Practice academic peer review vocabulary: reviewer decision types, 'major/minor revision', 'reject with resubmission', responding to reviewers professionally, and understanding reviewer comment language.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
'The paper requires _____ revision.' Which decision signals that the paper has significant problems — missing experiments, unclear methodology, or unsupported claims — that must be fixed before a re-review?
'Major revision' means fundamental issues must be addressed: the contribution is unclear, experiments are insufficient, related work is missing, or claims are unsupported by evidence. The paper is re-reviewed after revision. 'Minor revision' means small fixes (typos, clarity, additional citations) with no re-review needed. 'Accept' means no changes required — extremely rare on a first submission.
2 / 5
'The paper is _____ with resubmission.' What does this decision mean in the peer review process?
'Reject with resubmission' (also called 'reject and resubmit') means the paper has fundamental problems but shows enough promise that the authors are encouraged to substantially revise and resubmit — typically to the same venue. It is stronger than 'major revision' (which implies the paper will likely be accepted after revision) but more encouraging than a final rejection.
3 / 5
'We thank the reviewers for their insightful _____ and have addressed all points raised.' What word is used to refer to reviewer feedback in a response letter?
'Comments' is the professional, neutral term for reviewer feedback — even when the reviewer's tone is negative. Using 'comments' signals you are engaging constructively with the feedback. Avoid 'criticisms' or 'complaints' (defensive), 'objections' (adversarial), or 'suggestions' (too weak — some are requirements, not suggestions). Standard phrase: 'We thank Reviewer 2 for their detailed comments.'
4 / 5
'Reviewer 2 raises a concern about the _____ of the evaluation dataset.' If the reviewer questions whether the dataset reflects real-world conditions, which word completes this concern?
'Representativeness' (or 'ecological validity') is the concern that an experimental dataset may not reflect the real-world distribution of inputs — making results hard to generalise. Reviewers frequently raise this: 'The dataset appears to consist only of synthetic examples; it is unclear whether results would hold on real production data.' Addressing it: 'We added experiments on [real-world dataset] in Section 5.'
5 / 5
'In response to Reviewer 1's comment on missing baselines, we _____ two additional comparisons in Table 3.' Which verb professionally signals that you have made the requested change?
'We added [X] in response to [reviewer comment]' is the gold standard response format — it states concretely what you did. Avoid vague responses: 'We considered the reviewer's point' (did you act on it?), 'We noted this concern' (no change made). Each reviewer comment requires either: (a) a concrete change + where to find it, or (b) a polite explanation of why the change is not appropriate with supporting reasoning.