Your guide to navigating peer review with professionalism and clarity.
When your research manuscript is reviewed by a journal, receiving reviewer comments can feel daunting—whether positive or critical. But this stage is a crucial part of the publishing process and presents an opportunity to improve your paper. A well-crafted response letter to reviewers can make the difference between rejection and acceptance.
In this guide, we break down how to write an effective response letter, with tips, examples, and a checklist to ensure clarity, professionalism, and completeness.
Why the Response Letter Matters
The response letter is your opportunity to:
- Show professionalism and respect for the reviewers’ efforts.
- Clarify any misunderstandings.
- Highlight the revisions you’ve made or justify why you chose not to make a suggested change.
- Improve the overall quality of your manuscript.
An organized, courteous, and detailed response can greatly increase your chances of acceptance—even if not all comments are addressed with revisions.
When It’s Acceptable to Reject a Reviewer Suggestion:
- The suggestion is outside the scope of your study.
- “We agree that X is an important topic, but it is beyond the scope of our current study.”
- The reviewer misunderstood a part of your paper.
- “We believe this may have been due to a lack of clarity in the original text. We have now revised the sentence to clarify our intention…”
- The suggestion contradicts the study design or accepted standards.
- “While we appreciate this suggestion, we chose method A because it aligns with standard practice in this field (Smith et al., 2020)…”
- The suggestion is technically incorrect or would reduce clarity.
- “We respectfully disagree with this change, as it may lead to misinterpretation. We have instead clarified our rationale for the current approach…”
Structure of a Response to reviewers Letter
-
Header and Salutation
Begin with a brief, polite thank-you.
Example:
Dear [Editor’s Name],
We thank you and the reviewers for the time and effort invested in reviewing our manuscript titled “…” (Manuscript ID: XXXX). We appreciate the constructive feedback and have addressed all comments in detail below. Revisions have been made accordingly in the manuscript.
-
Organize Responses by Reviewer
Respond to each reviewer separately. Label them clearly: Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, etc.
For each comment:
- Quote the reviewer’s comment (in italics or another color/font).
- Provide your detailed response below.
- Indicate where the revision was made in the manuscript (with line/page numbers if possible).
Example Format:
Reviewer 1:
Comment 1: The introduction would benefit from a clearer rationale for the study.
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the last paragraph of the Introduction to better articulate the study rationale (Page 2, Lines 38–45).
Revised text: “In this study, we aim to…”
-
Be Respectful and Evidence-Based
Even if you disagree with a reviewer, respond politely. Justify your stance with evidence or logic.
Example:
Comment: The authors should use method X instead of method Y.
Response: We appreciate the suggestion. However, method Y is more appropriate for our study design because… (with citation or reasoning). To clarify this, we have added justification in the Methods section (Page 5, Lines 102–106).
-
Highlight Major Revisions Clearly
If you made substantial changes, summarize them at the beginning of the letter or in each reviewer section.
Example:
In response to Reviewer 2’s comment, we reanalyzed the data using XYZ method and updated the Results and Discussion sections accordingly.
-
Submit a Marked-Up Manuscript
Most journals require both a clean and a tracked-changes version of your revised manuscript. Make sure your changes match what you state in your response.
Common Mistakes to Avoid in Your Response Letter
When crafting a response to reviewers, it’s crucial to maintain a tone of professionalism, clarity, and respect. Even strong research can face setbacks if the response letter is poorly written or mishandled. Below are some common mistakes authors make, along with guidance on how to avoid them:
-
Being Defensive or Dismissive
One of the most frequent—and damaging—errors is responding to reviewer comments in a defensive or confrontational tone. Even if a comment seems unfair or incorrect, responding with hostility or sarcasm reflects poorly on the author and can influence the final decision.
Avoid this by:
- Thanking the reviewer for their feedback, regardless of whether you agree.
- Using respectful language like:
“We appreciate the reviewer’s perspective and have clarified the relevant section…” - Providing evidence or citations to support your position when disagreeing, rather than dismissing the comment.
-
Ignoring or Skipping a Reviewer’s Comment
Every comment must be addressed. Skipping over a reviewer’s question—intentionally or by oversight—can give the impression that you are unwilling to engage with feedback or are trying to avoid making necessary revisions.
Avoid this by:
- Numbering or quoting each reviewer comment and responding to it directly, even if the comment seems minor or redundant.
- For points you believe do not require action, still acknowledge them and explain why no changes were made.
Example:
“Reviewer 2, Comment 4: The reviewer notes that the introduction lacks background on XYZ. We thank the reviewer and have added a paragraph on XYZ on page 2, lines 38–47.”
