How to Respond to IRB Reviewers: A Guide for Doctoral Students

Responding to Institutional Review Board (IRB) feedback is a normal part of the dissertation process. Very few proposals are approved without revisions on the first submission, so receiving reviewer comments is expected rather than a setback. The key is knowing how to respond clearly, professionally, and systematically so your study can move forward.

For psychology and education doctoral students, strong IRB responses demonstrate that the researcher understands ethical requirements and can implement feedback accurately.

Responding to IRB Reviewers First Requires Understanding the IRB Reviewers Feedback

Reviewers evaluate research submittals to the IRB to ensure ethical standards are met. When they request revisions, it usually relates to:

• clarity of procedures

• participant protections

• consent documentation

• risk minimization

• consistency in the research design

Feedback is typically not personal. It is focused on improving clarity and protecting participants.

Step 1: Read All Comments Carefully

Before responding, read every comment thoroughly. IRB feedback often includes:

• direct instructions for changes

• questions about unclear sections

• suggestions for clarification

• required revisions before approval

It helps to categorize feedback into:

• minor edits (e.g., wording changes)

• moderate revisions (e.g., clarifying procedures)

• major revisions (e.g., redesigning a section of methodology)

Understanding the scope of revisions helps you prioritize your response.

Step 2: Create a Response Document

Most IRBs expect a point-by-point response document. This document should clearly show:

• each reviewer comment

• your response

• where changes were made in the proposal

A structured format improves clarity and speeds up the approval process.

Example format:

Reviewer Comment: Clarify how participants will be recruited.

Response: Recruitment procedures have been updated to specify email invitations through departmental listservs (see Page 5, Paragraph 3).

Step 3: Be Professional and Respectful

When responding to IRB feedback:

• remain neutral and professional

• avoid defensive language

• acknowledge reviewer concerns

• thank reviewers for their feedback when appropriate

Even if you disagree with a comment, you should respond respectfully and justify your approach clearly. It is okay to disagree with a reviewer. However, confirm your beliefs with your Chair and/or Committee members first. If they agree that a change would

For example:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion; however, the current design is necessary to maintain methodological consistency…”

Step 4: Make Clear Revisions in the Document

Do not only respond in writing—ensure that changes are actually made in your dissertation proposal.

Best practices include:

• highlighting or tracking changes (if allowed)

• updating consent forms and procedures

• ensuring consistency across all sections

• double-checking alignment with IRB requirements

Reviewers often cross-check your responses with the revised document. If you're not sure what to submit or it's not specified, consider uploading a version of the dissertation proposal with tracked changes and a second clean version to meet the reviewer's preference and to clearly illustrate where changes have been made.

Step 5: Be Specific and Direct in Your Responses

Avoid vague responses like:

“The changes have been made.”

Instead, be specific:

“The participant recruitment section has been revised to include inclusion criteria and email-based recruitment procedures.”

Specificity shows reviewers exactly what was done.

Step 6: Ensure Consistency Across All Materials

IRB reviewers often look for alignment between:

• research proposal

• consent forms

• recruitment materials

• data collection procedures

Make sure all documents reflect the same:

• sample size

• methodology

• participant description

• procedures

Inconsistencies are one of the most common reasons for additional revisions.

Step 7: Address Every Comment (Even Small Ones)

Do not ignore minor feedback. Even small issues such as:

• unclear wording

• missing details

• formatting inconsistencies

should be addressed.

Leaving comments unanswered can delay approval.

Step 8: Anticipate Follow-Up Questions

IRB reviewers may request additional clarification after your revisions. To reduce back-and-forth:

• be thorough in your initial response

• clarify procedures in detail

• ensure ethical protections are clearly explained

A well-prepared revision increases the likelihood of approval on the next review cycle.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Many students delay IRB approval due to avoidable errors such as:

• responding without making actual document changes

• using vague or incomplete explanations

• missing reviewer comments

• failing to update consent forms

• inconsistent descriptions of procedures

Careful attention to detail is essential.

Final Thoughts

Responding to IRB reviewers is a structured and professional process designed to ensure ethical research practices. While revisions may feel time-consuming, they are an important part of strengthening your dissertation and protecting participants.

By carefully addressing each comment, revising your documents thoroughly, and maintaining clear communication, you can move efficiently toward IRB approval and begin your data collection with confidence.

If you need help responding to the IRB, consider dissertation coaching.