Figures Should Be Discussed, Not Merely Mentioned

Avoid writing:

“Figure 6 shows the FTIR spectra.”

and then moving to the next topic.

Instead, explain the scientific meaning:

“As shown in Figure 6, the appearance of the characteristic band at approximately XX cm⁻¹ indicates…, while the shift in the corresponding band after modification suggests…”

The figure should contribute to the scientific argument.

A Final Figure and Table Audit

Before resubmission, check:

• Every figure is cited in the text.
• Every table is cited in the text.
• Figure numbering is correct.
• Table numbering is correct.
• Captions are complete.
• Units are included.
• Font sizes are readable.
• Sample labels are consistent.
• Error bars are properly defined.
• Numerical values match the text.
• Images comply with journal requirements.
• No unnecessary duplication exists.

The Goal of Figure and Table Revision

A successful revision does not simply make figures prettier.

It makes the scientific evidence:

Clearer

More transparent

Easier to compare

More reproducible

More directly connected to the manuscript’s conclusions

When responding to reviewer comments about figures and tables, the most important question is therefore not “How can we make this figure look better?” but rather:

“Does this figure or table allow the reader to correctly understand and evaluate the scientific evidence?”

39. How to Respond to Comments About Results and Their Interpretation

Reviewers often distinguish between what the experimental data actually show and how the authors interpret those data. A manuscript may contain technically correct measurements but still receive criticism if the discussion goes beyond the evidence, overlooks contradictory findings, or does not adequately explain the observed trends.

A strong response should therefore separate experimental observations from interpretation and ensure that every scientific claim is supported by appropriate evidence.

Common Reviewer Comments About Results

A reviewer may ask:

• The results are not sufficiently discussed.
• The authors should provide a deeper interpretation.
• The proposed mechanism is not adequately supported.
• The discussion is largely descriptive.
• Some conclusions are not supported by the presented data.
• The authors should explain the observed trend.
• The results contradict previous studies.
• The authors should discuss unexpected findings.
• The relationship between the characterization results and performance is unclear.
• The authors should provide additional evidence for the proposed mechanism.

Distinguish Observation From Interpretation

This is one of the most important principles in scientific writing.

An observation describes what was measured.

An interpretation explains what the observation may mean.

For example:

“The charge-transfer resistance increased from X to Y Ω cm².”

This is an observation.

“The increase in charge-transfer resistance suggests that the modified surface provides greater resistance to electrochemical charge transfer.”

This is an interpretation.

The interpretation should be supported by the electrochemical data and, where appropriate, complementary characterization.

Avoid Turning Correlation Into Proof

Suppose a sample has both:

• Higher BET surface area
• Higher adsorption capacity

It may be reasonable to state:

“The higher adsorption capacity may be associated with the increased accessible surface area.”

It may not be justified to state:

“The higher surface area is definitively responsible for the increased adsorption capacity.”

unless sufficient evidence establishes causality.

Scientific writing should distinguish among:

• Demonstrated
• Supported
• Suggested
• Consistent with
• Possibly associated with
• Hypothesized

These terms communicate different levels of certainty.

Explain Why Trends Occur

Simply describing trends is usually insufficient.

For example:

“The corrosion inhibition efficiency increased with increasing inhibitor concentration.”

A stronger Discussion asks:

Why?

A possible interpretation might involve:

• Greater surface coverage
• Increased adsorption
• Formation of a more compact protective layer
• Reduced access of aggressive ions

The explanation should be consistent with the available evidence.

Use Multiple Characterization Techniques Together

Scientific interpretation becomes stronger when independent techniques support the same conclusion.

For example:

FTIR → functional groups

XPS → surface chemical states

SEM → morphology

EDS → elemental distribution

XRD → crystalline phases

EIS → electrochemical response

If several techniques point toward the same structural or chemical change, the proposed interpretation becomes more credible.

Do Not Force Every Technique to Support the Same Mechanism

Complementary characterization does not mean that every technique must show a dramatic change.

A reviewer may ask why FTIR shows only a small difference while XPS shows a substantial change.

That can be scientifically reasonable because the techniques probe different aspects of the material.

For example:

• FTIR provides information about vibrational groups throughout the measured material.
• XPS is highly surface-sensitive.

Therefore, a surface chemical change may be much more pronounced in XPS than in FTIR.

Explain Unexpected Results

Unexpected findings should not simply be ignored.

For example, if increasing temperature unexpectedly decreases performance, discuss possible explanations such as:

• Desorption
• Structural changes
• Degradation
• Changes in equilibrium
• Changes in diffusion
• Experimental variability

However, distinguish a demonstrated explanation from a plausible hypothesis.

Use wording such as:

“This behavior may be attributed to…”

rather than:

“This behavior is caused by…”

unless the mechanism has been established.

When Results Contradict Previous Studies

Contradictory results do not automatically indicate that the present study is incorrect.

Differences may arise from:

• Different materials
• Different synthesis procedures
• Different concentrations
• Different temperatures
• Different electrolytes
• Different surface conditions
• Different measurement methods
• Different data-analysis procedures

A strong Discussion identifies these differences and considers whether they could explain the discrepancy.

Do Not Selectively Discuss Only Favorable Results

A scientifically credible manuscript should address important negative or unexpected findings.

