Only accepted work is recordedAboutGuidesContactSign in
CitePepCitePep
Guides/Authors/Acting on major findings
For authors14 min read · Advanced · Updated Sep 2026

Acting on major findings

A major finding is one a referee is likely to raise, and that could decide your submission. This guide shows how to triage a report, turn each major finding into a revision you can defend, use your one clarifying question well, and check the manuscript before you submit.

Locatedeach finding quotes the passage
Gradedmajor, minor, note
Privateprivate to you

1Reading the report

Read the whole report once without acting on it. Then reread the summary and overall assessment: they tell you how the reviewer read your paper. If the summary misstates your research question, that is itself a finding: the manuscript isn’t communicating it.

2Triage

PriorityFindingWhy first
1Majors about the central claimIf the conclusion doesn’t follow, nothing else matters
2Majors about methodsReferees stop reading when methods aren’t justified
3Remaining majorsEach could still prompt rejection
4Minors and notesQuick wins; do them last

3Six kinds of major finding

KindExample findingTypical response
Claim beyond the data"Causal language for a correlational design"Narrow the claim; add a limitation
Method not justified"Threshold chosen without reference"Justify with citation, or test alternatives
Missing analysis"No sensitivity analysis for site effects"Run it, or explain why not
Missing comparison"Not compared with Hughes et al. 2018"Add the comparison in the discussion
Data or reporting gap"Sample sizes per site not reported"Add a table or supplement
Framing"Novelty overstated"Reposition against prior work

4Building a revision plan

For every major finding, write one row before you touch the manuscript. It keeps revisions deliberate and gives you the basis of a response letter later.

FindingChangeWhereEvidence
M1 · DHW context missingReport DHW per site; revise threshold claim§3.2, Table 2NOAA Marine Reef Watch data
M2 · Causal languageReplace "drives" with "is associated with"Abstract, §5–

5When you disagree

Every finding is your call. A referee may raise the same point, so write the argument now.

Weak"We disagree with the reviewer."
Defensible"We retain the 1°C threshold because it matches the regional baseline used by Smith et al. (2021); we now state this in §3.2 and show results at 0.8°C and 1.2°C in Supplement S4."

6Using your clarifying question

You get one round of questions after delivery. Spend it on the finding you understand least, and make it specific.

Good questions
  • "For M1, would reporting DHW per site be sufficient, or do you expect a re-analysis?"
  • "Which comparison in Hughes et al. did you have in mind for N2?"

7Before you submit

The review is confidential to you. Mention it to the journal or attach it only if you choose.

Was this guide useful? Yes · NoAll guides →