What should I do if a reviewer keeps correcting APA style but seems to misunderstand it?
Imagine you’re a junior psychology major in your senior year, just finished a semester‑long research project, and you’ve submitted your manuscript to an interdisciplinary journal that welcomes work from fields as diverse as cognitive science, environmental studies, and even art history. The editor, who’s a non‑psychologist, says the paper is “well‑written” but the first reviewer comes back with a stack of comments that look more like a style guide than a critique of content. They delete the title page, add an “Introduction” heading on the first body page, and insist the figure on page 12 must be “aligned” in a way that contradicts APA’s guidelines. You’re left wondering: do I follow the reviewer’s suggestions, or stay true to APA? How do I handle this without jeopardizing the paper’s chances of acceptance?
1. Check the Journal’s Own Style Requirements First
Before you even think about the reviewer’s comments, look at the journal’s Instructions for Authors. Interdisciplinary journals often adopt a hybrid style that blends APA with other conventions. For example, the Journal of Cognitive and Cultural Studies explicitly states that while references should follow APA 7th edition, headings on the first page should read “Introduction” rather than “Background.” That’s a rule the reviewer is actually following, not ignoring APA.
When you find a discrepancy, note it down. Use a simple table to track each rule that conflicts between APA and the journal’s guidelines. Even if you don’t use a table in the final response, having one helps you stay organized.
| APA Rule | Journal Requirement | Reviewer Comment | Your Decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title on first page | No title page; title appears on first body page | Delete title page | Follow journal |
| Figure alignment | Center figures with captions below | Align to left margin | Follow APA |
In your own words, explain that you’ve cross‑checked the journal’s guidelines and found that some of the reviewer’s suggestions are actually in line with the journal’s style, not APA. This shows you’re not blindly following APA for its own sake; you’re trying to meet the expectations of the venue you’re submitting to.
2. Decide How Much of the Reviewer’s Feedback to Accept
Reviewers are human, and sometimes they over‑read or misinterpret style guidelines. Your job is to sift through their comments and decide which ones genuinely improve the manuscript and which ones are style disagreements.
- Content‑related comments (e.g., “the sample size is too small for the analysis you performed”) should be addressed first. These are the backbone of a good revision.
- Style or formatting comments that conflict with the journal’s instructions should be followed if they’re consistent with the journal, even if they diverge from APA.
- Style comments that conflict with both APA and the journal can be contested politely. Explain why you prefer APA’s approach and ask the editor for clarification.
When you’re unsure, draft a short decision framework. For instance:
- Is the comment about APA style? Yes → Check journal guidelines. If the journal accepts APA, keep the comment; if the journal requires a different style, follow the journal.
- Is the comment about content? Yes → Revise or add evidence.
- Does the comment conflict with both APA and journal style? Yes → Prepare a brief rationale to send to the editor.
This process helps you stay systematic and reduces the risk of over‑editing.
3. Craft a Polite and Professional Response Letter
Start with a thank you, then address each major comment. Use bullet points to keep it readable. For example:
- Title page removal – “Per the journal’s instructions, the title page has been removed and the title now appears on the first body page.”
- Figure alignment – “Figure 3 has been centered with the caption below, in accordance with APA 7th edition. The journal’s guidelines do not specify a different alignment, so this change aligns with the standard APA practice.”
- Introduction heading – “The heading “Introduction” has been added to the first page to match the journal’s formatting requirements.”
When you encounter a comment that you disagree with, frame it as a question rather than a statement. For instance:
“The reviewer suggested aligning Figure 12 to the left margin. APA 7th edition recommends centering figures. Could the editor clarify whether the journal prefers left alignment or if APA centering is acceptable?”
This shows you’re open to dialogue and not simply dismissing the reviewer’s concerns.
4. Wait, What About the Figure Alignment and Title Changes?
Let’s dive deeper into the two most common points of contention: figure alignment and title page removal. These are the kinds of changes that can feel like a stylistic tug‑of‑war.
Figure alignment
APA 7th edition says: “Figures should be centered on the page, with the caption below the figure.” If the reviewer wants left alignment, they’re probably following a different journal style. Check the journal’s figure guidelines. If the journal says “center figures,” then you’re safe following APA. If the journal says “left align figures,” then you should follow the journal, even if that means diverging from APA.
Title page removal
Many interdisciplinary journals drop the title page to keep the manuscript short and to the point. APA, on the other hand, requires a title page with a running head. In this case, the reviewer is correct to delete the title page because the journal’s instructions explicitly say so. You can note in your response that you followed the journal’s guidelines, which supersede APA for this element.
Remember, the goal is to make your manuscript look professional and consistent with the venue’s expectations. If the journal’s style is a hybrid, it’s okay to deviate from APA in those specific areas.
5. Final Checklist Before Resubmission
Once you’ve addressed the reviewer’s comments and drafted your response letter, run through this quick checklist to make sure nothing slips through the cracks.
- Content – All data, analyses, and interpretations are clear and supported.
- References – Every in‑text citation has a matching reference entry, formatted in APA 7th edition.
- Figures and Tables – All figures are centered or aligned as the journal requires, captions are below figures, and tables follow the journal’s layout guidelines.
- Title and Headings – Title appears on the first body page if the journal requires it; headings match the journal’s style (e.g., “Introduction” on the first page).
- Response Letter – All reviewer comments are addressed, with polite explanations for any changes you couldn’t make.
- Proofread – Run a spell check, read aloud, and have a peer or mentor look over the manuscript for clarity.
When you’re satisfied, upload the revised manuscript and response letter. Keep a copy of the original reviewer comments and your notes in case the editor asks for clarification later.
6. Take a Breath and Keep Perspective
It’s easy to feel frustrated when a reviewer seems to misunderstand APA, especially if you’re proud of your adherence to the style. But remember, the goal of peer review is to improve the manuscript for its intended audience. If the journal’s guidelines differ from APA, that’s not a mistake; it’s a feature of the interdisciplinary context.
Think of your paper as a bridge between psychology and another field. The reviewer’s suggestions may be aimed at making that bridge stronger for readers who aren’t steeped in APA. By balancing APA rigor with the journal’s style, you’re actually enhancing the paper’s accessibility.
When you finish revising, give yourself a moment of relief. You’ve navigated a common but tricky situation, and you’ve kept your manuscript aligned with the journal’s expectations while staying true to APA where it matters. That’s a win for you and for the research you’re sharing.
Good luck with your resubmission, and remember: every revision is a step toward a stronger, more polished piece of scholarship.