For example, if one sample performs worse than expected, explain it rather than simply emphasizing the best-performing sample.

This can actually strengthen the manuscript because it demonstrates critical evaluation of the data.

Avoid Overinterpretation

A common reviewer criticism is:

“The conclusions are not fully supported by the presented evidence.”

This often occurs when authors make mechanistic claims based on indirect evidence.

For example:

“XPS confirms the formation of a covalent bond between A and B.”

If XPS only shows changes in binding energy, the evidence may support an altered chemical environment but not necessarily prove a specific covalent bond.

A more cautious statement might be:

“The observed binding-energy shifts suggest an altered chemical environment consistent with interaction between A and B.”

Explain Quantitative Differences

If two samples differ significantly, discuss the magnitude and possible reason.

For example:

“The Rct value increased from 250 to 780 Ω cm² after modification.”

Then explain what this change means rather than simply stating that it increased.

Discuss the Most Important Results First

The Discussion should prioritize findings directly related to the research question.

Avoid giving equal space to every experimental observation.

For example, if the central objective is corrosion protection, the Discussion should prioritize:

• Corrosion rate
• Icorr
• Ecorr
• EIS parameters
• Surface protection
• Proposed mechanism

rather than spending excessive space on secondary characterization.

Avoid Repeating the Results Section

The Results section primarily answers:

What happened?

The Discussion answers:

Why did it happen, what does it mean, and how does it compare with previous knowledge?

For example:

Results:

“The inhibition efficiency increased from 65% to 91%.”

Discussion:

“The progressive increase in inhibition efficiency with concentration suggests enhanced surface coverage, which may reduce the number of active sites available for the electrochemical reactions.”

When a Reviewer Requests More Discussion

A suitable response is:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. The Results and Discussion section has been expanded to provide a more detailed interpretation of the observed trends. In particular, we have discussed the relationship between [characterization result] and [performance parameter] and compared the observed behavior with previously reported studies.”

When the Reviewer Questions a Proposed Mechanism

First determine the strength of the evidence.

If the mechanism is directly demonstrated, provide the relevant evidence.

If it is inferred, use appropriately cautious language.

A good response may be:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. We agree that the original wording was too definitive. The corresponding statement has been revised to indicate that the proposed mechanism is supported by the combined characterization results rather than directly demonstrated.”

This is often stronger than attempting to defend an overly broad claim.

When Additional Experiments Are Requested

Determine whether the requested experiment is genuinely necessary to support the conclusion.

If feasible, perform it.

If it is not feasible, explain why and reduce the strength of the claim if necessary.

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. Although direct measurement of X would provide additional evidence, this analysis was not available for the present samples. We have therefore moderated the mechanistic interpretation and explicitly acknowledged this limitation.”

A Useful Framework for Scientific Interpretation

For each major result, ask four questions:

1. What was observed?

2. Why might it have occurred?

3. Is the proposed explanation supported by the data?

4. How does it compare with previous studies?

This framework can transform a descriptive Results section into a scientifically meaningful Discussion.

The Best Response to a Results-Interpretation Comment

A strong response demonstrates that the authors have:

• Re-examined the data
• Identified the relevant trend
• Considered alternative explanations
• Compared the finding with literature
• Avoided unsupported claims
• Revised the manuscript accordingly

The objective is not to convince the reviewer that every original interpretation was correct. The objective is to ensure that the final interpretation accurately reflects the strength and limitations of the experimental evidence.

40. How to Respond to Comments About the Discussion Section

The Discussion is where authors explain the scientific meaning of their findings, connect the results to previous research, evaluate possible mechanisms, and demonstrate the broader significance of the study. A manuscript can contain extensive experimental data yet remain unconvincing if the Discussion does not adequately explain what those data mean.

Reviewers therefore often request a deeper, more critical, and better-structured Discussion.

Common Reviewer Comments About the Discussion

A reviewer may state:

• “The Discussion is too superficial.”
• “The authors mainly describe the results without explaining them.”
• “The relationship between the characterization results and performance should be discussed.”
• “The proposed mechanism requires further justification.”
• “The authors should compare the results with previous studies.”
• “The Discussion should be reorganized.”
• “The authors should discuss the limitations of the study.”
• “Some conclusions are not adequately supported by the results.”
• “The practical significance of the findings is unclear.”

What Makes a Strong Discussion?

A strong Discussion generally connects five elements:

Experimental observation → Interpretation → Mechanism → Comparison with literature → Scientific implication

For example:

“The increase in Rct after surface modification indicates improved resistance to charge transfer. This behavior may be associated with the formation of a more compact interfacial layer, which limits the transport of corrosive species toward the substrate. Similar behavior has been reported for related protective systems, although the magnitude of the increase observed here differs because of differences in coating composition and electrolyte conditions.”

This provides much more scientific value than simply repeating the numerical results.

Do Not Rewrite the Results Section

One of the most common problems is a Discussion that simply repeats the Results.

For example:

“The surface area increased from 25 to 48 m²/g. The adsorption capacity also increased. The composite showed better adsorption.”

This describes the results but does not adequately interpret them.

A stronger Discussion would ask:

Why did the surface area change?

Why might the surface-area change influence adsorption?

