7 Surviving Peer Review
You have written a focused, well-argued paper. You have your anchor theory. You have applied the two filters. You have a clear funnel. Then the reviews come back, and Reviewer 2 wants you to discuss three more theories.
This chapter is about how to handle that — calmly, professionally, and without abandoning the argument you worked hard to build.
7.1 Why reviewers ask for more theory
It helps to understand why this happens before deciding how to respond.
Reviewers are experts in the field. They have spent years working with specific theoretical frameworks, and they notice when those frameworks are not discussed. This is not always unreasonable — sometimes a theory genuinely is relevant and the author missed it. But sometimes the request reflects habit, territory, or a different view of what a paper should do rather than a genuine gap in the argument.
The key question is simply to run the theory through the two filters: does it make a different prediction for this design? Does it offer a mechanistic account of this dependent variable?
If the answer is no to both, you have a principled basis for a polite but firm response. If the answer is yes to either, the reviewer may have identified something genuinely important — and you should take it seriously.
7.2 The two types of reviewer request
Not all requests for more theory are the same. It helps to distinguish them.
The legitimate request. The reviewer identifies a theory that makes a differential prediction for your design and addresses your specific dependent variable. This is a gift. Engage with it seriously, run it through the filters, and if it passes both, include it properly, as a genuine improvement to the argument.
The territorial request. The reviewer wants their preferred framework acknowledged, but the framework does not do any argumentative work in your paper. This is common. It does not mean the reviewer is acting in bad faith — it may simply reflect a different view of what thorough scholarship looks like. But agreeing to add a paragraph that does no argumentative work makes your paper worse.
The challenge is that you cannot always tell which type you are dealing with from the review alone. Start by assuming good faith and engaging seriously with the request before deciding how to respond.
7.3 How to respond
When a reviewer asks for more theoretical coverage, your response should do three things: acknowledge the framework they have raised, explain its relationship to your study specifically, and state clearly what role it plays in your revised manuscript.
A weak response:
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have added a discussion of [Theory X] to the introduction.
This response adds words without adding argument. It is the written equivalent of the bloated manuscript you were trying to avoid.
A strong response:
We thank the reviewer for raising [Theory X]. This framework offers an important account of [phenomenon] at the level of [description]. In our study, however, [Theory X] and our anchor theory [Theory Y] generate identical predictions for [specific manipulation and DV], so including a substantive discussion of [Theory X] would not help the reader distinguish between the two accounts on the basis of our data. We have added a sentence acknowledging [Theory X] and its relationship to our theoretical framing [cite location in manuscript].
This response is respectful, specific, and principled. It shows the reviewer that you have engaged seriously with their request and explains clearly why a one-sentence acknowledgement is the appropriate level of treatment.
Chapter 8 addresses the practical mechanics of the revision process — how to sort reviewer comments, write the cover letter, structure the response document, and decide when to give ground.