The 20 Most Frequent Reviewer Comments (and stock fixes)

Reading time ~8 minutes · Published September 11, 2025

1) “Out of scope for this journal.”

Why: Misalignment with the Aims & Scope drives desk rejection.

Stock fix: Reframe the contribution to the journal’s audience and problem space; reflect this in the title, abstract, and the final paragraph of the Introduction. Add one sentence tying outcomes to the journal’s stated objectives.

2) “Novelty/significance is limited.”

Why: Incremental advance is unclear.

Stock fix: Add a short “What is new” paragraph contrasting prior work vs. your contribution; include an ablation or head-to-head benchmark isolating your claim.

3) “Methods are insufficiently described for reproduction.”

Stock fix: Provide stepwise protocols, parameter values, raw/processed data links with persistent IDs, code with a README, and criteria for inclusion, exclusion, randomisation and blinding.

4) “Statistical analysis is inappropriate/incomplete.”

Stock fix: Align tests to design and distribution; report effect sizes and 95% CIs; adjust for multiplicity; pre-register or clearly label exploratory analyses; add sensitivity checks.

5) “Conclusions overreach the results.”

Stock fix: Narrow claims to what the data support; move speculation to “Limitations and Future Work.”

6) “Language and clarity need improvement.”

Stock fix: Deliver a tracked-changes pass for grammar, terminology consistency and flow; define acronyms at first use; simplify long sentences.

7) “Formatting does not follow Instructions for Authors.”

Stock fix: Conform to the journal template: word limits, reference style, artwork specs and forms; attach checklists where required.

8) “Ethics approval/consent is unclear.”

Stock fix: Add REC/IRB details (protocol ID, date, institution), consent procedure and data-protection steps in Methods + a dedicated Ethics statement.

9) “Data/code are unavailable or inaccessible.”

Stock fix: Deposit data and scripts in a persistent repository; include a minimal working example notebook; document versions and licenses.

10) “Figures are unclear or not publication-quality.”

Stock fix: Redraw at required DPI; choose appropriate chart types; improve axis labels/legends/units; embed fonts; move complex panels to Supplement.

11) Literature review is thin/outdated

Fix: Add recent field-defining work and map the exact gap your study closes.

12) Research question/hypothesis not explicit

Fix: State primary question and hypotheses at the end of the Introduction and mirror them in Methods/Results subheadings.

13) Sample size/power not justified

Fix: Provide power/precision targets, recruitment flow and missing-data handling; cite the appropriate reporting guideline.

14) Controls/comparators inadequate

Fix: Add or justify controls; include robustness checks.

15) Terminology/units inconsistent

Fix: Standardise terms, SI units and symbols across text, figures and tables; include a glossary if needed.

16) Organisation/flow hard to follow

Fix: Restructure to IMRaD; add signposting topic sentences; remove redundancy.

17) Response to reviewers is incomplete/hard to track

Fix (template): Quote the reviewer in bold; respond in plain text; indicate exact line numbers for each change; start with an overview of major revisions.

18) Claims conflict with prior studies

Fix: Reconcile differences in Discussion; add heterogeneity/sensitivity analyses; clarify limitations.

19) Title/abstract do not reflect the work

Fix: Make the title precise; ensure the abstract mirrors methods and key results without unexplained acronyms.

20) Required statements missing

Fix: Add availability of data/materials/code, competing interests, funding and ethics statements per policy.

© 2025 Principia