Are there other factors involved?

Is this consistent with previous research?

Organize the Discussion Around Scientific Questions

Instead of organizing the Discussion strictly according to the order in which experiments were performed, consider organizing it around the scientific questions.

For example:

1. Was the intended material successfully synthesized?
2. How did the structure and surface chemistry change?
3. How did those changes affect performance?
4. What mechanism explains the observed behavior?
5. How does the material compare with previous systems?
6. What are its limitations and potential applications?

This creates a more coherent scientific narrative.

Connect Different Characterization Results

The Discussion becomes much stronger when characterization techniques are interpreted together.

For example:

XRD confirms phase formation.

FTIR indicates relevant functional groups.

XPS reveals surface chemical states.

SEM shows morphological changes.

BET demonstrates differences in accessible surface area.

The Discussion can then explain how these observations collectively relate to performance.

Avoid Treating Every Characterization Result Independently

A manuscript can become fragmented if it contains separate paragraphs such as:

“The XRD results showed…”

“The FTIR results showed…”

“The SEM results showed…”

“The BET results showed…”

without explaining how these findings relate to each other.

A better approach is to establish connections:

“The reduced crystallite size observed by XRD is consistent with the morphological refinement observed by SEM. Together with the increase in accessible surface area, these structural changes may contribute to the enhanced adsorption performance.”

Discuss Alternative Explanations

A strong Discussion does not automatically assume that the first proposed explanation is correct.

For example, improved adsorption could result from:

• Increased surface area
• More active sites
• Electrostatic interactions
• Hydrogen bonding
• π–π interactions
• Pore filling
• Surface complexation

If several mechanisms are plausible, acknowledge them and explain which evidence supports each one.

Use Evidence to Rank Mechanistic Explanations

Not all mechanisms are equally supported.

For example:

“The observed shift in the FTIR band is consistent with involvement of the corresponding functional group.”

is relatively cautious.

But:

“The FTIR results prove that adsorption occurs exclusively through hydrogen bonding.”

would require substantially stronger evidence.

The language should reflect the evidence.

Compare the Discussion With Previous Studies

The Discussion should explain whether the results:

• Agree with previous reports
• Contradict previous reports
• Extend previous findings
• Provide new mechanistic information

If the results differ, explain possible reasons.

For example:

“The adsorption capacity obtained in the present study was lower than that reported by X et al. However, the comparison should be interpreted cautiously because their experiments were performed at a substantially higher initial concentration and different pH.”

This is much more useful than simply stating that the present value is “lower.”

Discuss Both Strengths and Limitations

A credible Discussion should not present the study as flawless.

Potential limitations may include:

• Limited number of experimental conditions
• Small sample size
• Lack of long-term stability data
• Absence of scale-up experiments
• Limited mechanistic characterization
• Laboratory-scale testing
• Limited real-sample validation

Acknowledging limitations does not necessarily weaken a manuscript.

When appropriately framed, it demonstrates scientific maturity.

Do Not Introduce Completely New Results in the Discussion

The Discussion can interpret existing results, but it should not suddenly introduce an important experimental finding that was never presented in the Results section.

If new analysis is performed during revision, incorporate it properly into the manuscript rather than mentioning it casually in the Discussion.

Discuss Unexpected Findings

Unexpected results can be scientifically valuable.

For example:

“Interestingly, increasing the treatment temperature beyond 80 °C resulted in a reduction in performance.”

The Discussion should consider possible reasons rather than ignoring the observation.

Possible explanations may involve:

• Structural degradation
• Desorption
• Phase transformation
• Reduced active-site availability
• Changes in equilibrium
• Experimental variability

The explanation should be clearly identified as a hypothesis unless directly demonstrated.

Avoid Overly Long Speculative Mechanisms

Mechanistic discussion should not become a collection of unsupported possibilities.

For example:

“The material may interact through hydrogen bonding, electrostatic attraction, π–π interaction, van der Waals forces, pore filling, surface complexation, ion exchange, and several other mechanisms.”

Listing every conceivable mechanism does not make the explanation stronger.

Instead, identify the mechanisms for which the available evidence provides the strongest support.

Explain Practical Significance

The Discussion should address why the findings matter beyond the immediate experiment.

Depending on the research field, this may involve:

• Improved performance
• Lower material cost
• Reduced synthesis complexity
• Environmental benefits
• Enhanced stability
• Improved recyclability
• Industrial applicability
• Potential scale-up

However, practical claims should remain proportional to the experimental evidence.

Avoid Claiming Industrial Applicability From Laboratory Data Alone

For example:

“The material can be readily applied in industrial wastewater treatment.”

may be too strong if only synthetic laboratory solutions were tested.

A more defensible formulation is:

“The results indicate potential for application in wastewater treatment, although validation using real wastewater and larger-scale systems is required.”

A Useful Paragraph Structure

A strong Discussion paragraph can follow this pattern:

Finding

“The composite exhibited a higher adsorption capacity than the individual components.”

Interpretation

“This improvement may be associated with the increased number of accessible surface sites.”

Evidence

“The BET and FTIR results support changes in surface characteristics following composite formation.”

Literature comparison

“Similar improvements have been reported for related hybrid adsorbents.”

