Peer-review strategy

Build a Reviewer-Objection Matrix in 30 Minutes (with template)

Reading time ~8–10 minutes · Updated 2025-09-09

Checklist being ticked off with a pen
TL;DR: Most delays come from predictable objections. A Reviewer-Objection Matrix forces you to name those risks, attach evidence, and assign fixes before you submit. Download the CSV template and run this once per paper.
Contents

Why this works

Editors and reviewers repeatedly ask the same questions: scope, method transparency, statistics, novelty relative to prior art, and figure interpretability. If you name those risks and show concrete evidence inside the manuscript before submission, cycles drop and acceptance odds improve.

Setup (5 minutes)

Collect

  • Latest manuscript (with figures and caption text).
  • Three target journals and their author guidelines.
  • Any analysis code or logs that support results.

Define reviewer types

MethodsStatisticsDomain expertGeneralist editor

Write one predictable objection for each type. If you struggle to write one, you have likely found a blind spot.

Build the matrix (20 minutes)

Create a table with these columns: Section, Claim, Predictable objection, Evidence we show, Gap or risk, Pre-emptive fix, Owner, Due date, Status, Notes.

  1. List claims section by section (Results and Discussion first).
  2. Attach evidence that appears in the paper (figure, table, statistic, CI, n).
  3. Name the gap (e.g., missing calibration, unbalanced n, unclear prior art delta).
  4. Write the fix you will add now: analysis, sentence, figure relabel, or limitation.
  5. Assign owner and due date. Keep fixes brief but unambiguous.

Close the gaps (5 minutes)

Prioritise fixes that reduce back-and-forth: clarifying scope, adding n and CI around main effects, relabelling figures so they stand alone, and placing limitations before speculation.

Template & example

Download the CSV template (open in Excel or Google Sheets). Replace the sample rows with your claims.

Example rows

Claim: “Throughput improves by 18±3%.” → Objection: “n is small.” → Fix: add post-hoc power calculation and widen CI in text.

Claim: “Effect persists across alloys A–D.” → Objection: “Unequal n across groups.” → Fix: use Welch ANOVA and state exact sample sizes in caption.

Need help? I can run a one-page sample edit and return a plan with effort, timeline, and risk. Request a free assessment

Cover photo: Unsplash (download and host locally as cover.jpg). See source links in the instructions you received.