Types of peer-review comments and how to respond to them: A primer for first-time authors

Purpose
The purpose of this primer is to explore and conceptualise the categories of peer review comments encountered in academic publishing, shedding light on their multifaceted nature and proposing a framework for guiding authors in effectively responding to these comments. By providing a conceptual foundation, this paper aims to enhance authors’ understanding of the peer review process and equip them with strategies for navigating it successfully.

Design/methodology/approach
This paper adopts a conceptual approach, drawing upon existing literature on peer reviews, scholarly communication and academic publishing practices. The design involves a critical analysis of the peer review process, examining the typical types of feedback authors receive during the review of their manuscripts.

Findings
This paper conceptualises peer review comments into four primary categories: doom and gloom, benefit of the doubt, optimistic and lackadaisical.

Research limitations/implications
A key limitation of this paper is that the categorisation of review types is based on hypothetical examples and reflective analysis, rather than empirical data, which may limit generalisability across disciplines and review cultures.

Practical implications
This conceptual framework offers practical implications for authors, providing guidance on how to effectively respond to peer review comments within each category. It emphasises the significance of authors’ responsiveness, adaptability and constructive engagement in addressing reviewer feedback. This paper also underscores the importance of fostering a collaborative and communicative approach in the peer review process.

Originality/value
This paper contributes to the ethical debate surrounding fair peer reviewing by categorising peer review comments, offering a novel conceptual framework for understanding the diverse dimensions of feedback in academic publishing. It adds value by providing authors with a strategic perspective on managing peer review comments and by highlighting the importance of constructive dialogue between authors and reviewers. This conceptual exploration lays the foundation for future research into the dynamics of the peer review process, promoting a more informed and efficient scholarly communication ecosystem.