Implication

“These findings suggest that composite formation can provide a useful strategy for improving adsorption performance.”

This structure can be adapted to almost any scientific discipline.

When the Reviewer Says the Discussion Is Too Weak

A professional response could be:

“We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. We agree that the original Discussion did not sufficiently explain the significance of the observed results. The section has therefore been substantially revised to provide deeper interpretation of the major findings, establish relationships among the characterization results, compare the observations with previous studies, and clarify the proposed mechanism and limitations of the present work.”

When the Reviewer Says the Discussion Is Speculative

A suitable response may be:

“We appreciate the reviewer for highlighting this issue. We agree that some of the original mechanistic statements were too definitive. The corresponding discussion has been revised to distinguish experimentally supported findings from proposed interpretations, and the strength of several statements has been moderated accordingly.”

The Discussion Should Answer the “So What?” Question

After reading each major subsection, the reader should understand:

What does this result mean?

and ultimately:

Why does it matter?

A strong Discussion does not simply tell the reader what happened. It explains why it happened, how confidently it can be interpreted, how it relates to existing knowledge, and what new scientific understanding can be derived from it.

That is often the difference between a manuscript that merely reports experimental data and one that presents a convincing scientific contribution.

41. How to Respond to Comments About the Conclusion

The Conclusion provides the final scientific message of the manuscript. It should summarize the most important findings, explain their significance, and clearly communicate the contribution of the study without simply repeating the Abstract or overstating the evidence.

Reviewers may request changes when the Conclusion is too general, contains claims that are not supported by the results, introduces new information, or fails to explain the significance of the findings.

Common Reviewer Comments About the Conclusion

A reviewer may state:

• “The Conclusion should be revised.”
• “The conclusions are not sufficiently supported by the results.”
• “The authors should provide a more concise conclusion.”
• “The Conclusion section is too general.”
• “The authors should emphasize the novelty of the work.”
• “The practical implications should be discussed.”
• “The authors should acknowledge the limitations of the study.”
• “The Conclusion contains information that was not presented in the manuscript.”

What Should a Strong Conclusion Contain?

A strong Conclusion should generally answer:

What was investigated?

What were the most important findings?

What do those findings mean?

What is the main contribution of the study?

What are the realistic implications or future directions?

The exact structure depends on the journal.

Do Not Simply Copy the Abstract

The Abstract and Conclusion serve different purposes.

The Abstract summarizes the entire study for readers who may not read the full manuscript.

The Conclusion should emphasize the scientific meaning and implications of the findings.

For example, rather than repeating every numerical result, the Conclusion might state:

“Overall, the results demonstrate that surface modification substantially improved the interfacial corrosion resistance of the substrate, primarily through the formation of a more protective surface layer.”

Focus on the Most Important Findings

Do not include every experimental observation.

Prioritize results that directly address the research objectives.

If the study investigated:

• Synthesis
• Characterization
• Performance
• Mechanism

the Conclusion might briefly summarize each, but secondary characterization results do not need to be repeated.

Connect the Conclusion to the Research Objective

The Conclusion should close the loop established in the Introduction.

If the Introduction asks:

Can material X improve Y under condition Z?

the Conclusion should provide a direct answer.

For example:

“The results demonstrate that the synthesized X-based composite can effectively improve Y under the investigated conditions.”

Avoid Unsupported Claims

One of the most common problems is overstatement.

For example:

“The developed material is an ideal solution for industrial wastewater treatment.”

This may be unjustified if the material was tested only in laboratory-scale synthetic solutions.

A more appropriate statement is:

“The results demonstrate the potential of the developed material for contaminant removal under the investigated laboratory conditions.”

Distinguish “Potential” From “Demonstrated”

These terms have different implications.

Demonstrated:

The study directly provides evidence.

Potential:

The findings suggest a possible future application that requires additional validation.

For example:

“The material demonstrated high adsorption capacity.”

is appropriate if the measurement supports it.

But:

“The material has the potential for practical wastewater treatment.”

is more appropriate when real-world applicability has not yet been established.

Include the Main Scientific Contribution

The Conclusion should make the contribution clear.

For example:

“The main contribution of this work is the demonstration that controlling the interface between X and Y can modify the surface properties and consequently improve Z.”

The statement should reflect the actual novelty of the study.

Mention Important Limitations When Appropriate

Not every Conclusion needs a long limitations paragraph.

However, if the reviewer requests it or the limitation materially affects interpretation, mention it briefly.

For example:

“Further validation using real wastewater and long-term cycling experiments is required to assess practical applicability.”

This can strengthen the credibility of the manuscript.

Future Work Should Be Specific

Avoid generic statements such as:

“Further research is needed.”

Instead, identify meaningful next steps:

• Long-term stability testing
• Real-sample validation
• Scale-up experiments
• Additional mechanistic characterization
• Cycling studies
• Computational modeling
• Optimization under industrial conditions

The proposed future work should logically follow from the study’s limitations.

Do Not Introduce New Results

The Conclusion should not contain a new experiment, numerical result, or interpretation that was never discussed in the manuscript.

If a reviewer requests a new analysis and it is performed, incorporate the result properly into the Results and Discussion before referring to it in the Conclusion.

