For medical journals, format a point-by-point response to peer reviewers with headings, quoted comments, and specific changes.
What Editors Expect In A Response Letter
Editors want a clear letter that makes their job easy. Start with a short thank-you line. Then give a brief overview of the revisions. After that, move through each reviewer in order, answer every numbered comment, and point to the exact change in the manuscript. Quote the reviewer’s words first, then place your reply below it. Keep one idea per paragraph, keep the tone calm, and avoid blame.
Standard Response Letter Structure
This outline works across most medical journals and keeps editors, associate editors, and reviewers aligned.
| Section | What To Include | Why It Helps |
|---|---|---|
| Greeting And Thanks | Short salutation to the editor; one line thanking reviewers for their time | Sets a courteous tone from the start |
| Overview Of Revisions | 2–5 lines summarizing the main changes and new files | Gives the big picture before details |
| Reviewer-By-Reviewer Replies | Quote each comment; respond under it with actions and locations | Makes tracking straightforward for all readers |
| Change Log | Page, section, and line numbers; copied sentences that changed | Shows edits without hunting through the file |
| Files And Figures | List of new tables/figures and where they live (main text or supplement) | Prevents mix-ups during production checks |
| Closing | One short paragraph reaffirming readiness and contact line | Ends on a professional note |
Formatting A Response Letter To Peer Reviewers: Medical Journal Standards
Use a plain layout: black text on white, 11–12 pt font, single spacing, and clear headings. Label sections with bold subheads such as “Reviewer 1,” “Major comments,” and “Minor comments.” Number every reviewer comment for easy cross-reference. When a request led to a change, cite the section, page, and line numbers, and paste the updated sentence so the editor can see the exact fix. If you add a new figure or table in the supplement, give a simple tag such as “Figure S1 (new)” and mention it in your reply.
Set Up Clean Headings
Place each reviewer in its own H3 block. Under each, keep separate H4 lines for “Major comments” and “Minor comments.” Inside those blocks, keep a strict pattern: reviewer quote, then response. Bold the reviewer quote label and italicize the quoted text to avoid confusion. Keep the reply in plain text so it stands out from the quote.
Quote Comments Before You Reply
Copy the reviewer’s comment word-for-word, including any numbering. Add an ellipsis only when you omit non-essential parts, and keep the meaning intact. If the reviewer provided sub-bullets, mirror them in your letter so your numbering matches theirs.
Map Edits To Exact Locations
Every reply should end with a location tag. Use a consistent style, such as “page 7, lines 134–142” or “Methods, Data Sources, paragraph 2.” If your journal uses a line-numbered PDF for proofs, include that line range as well. Paste the revised sentence or short passage so a reader can verify the change quickly.
Tone And Wording That Win Editors Over
Gratitude and clarity travel well. Use first-person plural for group replies. Keep sentences short and concrete. When you agree, say what you changed, where you changed it, and why the change helps readers interpret the work. When you cannot run a requested analysis or gather more data, give a transparent reason and offer a practical substitute such as a sensitivity note, a limit statement, or a pointer to data added to the supplement.
Agreeing With A Request
State agreement in one line, then describe the action and location. Example line: “We agree and have expanded the case definition on page 5, lines 96–108.”
Declining A Request
Keep the tone steady. Anchor the reply in study design, ethics, or feasibility. Example line: “We could not add a new control arm because the protocol and ethics approval did not permit it; we now clarify this limit on page 4, lines 72–84.”
Partial Acceptance With A Strong Substitute
When time and data are tight, offer a substitute that still moves clarity forward. Example line: “We lacked stored serum for the biomarker assay; as a substitute, we added a subgroup based on exposure timing (Table S2) and marked the caveat on page 10, lines 228–238.”
Use Trusted Guides When You Shape The Letter
Many editors point authors to the PLOS “Ten simple rules” article, which stresses a self-contained, polite, and point-by-point format. You can read those rules in the PLOS guidance for response letters. For a publisher’s view on tracked changes, clean copies, and timing, see the Springer guidance on revisions.
Show Changes Clearly In The Manuscript
Submit both a clean file and a marked file. Use tracked changes or highlights for every edit, including small fixes. When a change spans more than a page, repeat the location tag at the end of your reply. If you add a figure or table, name the file plainly and mirror that name in the letter so staff can match items during checks.
What To Paste Into The Letter
Paste only the few sentences that changed, not entire pages. Keep copied text in quotation marks or a blockquote to avoid confusion. When you adjust a number or outcome, give the old value and the new value side by side so the effect of the edit is obvious.
Handling Conflicting Or Duplicate Requests
When two reviewers pull in different directions, state the conflict in one line, then show the path you chose and why it keeps the science clear. Place the same short note under each reviewer, so both can see the resolution without cross-checking letters. When two requests ask for the same fix, note that the single change covers both.
Citations, Data, And Attachments
Back claims with citations from field-standard sources. If you re-ran models or added a subgroup, include a compact results table in the letter or move it to the supplement and call it out. When you update a dataset, state the version, date, and where the file sits. If you revised reporting items such as CONSORT, PRISMA, or STROBE, mention the new files by name and confirm that the checklists match the revised text.