-
Failing to Indicate Where Revisions Were Made
If reviewers and editors cannot easily see where changes were made, they may assume the manuscript has not been adequately revised—even if it has. This can slow down the process or result in rejection.
Avoid this by:
- Referring to specific page and line numbers when mentioning changes.
- Highlighting or tracking changes in the revised manuscript (as required by the journal).
- Including a note at the beginning of the response letter indicating how changes are marked (e.g., colored text, tracked changes, etc.).
Example:
“The revised sentence now appears on page 5, lines 120–122, and has been marked in blue font for visibility.”
-
Not Including a Revised Manuscript or Marking Changes Clearly
Submitting a response letter without the corresponding revised manuscript—or submitting a version that doesn’t clearly show edits—is a critical oversight. Editors need to verify that feedback was incorporated and assess the clarity of the new version.
Avoid this by:
- Always submitting the revised manuscript alongside the response letter.
- Following the journal’s guidelines on how to mark revisions (e.g., tracked changes, colored text, or a clean and marked version).
- Double-checking that all marked changes correspond with the responses provided.
By avoiding these common pitfalls, authors can demonstrate professionalism, responsiveness, and respect for the peer-review process. A thoughtful, transparent response letter not only improves the chances of acceptance but also fosters a constructive dialogue that ultimately strengthens the quality of the published work.
Response Letter to Reviewers Template
[Your Full Name]
[Your Institution]
[Email Address]
[Date]
To: [Editor’s Name]
[Journal Name]
Subject: Response to Reviewers – Manuscript ID [XXXXXXX], “Title of Your Manuscript”
Dear [Editor’s Name],
We sincerely thank you and the reviewers for your thoughtful and constructive comments on our manuscript titled “Title of Manuscript” (Manuscript ID: [XXXXXXX]). We have carefully considered all feedback and revised the manuscript accordingly.
Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of the reviewers’ comments. For each comment, we have included our response and indicated the specific changes made to the manuscript, including page and line numbers where relevant. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript, which we are submitting with tracked changes for your review.
Reviewer 1
Comment 1.1:
“[Paste the full comment here]”
Response:
Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have [describe what you did—revised the section, clarified a point, added new data, etc.].
Change: Page X, Lines Y–Z
Comment 1.2:
“[Another comment]”
Response:
We appreciate this feedback. We respectfully disagree with the recommendation to [do X] because [provide brief justification, evidence, or citation]. However, we have clarified this in the manuscript to prevent future misunderstanding.
Change: Page X, Lines Y–Z
Reviewer 2
Comment 2.1:
“[Reviewer’s comment]”
Response:
We have addressed this point by [describe your revision].
Change: Page X, Lines Y–Z
Summary of Major Changes:
- Expanded the Introduction to clarify study rationale (Page 2)
- Reanalyzed data using [method] and updated Results section (Pages 6–8)
- Added limitations regarding [topic] to Discussion (Page 10)
- Improved language and grammar throughout the manuscript
Once again, we thank you and the reviewers for your time and valuable feedback. We believe the manuscript has been substantially improved as a result of this revision process and hope it is now suitable for publication in [Journal Name].
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
On behalf of all co-authors
Declining to make changes suggested by reviewers
you absolutely can decline some changes suggested by reviewers — if you have a valid and respectful reason for doing so.
Key Principles:
- Be respectful: Always thank the reviewer for their suggestion.
- Be clear and professional: State your reasoning calmly and clearly.
- Support your decision: Use evidence, data, or references to back up your choice.
- Still aim to clarify the manuscript: Even if you don’t make the change, consider adding a clarification in the text to avoid similar confusion.
Final Checklist Before Submission
- Open with a professional and appreciative salutation.
- Organize responses by reviewer and by comment.
- Include the full original comment before each response.
- Respond to every comment (even if you disagree).
- Justify any disagreements with logic or evidence.
- Indicate precisely where changes were made in the manuscript.
- Highlight major revisions when appropriate.
- Submit both a clean and tracked-changes version of the manuscript.
- Proofread your letter for clarity and tone.
Final Thoughts
Think of the response letter as a dialogue between you and the reviewers. They are (usually!) trying to help you produce the best version of your work. By responding thoughtfully and respectfully, you not only improve your paper but also demonstrate that you’re a professional member of the scientific community.
Even when you decline a suggestion, your tone, logic, and clarity matter. The goal is to show that you value the peer review process and are making informed decisions — not being stubborn.