Avoid Excessive Numerical Detail

A Conclusion does not need to reproduce the entire Results section.

Include numerical values only when they are central to the scientific message.

For example:

“The inhibition efficiency reached approximately 90% at the optimum concentration.”

may be useful.

But listing every value from every experimental condition would make the Conclusion unnecessarily long.

Avoid Repeating “This Study”

Repeated phrases such as:

“In this study…”

“In this study…”

“In this study…”

can make the Conclusion sound mechanical.

Use varied and direct scientific language.

A Strong Conclusion Often Follows This Structure

First: State the overall achievement.

Second: Summarize the key scientific findings.

Third: Explain the main contribution or implication.

Fourth: Mention an important limitation or future direction if necessary.

For example:

“The present study demonstrated the successful development of X for Y application. Structural and surface characterization confirmed…, while performance evaluation showed…. The enhanced performance was associated with…. These findings provide useful insight into…. Further studies involving long-term stability and real-world conditions are required to evaluate practical applicability.”

When the Reviewer Says the Conclusion Is Too Broad

A suitable response is:

“We thank the reviewer for this important comment. The Conclusion has been revised to more closely reflect the experimental evidence. Broad statements regarding practical applicability have been moderated, and the revised section now emphasizes the specific findings and scientific contribution demonstrated by the present study.”

When the Reviewer Says the Conclusion Is Too Weak

The solution is not simply to add words such as “excellent,” “remarkable,” or “highly promising.”

Instead, explicitly state:

• The main finding
• Its scientific meaning
• Its contribution
• Its relevance to the research gap

For example:

“These findings demonstrate that the interfacial modification strategy provides a measurable improvement in charge-transfer resistance and offers a mechanistically supported approach for enhancing corrosion protection.”

When the Reviewer Requests More Practical Implications

Explain what the findings could realistically mean.

For example:

“The relatively simple synthesis procedure and magnetic separability of the material may facilitate its recovery and reuse, although long-term cycling and real-water validation are required before practical application can be assessed.”

This is more credible than claiming immediate industrial readiness.

A Recommended Response to a Conclusion-Related Comment

“We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable comment. The Conclusion has been revised to provide a more concise and evidence-based summary of the principal findings. The revised section now more clearly highlights the scientific contribution of the work, avoids repetition of secondary results, and clarifies the limitations and potential future directions.”

Final Conclusion Checklist

Before resubmission, verify that the Conclusion:

• Directly addresses the research objective
• Highlights the most important findings
• Reflects the actual experimental evidence
• Clearly communicates the scientific contribution
• Does not introduce new information
• Avoids unsupported claims
• Avoids excessive repetition of the Abstract
• Distinguishes demonstrated findings from potential applications
• Mentions important limitations where appropriate
• Provides meaningful future directions when necessary

The Final Test

A useful test is to remove the Conclusion from the manuscript and ask:

“What is the one scientific message I want the reader to remember?”

The revised Conclusion should make that message immediately clear.

A good Conclusion does not attempt to make the study appear more impressive than it is. Instead, it leaves the reader with a precise, defensible, and scientifically meaningful understanding of what the research has contributed.

42. How to Respond to Comments About Statistical Analysis and Experimental Reproducibility

Statistical analysis is an important component of scientific research because it helps determine whether observed differences are meaningful or may simply result from experimental variability. Reviewers frequently request additional statistical information when manuscripts report averages without uncertainty, compare groups without statistical tests, or draw strong conclusions from a limited number of measurements.

A scientifically sound statistical analysis should provide sufficient information for readers to evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of the reported findings.

Common Reviewer Comments About Statistical Analysis

A reviewer may state:

• “Statistical analysis is missing.”
• “The authors should provide error bars.”
• “The number of replicates should be specified.”
• “Please provide statistical significance values.”
• “The differences between the samples should be statistically analyzed.”
• “The authors should report standard deviation.”
• “The statistical method used is unclear.”
• “The reported differences may not be statistically significant.”
• “Please provide the number of independent experiments.”
• “The reproducibility of the results should be demonstrated.”

Why Replicates Matter

Repeated measurements help distinguish a genuine experimental effect from random variation.

For example, reporting:

85.4%

alone provides limited information about variability.

Reporting:

85.4 ± 2.1%

provides substantially more information, provided that the uncertainty has been calculated appropriately.

However, the manuscript should clearly state what the ± value represents, such as:

• Standard deviation (SD)
• Standard error (SE)
• Confidence interval
• Another defined uncertainty measure

Distinguish Technical and Biological or Experimental Replicates

This distinction is particularly important.

Technical replicates involve repeated measurements of the same experimental sample.

Independent experimental replicates involve independently prepared samples or independently conducted experiments.

Repeating the same measurement several times does not necessarily demonstrate reproducibility of the entire experimental procedure.

The manuscript should therefore describe the replication strategy clearly.

Report the Number of Replicates

Instead of simply presenting:

“The results are expressed as mean ± SD.”

state:

“All experiments were performed in triplicate, and the results are presented as mean ± standard deviation.”

If independent samples were prepared separately, specify that clearly.

Choose an Appropriate Statistical Test

The statistical method should correspond to the experimental design.