Timing, File Names, And Submission Package
Send your revision within the window set by the editor. Name files in a way that avoids confusion: “Response_Letter_ManuscriptID.pdf,” “Revised_MS_clean.docx,” “Revised_MS_marked.docx,” “Supplement_v2.zip,” and “Figure_S1_new.tif.” In the cover letter, restate the main changes in four to six lines and flag any major additions such as new cohorts or tests. If you need more time, email the editor early with a clear date you can meet.
Second Round Revisions And Final Checks
If a second round arrives, keep the same format and carry forward the numbering. When a reply refers back to the first round, give a short breadcrumb such as “see Round 1, Reviewer 2, Comment 3.” Before you submit, run a final pass: check that every reviewer comment has a reply, every reply has a location tag, and every promised change appears in the manuscript and supplement.
Polite Lines You Can Adapt
These short lines keep the tone steady and save time. Trim or expand to fit your study.
| Phrase | When To Use | Sample Adaptation |
|---|---|---|
| “Thank you for this helpful point.” | Opener before agreeing or clarifying | “Thank you for this helpful point; we expanded the Methods on page 4, lines 80–96.” |
| “We agree and have revised…” | Direct acceptance and change | “We agree and have revised the case definition on page 5, lines 100–112.” |
| “We share the concern and added…” | Partial acceptance with new analysis or text | “We share the concern and added a sensitivity check (Table S2) with text on page 10, lines 226–236.” |
| “We could not do X because…” | Declining a request with a reason | “We could not add a new arm due to protocol limits; we now note this on page 6, lines 118–130.” |
| “To keep the study aligned with Y…” | Resolving a conflict between requests | “To keep the study aligned with the prespecified analysis plan, we chose A and added a note on page 9, lines 210–220.” |
| “The manuscript now reads…” | Pointing to the exact new wording | “The manuscript now reads: ‘Participants with missing data were excluded from the primary model…’ (page 7, lines 144–152).” |
Sample Response Letter Outline (Copy-Ready)
Use this template as a starting point and tweak the labels to match your journal’s style.
Dear Editor, Thank you for the thoughtful review of our manuscript, “<Title>” (Manuscript ID <ID>). Overview of revisions We revised the Abstract, Methods, Results, and Discussion for clarity and accuracy. We added two sensitivity checks and a data dictionary to the supplement. Below we answer each point in order. Reviewer 1 — Major comments Comment 1 (quoted): “<Reviewer text>” Response: We agree. We expanded the Methods to define the exposure window and the inclusion rule. The manuscript now reads: “<copied sentence>” (page 5, lines 92–104). Comment 2 (quoted): “<Reviewer text>” Response: We share the concern. We ran an extra model excluding cases with prior therapy. Results are stable (Table S1); text added on page 9, lines 206–218. Reviewer 1 — Minor comments Comment 3 (quoted): “<Reviewer text>” Response: We corrected the unit in Figure 2 and fixed two reference styles. Reviewer 2 — Major comments Comment 1 (quoted): “<Reviewer text>” Response: We could not add a new biomarker assay because stored serum was not available. As a substitute, we added timing-based subgroups and marked this limit (page 10, lines 230–240). Comment 2 (quoted): “<Reviewer text>” Response: The request would change the prespecified analysis plan and add bias. To keep alignment with the protocol, we retained the original model and clarified the rationale (page 6, lines 116–130). Reviewer 2 — Minor comments We defined acronyms in the Abstract, expanded the legend for Figure 3, and fixed a typographic error. Files submitted 1) Response_Letter_<ID>.pdf 2) Revised_MS_clean.docx 3) Revised_MS_marked.docx 4) Supplement_v2.zip (Tables S1–S3; Figure S1) 5) Data_dictionary.csv Closing We appreciate the care taken by the reviewers and the editor. We hope the revisions meet the journal’s standards. Sincerely, <Author names>
Quick Checklist Before You Click Submit
Run this short list to avoid delays. Confirm that every reviewer point has a reply, every reply has a location tag, the marked file shows all edits, new items are named plainly, figures match captions, references compile, and the cover letter lists the main changes in a few lines. If any promised analysis proved infeasible, the letter states why and shows a reasonable substitute.
Common Pitfalls And Easy Fixes
Long Replies Without Locations
Fix by adding page and line numbers to every reply and pasting the new sentence. Keep replies short and concrete so the change is obvious.
Emotional Language
Stay steady. Thank the reviewer, describe the action, and give the location. If the request would harm study integrity, state that plainly and offer a substitute.
Untracked Edits
Turn on tracked changes for the full document. If your journal wants highlights instead, use a single color for new text and another for deletions and state that choice in the letter.
Why This Format Works Across Medical Journals
Editors handle heavy volumes and tight schedules. A point-by-point letter with quotes, clear locations, and pasted text lets them verify changes in minutes. Reviewers can scan to the exact place they flagged and see what changed. Production teams can match files without back-and-forth messages. This format saves time for everyone and raises the chance of a smooth decision.