How to Explain Additional Experiments in A Revision Letter
A request for additional experiments is one of the most substantial forms of reviewer feedback an author can receive. Unlike a request to correct wording, improve a figure, or add a reference, an additional experiment may require new data processing, a new implementation, an alternative model, a robustness test, or an entirely new analysis. It can therefore affect both the manuscript and the way the authors explain their response to the reviewers.
A well-prepared response makes the revision easier to evaluate and demonstrates that the authors have engaged seriously with the scientific concern behind the request. Crosslink Studies’ Ubiquitous Technology Journal (UTJ) takes a structured approach: its current revision guidance requires each reviewer comment to be addressed separately, with the response, revision details, and exact manuscript location provided.
Why Additional Experiments Require a Detailed Response
A reviewer who requests an additional experiment is usually asking for more than another result to be inserted into the Results section. The request may be intended to test the robustness of the findings, compare the proposed approach with an alternative, investigate a limitation, validate a claim, or determine whether the main conclusion remains stable under a different condition.
First Identify What the Reviewer Is Trying to Establish
Before conducting an additional experiment, carefully examine the wording of the reviewer’s comment. Ask:
What uncertainty does this experiment address?
Suppose a reviewer asks for an additional baseline comparison. The underlying concern may be whether the proposed method actually provides an advantage over existing approaches.
If a reviewer requests an ablation study, the underlying question may be which components of the proposed framework are responsible for the observed performance. If a reviewer asks for robustness testing, the concern may be whether the main conclusion depends on one particular specification, dataset, parameter choice, or analytical assumption.
Explain The Reason for Adding the Experiment
When writing the response, begin by acknowledging the scientific purpose of the request. Avoid a minimal response such as:
“The additional experiment has been conducted.”
Although technically informative, this does not explain how the experiment addresses the reviewer’s concern.
A stronger response should establish the connection between the criticism and the new analysis.
Describe Exactly What Was Added
After explaining the purpose, describe the experiment precisely enough for the reviewer to understand what was done. Depending on the study, this may include:
- Dataset or sample used
- Experimental conditions
- Model or method applied
- Baseline or comparison method
- Parameter settings
- Evaluation metrics
The explanation does not need to reproduce the entire Methods section. However, it should contain enough information to establish that the experiment was conducted systematically.
Explain The Results Not Just Where They Are
After describing the experiment, summarize the main finding.
For example:
“The additional experiment showed that the proposed method continued to outperform the baseline under the alternative parameter configuration, although the magnitude of the improvement was smaller than in the original specification.”
This type of response is more useful than simply writing:
“The results are presented in Table 5.”
Explain How the Experiment Changed the Manuscript
Conducting the experiment is only one part of the revision. If the new analysis produces important evidence, determine whether it requires changes to other sections of the manuscript. Suppose the additional analysis shows that the main result is robust. The Results section should report the finding, while the Discussion may explain what the robustness result means.
If the additional experiment produces a weaker or different result, the manuscript should not conceal that information. The interpretation and conclusions may need to be adjusted accordingly.
Give The Exact Location of the Revision
A strong revision letter makes verification easy. Instead of:
“The new experiment has been added to the manuscript.”
write something closer to:
“We added the robustness experiment to Section 4.3, ‘Additional Analysis,’ and report the results in Table 6. The corresponding interpretation has also been added to the Discussion section.”
Where the journal requests page, paragraph, line, table, or figure information, provide it.
This is especially important for UTJ. Its current Review Accommodation Report requires authors to provide the exact location of each revision, including the relevant section, subsection, page, paragraph, table, figure, or equation where applicable.
When the Additional Experiment Changes the Main Findings
Not every additional experiment will confirm the original result. Sometimes the new analysis reveals that:
- The effect is smaller than originally reported.
- Results vary across datasets.
- One component of a model contributes little.
- A relationship disappears under an alternative specification.
- A competing method performs similarly.
- The original conclusion requires qualification.
Do not add Experiments without explaining their scope
Additional analyses can sometimes expand beyond the original research question.
For example, a reviewer may suggest several experiments that collectively would transform a focused study into a substantially different research project. Authors should distinguish between an experiment that is necessary to evaluate the existing claim and one that introduces an entirely new research question. If a requested analysis is outside the study’s scope, explain this professionally rather than ignoring the request.
How to respond when you disagree with the reviewer
Disagreement is not inherently problematic. An author may reasonably conclude that a requested experiment would not provide meaningful evidence for the research question. The problem arises when disagreement becomes defensive.
Avoid statements such as:
“The reviewer is incorrect.”
Instead, explain the methodological reasoning.
Integrate new experiments into the scientific story
A common revision mistake is to add a new table at the end of the Results section and leave the rest of the manuscript unchanged. An additional experiment should have a clear purpose within the paper. The author should be able to answer:
Why was this experiment necessary?
What question does it answer?
What did it show?
How does it affect the interpretation of the original findings?
Where is the evidence presented?
What conclusion should the reader draw from it?
A practical structure for the response
For each additional-experiment comment, authors can use a consistent structure:
Reviewer Comment
Quote or accurately identify the reviewer’s request.
Response
Thank the reviewer and explain the scientific concern behind the request.
Action Taken
Describe the additional experiment, analysis, dataset, model, or validation that was performed.
Main Finding
Briefly report the principal result and explain whether it supports, qualifies, or changes the original finding.
Manuscript Changes
Identify the exact sections, tables, figures, equations, or supplementary materials that were revised.
Final Checks Before Resubmission
Before submitting the revision, perform a dedicated audit of every additional experiment.
- Does each experiment directly address a reviewer concern?
- Is the methodology sufficiently described?
- Are the reported results accurate?
- Do tables and figures match the underlying analysis?
- Have unexpected findings been reported honestly?
- Has the Discussion been updated where necessary?
- Does the Conclusion remain supported by the evidence?
For UTJ, this final consistency check is particularly important because the journal requires a Clean Revised Manuscript, a Trackable Revised Manuscript with revisions shown in red, and a completed Review Accommodation Report. The three files must correspond to one another.