Depending on the study, appropriate methods may include:

• Student’s t-test
• One-way ANOVA
• Two-way ANOVA
• Tukey’s post-hoc test
• Regression analysis
• Pearson or Spearman correlation
• Non-parametric tests
• Other methods appropriate to the data structure

The statistical test should not be selected simply because it is commonly used.

Statistical Significance Does Not Equal Scientific Importance

A statistically significant difference is not automatically scientifically important.

For example, a very small difference may become statistically significant when many measurements are available.

Conversely, a scientifically meaningful difference may fail to reach statistical significance when the sample size is small.

Therefore, discuss both:

Statistical significance

and

Scientific or practical significance.

Report Exact p-Values When Appropriate

Instead of repeatedly stating:

“The difference was significant.”

consider reporting:

“The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).”

When appropriate, exact values can provide more information:

“p = 0.013.”

Follow the target journal’s reporting requirements.

Define the Significance Level

If statistical significance is evaluated, state the threshold.

For example:

“Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.”

The statistical methodology should preferably be described in the Methods section.

Error Bars Must Be Meaningful

Error bars should not be added merely because a reviewer requested them.

They must be calculated from appropriate replicate measurements.

If the original experiment contains no independent replicates, statistically valid error bars cannot be reconstructed from a single measurement.

Do not manufacture variability to make a figure appear more rigorous.

When the Reviewer Requests Statistical Analysis but Raw Replicates Are Unavailable

Be transparent.

For example:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The original experiments were conducted without independent replicate measurements; therefore, a statistically meaningful estimation of experimental variability cannot be performed retrospectively. We have clarified this limitation in the revised manuscript and have moderated the corresponding conclusions.”

This is preferable to creating artificial statistical values.

Reproducibility Should Be Demonstrated Where Relevant

A reviewer may ask whether the synthesis or experimental procedure is reproducible.

For materials research, useful information may include:

• Number of independently synthesized batches
• Experimental conditions
• Sample preparation procedure
• Measurement repetitions
• Instrumentation
• Data-processing method

If independently prepared samples show similar performance, this can provide stronger evidence than repeated measurements of a single sample.

Be Careful With Regression Analysis

Regression equations should not be presented merely because the software generates an R² value.

A high R² does not by itself prove:

• Causality
• Mechanistic validity
• Model correctness
• Statistical significance of every parameter

The selected model should be scientifically justified.

Correlation Does Not Prove Causation

For example, if surface area and adsorption capacity increase together, a strong correlation may exist.

However:

“The increase in surface area caused the increase in adsorption capacity.”

is stronger than the evidence may support.

A more appropriate interpretation may be:

“The increase in surface area was positively associated with adsorption capacity and may contribute to the observed enhancement.”

Statistical Analysis of Multiple Groups

When comparing several groups, repeatedly performing multiple pairwise t-tests can increase the risk of false-positive findings.

Depending on the experimental design, ANOVA followed by an appropriate post-hoc test may be more suitable.

The statistical methodology should be consistent with the number of groups and comparison structure.

Statistical Methods Should Be Reported in the Methods Section

The manuscript should specify, where applicable:

• Statistical software
• Statistical test
• Number of replicates
• Data presentation method
• Significance threshold
• Post-hoc test
• Treatment of missing data

This allows other researchers to understand and reproduce the analysis.

Do Not Use Statistics to “Improve” Weak Data

Statistical analysis cannot compensate for:

• Poor experimental design
• Insufficient replication
• Incorrect measurements
• Inappropriate controls
• Instrumental problems
• Fabricated or manipulated data

Statistics should be used to characterize genuine experimental variability, not to make weak evidence appear stronger.

When a Reviewer Questions Reproducibility

A suitable response could be:

“We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. The experimental procedure and measurement conditions have been described in greater detail, including the number of independent measurements and the method used to calculate the reported uncertainty. These additions have been made to improve the reproducibility and transparency of the study.”

When Additional Replicate Experiments Are Performed During Revision

If feasible, new experiments can strengthen the manuscript.

The revised manuscript should clearly identify the additional work.

For example:

“Following the reviewer’s suggestion, three independent experiments were performed under the same conditions. The results were consistent with the original observations and have been incorporated into the revised Results and Discussion sections.”

Do not imply that newly performed experiments were part of the original experimental campaign if they were not.

Statistical Reporting Should Be Consistent Throughout the Manuscript

Check consistency among:

• Main text
• Figures
• Tables
• Supplementary Information

For example, if a figure uses:

mean ± SD, n = 3

the corresponding table should not describe the same data as:

mean ± SE, n = 5.

Such inconsistencies can raise unnecessary questions from reviewers.

A Recommended Response to a Statistical Comment

“We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important suggestion. The statistical analysis has been clarified and expanded in the revised manuscript. The number of independent measurements, data presentation method, statistical test, and significance criterion have now been explicitly reported. Where applicable, error bars and statistical significance indicators have also been added to the corresponding figures.”

When Statistical Significance Changes the Interpretation

If a difference that was previously described as meaningful is not statistically significant, revise the scientific interpretation.

Instead of:

“Sample A significantly outperformed Sample B.”

write:

“Sample A exhibited a higher mean value than Sample B; however, the difference was not statistically significant under the applied analysis.”

This type of revision demonstrates that the authors are allowing the statistical evidence to guide the conclusion.

