To respond to reviewer comments, thank the reviewers, answer each point with evidence or edits, and cite where changes appear in the paper.
That email lands. Your paper has promise, yet the decision asks for changes. Nerves spike, then the real work starts. A clean response letter can turn a rough set of notes into an accepted manuscript. This guide shows a calm path that saves hours and wins trust with editors and referees.
Mindset And First Moves
Start by reading the decision twice without typing a word. Step away for a short walk. Come back and set a plan. Copy all comments into a working file. Add page and line markers for your version of the text. Create three columns in that file: the original remark, your reply, and the change made. That grid keeps you honest and saves the editor from guesswork.
Set a target date now. If the window is tight, write to the handling editor early and ask for more time with a one line reason. Editors value clear plans and steady progress. Pick one point of contact on your team so messages stay tidy.
Responding To Peer Review Comments: Step-By-Step
Map The Letter
Scan the notes and tag each item: major, moderate, or minor. Group twin themes. Many sets include method clarity, sample size, missing citations, writing polish, or figure tweaks. List tasks in order of effort so you can bank quick wins and buy time for heavier lifts.
| Comment Type | What It Signals | Your First Move |
|---|---|---|
| Concept gap | A core idea reads thin or unclear | Draft two to three crisp lines that fill the gap, then expand in the right section |
| Method detail | Steps or parameters are missing | Add exact settings, code links, or a short protocol with page and line tags |
| Data request | Reviewers want extra tests or checks | Plan a small, targeted run first; state scope and limits in the reply |
| Conflicting cite | Prior work points a different way | Quote the main claim and explain where your data match or differ |
| Writing polish | Wording blocks the point | Rewrite for plain speech; cut long chains; fix tense and voice |
| Figure issue | Labels, units, or scale confuse | Relabel for clarity; add units; raise font size; provide a high-res image |
| Scope push | Request goes past your data | Offer a bounded test or a short note that marks the limit of the study |
Draft The Overview Note
Open with thanks and a one-paragraph map of changes. Name the big fixes first, such as a new analysis, a reworked figure set, or text moves in the Results and Discussion. Close this note with a sentence that invites a second look. Keep this note lean; the point-by-point section carries the weight.
Point-By-Point Replies
Paste each reviewer remark in full and style it so it stands out. After each one, write a direct reply. Show the change in two ways: quote the new line, and give the exact page and line range in the new version. If a change spans a figure, give the figure number and panel tag.
When You Agree
State your agreement in plain words. Then show the fix. A tight pattern works: “We agree. We changed X to Y. The revision appears on page 6, lines 120–132.”
When You Partly Agree
Say what you changed and what you did not. Give a short reason tied to data limits or scope. Offer a small added check if it helps close the gap. Clarity beats volume.
When You Disagree Respectfully
Keep the tone cool. Quote the exact line that drove the remark. Then point to data, math, or a cite that backs your stance. Close with a bridge, such as a short note in the paper that flags this open question. This steady style matches Nature editorial guidance on handling all technical points and keeping the reply fit for review.
Polite Language That Works
Short, steady phrases carry a long way. You’re writing for busy readers who scan. Set up a few stock lines you can reuse across replies so your tone stays even from start to finish.
Keep sentences short and direct. Use active voice. Avoid jargon when a plain word does the job. Read replies out loud; awkward lines jump out and fix fast. A steady rhythm helps the editor skim without losing the thread.
Mark Up The Manuscript
Editors need both a clean file and a marked file. Use tracked changes or a clear diff so shifts are easy to see. Match figure labels, table numbers, and callouts with the letter. If you move a section, add a brief signpost at the old spot. That small note helps readers who compare versions side by side.
When you add data, share a short methods note and a link to code or a data deposit where allowed. Keep file names tidy and stable. If the system asks for a “Response to reviewers” file, bundle the full letter there and keep the filename plain. Many journals spell out this package; see the clear list from PLOS ONE.
Common Traps And Fixes
- Hot tone: Save venting for a private note. The letter stays calm and neutral.
- Vague reply: Lines like “we clarified” leave gaps. Show the exact text you added.
- Skipped point: Every remark gets a reply, even a short one that says a fix is now in a new section.
- Hidden changes: Silent edits slow readers. Pair each change with page and line tags.
- New test with thin methods: Add a compact methods block with settings and code link.
- Overlong letter: Cut repeats. Merge twin points with a simple lead-in line.
- Sloppy format: Use one font, one list style, and numbered headings per reviewer.
Timeline And Triage
Count backward from the due date and block work in short sprints. Book time for new runs if needed. Keep the team on one tracker so tasks do not collide. If a lab step slips, tell the editor the same day with a new date that you can hit today. Clear notes keep the file moving.
Short Response Letter Template
Here’s a compact structure you can copy into your file and shape to fit your case:
- Greeting: A single line that thanks the editor and reviewers.
- Overview: One paragraph that lists the main changes in plain terms.
- New items: Bullets that name added data, figures, or tables.
- Point-by-point replies: Numbered by reviewer, with each comment quoted, your reply, and the page and line tags.
- Closing line: Invite any extra checks and confirm you can answer fast.
| Situation | Sample Phrase | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| General thanks | “We thank the editor and reviewers for clear, constructive input.” | Opens doors; sets a calm tone |
| Full agreement | “We agree and have revised the text to state … (p. 4, lines 85–94).” | Pair with a direct quote of the new line |
| Partial change | “We ran the suggested check on the main set; the effect holds (Fig. 2b).” | State scope to avoid drift |
| Reasoned dissent | “We appreciate the point. Our data indicate a different pattern: … We added a note to mark this.” | Point to data or a peer-reviewed cite |
| Scope limit | “A full test would need a new cohort, which sits outside this study. We added a line on this limit and a pointer for next work.” | Offer a small check if you can |
| Copy edits | “We corrected grammar, typos, and style across the draft.” | No need to reply line by line |
| Time request | “We can deliver a revised draft by 3 Nov. Please confirm if this timing works.” | Ask early; be exact |
Working With Conflicting Reviews
Sometimes one referee wants a longer take while another asks you to cut. Start with the editor’s note; that message sets the bar. Then weigh which path keeps the main claim intact. When you split the difference, tell the editor what you chose and why. Use the letter to show where you streamlined text and where you added context so both needs get a fair shake.
If two technical points clash, put both in a short paragraph in the reply. Cite your data and give a neutral read of the other view. Offer a small analysis that probes the fork. Editors like to see you engage with the remarks, not dodge them.
After Acceptance: Keep A Response Kit
Save your best lines, a clean letter template, and a checklist. Drop them into a shared folder so coauthors can reuse them. That kit turns the next round from a blank page into a quick start. Add a one page style card with your choices for numbers, units, and figure labels so the team writes with one voice.
Final Checks Before You Hit Submit
- Run a spell check and a style pass for plain speech.
- Verify every page and line tag in the letter matches the revised file.
- Confirm figure numbers and table numbers match the text and captions.
- Place data links and code links where the journal permits.
- Export to PDF to catch wrap issues and orphan lines in quotes.
- Ask a teammate who did not draft the letter to skim for tone and clarity.
- Upload the clean file, the marked file, and the response letter with clean names.
Answering reviewer notes with care shows you respect the process and the readers. A direct tone, clear changes, and tidy files give your work the best shot with the editor and the same reviewers who will see the next round. For more phrasing tips, see this brief guide from Wiley Author Services online.