Comments from the editor and/or reviewers are usually valuable pieces of information that can only improve a manuscript. After reading these comments carefully, the author then needs to decide if his/her revised manuscript should be submitted to a new journal that is more applicable to his/her research or if the manuscript can be resubmitted to the same journal. Usually, a reviewer response will involve addressing each of the reviewer’s comments and specifying where in the manuscript the changes were made. Authors do not have to agree with all of the critiques, but they should compromise to make the changes that they are able to make and provide reasons why they are choosing not to make certain changes. A well-prepared response document should be complete, polite, and based on evidence, not emotion. The reviewer comments are beneficial to authors, but reviewing can also be beneficial to the reviewer by improving critical thinking skills. A thorough review for an experienced reviewer is expected to take approximately 3 hours and will range from one-half to two pages. Reviewers may wish to first give a quick read of the manuscript to determine its quality after deciding to proceed with the review. If the quality is poor, including one of the fatal flaws discussed previously, the reviewer may wish to only include major comments in the revision. The structure of a review could begin with a short summary of the key findings and value of the manuscript. Comments to the authors can then be structured under major and minor points. Major comments are critical to the validity of the study and could include whether the appropriate study sample was chosen and if proper statistical tests were conducted. Minor comments should also be itemized and may include clarification of specific sentences, requests for additional data, or grammatical errors. Reviewing should be approached as a collaborative effort to encourage colleagues.