Final Statistical Analysis Checklist

Before resubmission, verify:

• Number of replicates is reported.
• Independent and technical replicates are distinguished where relevant.
• Error bars are properly defined.
• Statistical tests are appropriate.
• Significance threshold is stated.
• p-values are reported appropriately.
• Statistical software is identified when required.
• Figures and tables use consistent statistical information.
• No unsupported statistical claims are made.
• The conclusions reflect both statistical and scientific significance.

The Principle Behind Statistical Reviewer Responses

The purpose of statistical analysis is not to make a manuscript appear more sophisticated. Its purpose is to answer a fundamental scientific question:

How confident can we be that the observed differences represent real experimental effects rather than random variability?

A strong response to statistical reviewer comments therefore emphasizes transparency, appropriate methodology, genuine replication, and scientifically proportionate interpretation rather than simply adding p-values or error bars to the manuscript.

43. Our Reviewer Response Process

Responding to reviewer comments effectively requires more than simply answering individual questions. Each comment must be carefully evaluated from both a scientific and editorial perspective, and the proposed response should remain consistent with the revisions made throughout the manuscript. At AnalyzeTest, our reviewer response process is designed to provide clear, technically appropriate, and professionally written point-by-point responses while maintaining the scientific integrity of the original research.

Step 1 — Submit Your Files

Upload the reviewer comments together with the manuscript and, when available, the editor’s decision letter, previous response letter, supplementary information, and relevant raw or supporting data. Providing the complete set of documents allows us to understand the reviewers’ concerns in the context of the entire manuscript.

Step 2 — Review of Reviewer Comments

We carefully examine every reviewer comment and identify what the reviewer is actually requesting. Comments are classified according to their nature, such as scientific interpretation, methodology, statistical analysis, language, figures and tables, references, experimental validation, or manuscript organization. This helps ensure that no comment is overlooked or answered superficially.

Step 3 — Scientific Analysis

Each substantive comment is evaluated against the scientific content of the manuscript. We assess whether the reviewer’s concern is supported by the available evidence, whether additional analysis is required, and whether the original interpretation needs clarification or modification. When appropriate, we also consider the relevant literature and the relationship between different experimental results.

Step 4 — Preparation of Point-by-Point Responses

A clear and professional response is prepared for each reviewer comment. The response explains what was changed, why the change was made, and where the corresponding revision can be found in the manuscript. When a requested change cannot reasonably be made, the response is formulated respectfully and provides a scientifically justified explanation rather than simply rejecting the reviewer’s suggestion.

Step 5 — Alignment With Manuscript Changes

The response letter and revised manuscript must tell the same story. We therefore check that every claimed revision has actually been implemented in the manuscript and that the revised text accurately reflects the response provided to the reviewer. Where necessary, we also check consistency among the main text, figures, tables, supplementary information, and references.

Step 6 — Final Review

Before the response is finalized, the complete revision is reviewed as a whole. We check whether every reviewer comment has been addressed, whether the responses are clear and professional, whether requested changes are properly documented, and whether the revised manuscript remains scientifically consistent. The goal is to provide a submission-ready response package that allows the editor and reviewers to quickly understand how each concern has been addressed.

Our approach is designed to go beyond simple language editing or generic response templates. Each reviewer comment is considered in relation to the scientific content, experimental evidence, and specific requirements of the manuscript, helping authors prepare responses that are precise, respectful, transparent, and scientifically defensible.

34. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Can you respond to all reviewer comments?

Yes. We can review the complete set of reviewer comments and prepare a structured, point-by-point response to each comment. Scientific, technical, methodological, statistical, language, formatting, reference, figure, table, and interpretation-related comments can all be addressed where sufficient information is available.

Can you handle major revisions?

Yes. Major revisions can involve substantial changes to the manuscript and may require detailed scientific analysis. We can help organize the reviewer comments, identify the required revisions, prepare appropriate responses, and align the response letter with the revised manuscript.

Can you respond to only selected comments?

Yes. You do not need to submit the entire revision if you only need assistance with specific comments. You can send selected reviewer comments that require technical analysis, scientific interpretation, additional explanation, or professional response writing.

Can you work with multiple reviewers?

Yes. Reviewer comments can be organized separately according to Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, Reviewer 3, and so on. Each comment is addressed individually so that the final response clearly shows which concern has been answered and what corresponding changes were made.

Can you help when reviewers disagree?

Yes. When different reviewers provide contradictory suggestions, each comment can be evaluated in the context of the scientific evidence and the editor’s requirements. We can help formulate a balanced response that addresses the concerns without making unnecessary or scientifically inconsistent changes to the manuscript.

Can you help if I cannot perform a requested experiment?

Yes. Not every requested experiment is necessarily feasible or essential. We can help evaluate whether the requested experiment is critical to the reviewer’s concern and, when appropriate, formulate a scientifically justified explanation for why the experiment cannot be performed. The corresponding conclusion or interpretation can also be moderated if necessary.

However, we do not recommend inventing experimental results or presenting analyses that were never performed.

Can you revise the manuscript together with the responses?

Yes. Reviewer responses and manuscript revisions should be consistent with each other. Where requested, we can help revise the relevant sections of the manuscript together with the point-by-point response so that the response accurately reflects the actual changes made.

Can you improve the English of my responses?

Yes. Reviewer responses can be edited for grammar, clarity, academic tone, professionalism, and readability while preserving the intended scientific meaning. The goal is to make responses clear and respectful rather than unnecessarily complicated or overly defensive.

Can you respond to comments about statistical analysis?

Yes. We can help address comments concerning statistical methods, replicates, standard deviation, error bars, significance testing, regression analysis, p-values, and interpretation of statistical results, provided that the necessary experimental information is available.

Statistical analysis should always be based on genuine experimental data. Missing measurements or unavailable raw data should not be fabricated or reconstructed without a valid scientific basis.

Can you help with technical reviewer comments?

Yes. Technical comments can involve characterization techniques, experimental methodology, mechanisms, data interpretation, mathematical models, equivalent circuits, spectroscopy, microscopy, XRD analysis, electrochemical measurements, adsorption models, and other specialized topics.

Technical responses should be based on the actual data and methodology of the manuscript rather than generic reviewer-response templates.

Can you work with already revised manuscripts?

Yes. If you have already revised the manuscript but need help preparing or improving the response letter, you can submit the current version together with the reviewer comments. We can compare the comments with the implemented revisions and help ensure that the responses accurately correspond to the changes in the manuscript.

How long does the service take?

The processing time depends on the number and complexity of reviewer comments, the length of the manuscript, and whether detailed scientific analysis or manuscript revision is required. After reviewing your files, we can provide an appropriate estimate based on the scope of the work.

How should I send the reviewer comments?

You can upload the reviewer comments, editor decision letter, and revised or original manuscript through the submission form. If available, it is also helpful to provide supplementary information, figures, tables, or other relevant files needed to evaluate technical comments.

If you experience any problem with the submission or file upload, please contact us at analyzetest.info@gmail.com.

Need Help With Your Reviewer Responses?

If you have received reviewer comments and are unsure how to respond, you do not necessarily need to revise the entire manuscript before requesting assistance. You can submit the reviewer comments and relevant manuscript files, and we can help you develop clear, professional, scientifically justified, point-by-point responses tailored to your manuscript.

35. Why Choose AnalyzeTest for Reviewer Response Preparation?

Responding to reviewers is not simply a matter of writing polite answers in academic English. A strong response requires an understanding of the underlying science, the reviewer’s actual concern, the evidence presented in the manuscript, and the changes required in the revised version. AnalyzeTest combines scientific expertise with professional academic writing to help researchers prepare responses that are technically sound, clear, and consistent with their manuscripts.

Scientific Expertise

Reviewer comments often involve more than language or formatting. They may question experimental interpretation, mechanisms, characterization results, statistical analysis, or the validity of a scientific conclusion. Our approach focuses on understanding the scientific issue behind each comment before preparing the response.

Materials Science Background

AnalyzeTest has a strong background in materials science and related research areas. This is particularly valuable for manuscripts involving materials characterization, nanomaterials, coatings, corrosion, electrochemistry, polymers, energy materials, and related fields.

Technical Understanding

Technical reviewer comments require technically meaningful answers—not generic statements such as “Thank you for your valuable comment.” We evaluate the scientific context of the comment and help formulate a response that addresses the actual technical issue raised by the reviewer.

Point-by-Point Responses

Each reviewer comment is addressed individually and systematically. The response can clearly identify:

Reviewer Comment → Author Response → Action Taken → Location of Revision

This structure makes it easier for reviewers and editors to verify that their concerns have been properly addressed.

Professional Academic English

Reviewer responses should be respectful, precise, and professional. We improve grammar, sentence structure, terminology, clarity, and academic tone while preserving the intended scientific meaning of the author’s response.

Evidence-Based Reasoning

A convincing response should be supported by the available scientific evidence. We help distinguish between conclusions that are directly demonstrated by the data and interpretations that require more cautious wording. When a reviewer’s concern is valid, the appropriate strategy may be to revise the manuscript rather than attempt to defend an unsupported claim.

Alignment Between Responses and Manuscript Revisions

One of the most important aspects of a successful revision is consistency between the response letter and the revised manuscript. If the response says that a paragraph, figure, table, reference, or analysis has been added or modified, the corresponding change should actually appear in the manuscript.

We therefore consider the response letter and manuscript as two parts of the same revision process.

Human Scientific Review

Automated writing tools can help with grammar and sentence construction, but reviewer responses often require scientific judgment and contextual understanding. AnalyzeTest provides human scientific review to help ensure that responses are not only linguistically polished but also technically appropriate and relevant to the manuscript.

Confidential Handling

Manuscripts submitted for review may contain unpublished experimental results, original data, proprietary information, and intellectual contributions. We treat submitted research materials as confidential and handle manuscript files and reviewer correspondence with appropriate care.

More Than a Reviewer Response Template

AnalyzeTest does not simply provide generic answers that could be applied to any manuscript. The objective is to develop responses that are specific to your reviewer comments, your scientific data, and your manuscript.

Whether you have received a few minor comments or a detailed major-revision decision, the focus remains the same: clear communication, scientific accuracy, professional presentation, and a consistent connection between reviewer responses and manuscript revisions.