To address reviewers’ comments, reply point-by-point, show evidence, state changes or rationale, and add a clear cover letter with tracked edits.
What Editors Expect In A Revision
Most journals ask for three things with a resubmission: a direct response to every point, a marked manuscript that shows changes, and a clean file. Some also ask for a brief letter that summarizes the big moves you made. Meeting these needs keeps the process moving and shows respect for the time given to your work.
| Item | Why It Matters | What To Include |
|---|---|---|
| Rebuttal letter | Shows how each comment was handled | Numbered list, quoted comments, your reply, page and line numbers |
| Marked manuscript | Saves time for editors and reviewers | Tracked changes, callouts for figures, updated legends |
| Clean manuscript | Ready for production checks | All edits accepted, styles tidy, figure callouts correct |
| Cover letter | Gives a quick map of the revision | Two to four short paragraphs on scope, key changes, and any remaining disputes |
| Data or code note | Improves trust and reuse | Links to repositories, version tags, brief readme |
| New tests | Answers major concerns | Methods summary, result sentence, where placed in the text |
| Approvals | Meets journal policy | IRB or ethics IDs, consent statements, registry numbers |
Many outlets state these needs plainly. One journal page shows this clearly. Nature Microbiology asks for a point-by-point rebuttal, a marked file, and a clean version. These steps are standard across large publishers.
How To Respond To Reviewers Point-By-Point
A tidy structure wins. Create a document that mirrors the decision letter. Use headings for each reviewer. Under each, paste the exact comment in italics, then add your reply and the location of the edit. Keep the tone steady and courteous throughout.
Step 1: Read, Pause, And Triage
Read the full set of comments, then step away for a short break. Come back and sort the list into major and minor items. Mark quick wins, like a missing citation or a wording fix. Flag requests that call for new work so you can plan time and resources.
Step 2: Set Up A Response Template
Use a repeatable block. Example:
Template
Reviewer 2, Comment 3: “The sample size seems small.”
Response: We ran a power check with the full dataset and report the result in the Methods, page 6, lines 18–28. The main text now notes the study’s limits and the expected effect size.
Change: Added two sentences to the Methods and one sentence to the Limitations section.
Step 3: Agree And Fix
When the comment is right, say so and show the change. Phrases that help: “Thank you for catching this,” “We agree and have revised the text,” “The figure now shows…” Then point to pages and lines. Quoting the new sentence speeds the check.
Step 4: Partly Agree, Then Clarify
Sometimes the request goes a bit beyond your scope. A clear path is to accept the core point and tighten what you can. You might add a short paragraph to the Discussion that lays out limits, or move a dense table to the supplement and point to it from the Results.
Step 5: Disagree With Respect
Disagreement is allowed. Keep it brief, calm, and backed by evidence. Offer data, citations, or a targeted check. State what you changed to improve clarity even if you kept your original choice. If needed, ask the editor to weigh in on policy or scope.
Step 6: Close The Loop
End each reviewer section with a short wrap line such as, “We hope these changes resolve your points.” Add a final thank-you in the cover letter. Small touches like these set a steady tone.
Addressing Peer Review Comments The Right Way
This task is easier when you plan your routes for common themes. Most comments fall into a few buckets: clarity, methods detail, data checks, scope, and writing polish. Prepare stock moves for each so your replies stay crisp.
Clarity And Flow
If readers trip over a section, shorten sentences and move long asides to a later spot. Define terms at first use. Add a short roadmap at the end of the Introduction so the reader knows what comes next.
Methods And Reproducibility
Give enough detail for a skilled reader to repeat the work. List key settings, software versions, and any public kits or code. If space is tight, place full steps in the supplement and add a link to an archive.
Data And Figures
Check axis labels, units, and legends. Improve font size so plots read well. If asked for raw data, share files in a stable place and note the accession or link in the text. If data cannot be shared, explain why and offer summaries.
Scope And Claims
Match claims to evidence. Trim broad statements. Add a short note on limits and open questions. This shows balance and keeps the record neat.
Language Polishing
Read the revised text out loud or use a trusted editor. Tighten passive phrasing, remove repeats, and aim for plain words. Clear writing lowers the chance of new rounds.
Tone, Style, And Formatting That Help
Neutral language reads best in a response file. Thank reviewers for time and insight. Avoid loaded terms. Keep first person plural for actions you took, and present tense for what the paper now says. Use consistent fonts, heading levels, and numbering.
Editors value clarity and brevity. A neat list with page and line numbers beats long prose. Many author guides echo this point. The PLOS author resource gives plain advice on tone, pacing, and structure that aligns well with journal needs.
Smart Time Management And Version Control
Set a schedule and assign owners. Give lead authors the reply file, and assign figures or tests to teammates. Track each item with a checkbox. Name files with clear dates and versions. Keep one person in charge of merges so changes do not collide.
When a deadline feels tight, send a brief note to the editor to request a small extension. State the extra work you plan to finish and give a firm date. Polite updates build trust.
Handling Common Reviewer Requests
Below are quick moves you can adapt. Tailor the wording to your field and your journal’s style.
- “Add a missing citation.” Insert the source and adjust any related claims.
- “Report more detail in Methods.” Add settings, kit names, software versions, and sample criteria.
- “Show raw data or a new plot.” Share files in a repository and note the link and version.
- “Run an extra check.” If feasible, run it and report the result in one or two lines.
- “Tone down the claim.” Replace strong verbs with measured language and add a limit note.
- “Fix figure quality.” Export at higher DPI, enlarge fonts, and align panel labels.
- “Clarify sample size.” Add a short note on design, any pre-registration, and how you set the size.
Phrase Bank For Polite, Firm Replies
Use these lines to keep replies calm and precise. Mix and match to suit your case.
| Situation | Good Moves | Proof To Attach |
|---|---|---|
| Minor wording fix | “We agree and changed the sentence on page 3, lines 12–14.” | Quote the new line |
| Request outside scope | “We share the interest in this angle. It sits beyond the aims of this study, so we added a short note in the Discussion.” | Lines where the note appears |
| Extra test feasible | “We ran the suggested check and the result backs the main claim.” | One line summary and a figure tag |
| Extra test not feasible | “The setup needed for this test is not available to us. We improved the clarity of limits and explain next steps.” | Clear reason, lines added |
| Disagreement on method | “We kept the original method and now cite sources that justify this choice.” | New citations, brief comparison |
| Data request | “Files are now in a public archive under DOI: …” | Repository link and version |
| Policy or ethics point | “We added the approval ID and consent text to Methods.” | IRB or registry ID |
When You Disagree, Keep It Scholarly
State the point of difference in one line. Then present the best evidence you can offer. Give a short comparison that shows trade-offs. Note the page and line where you improved the wording to reduce any mixed signals. Invite the editor to judge if the journal has a stated policy.
If a review crosses a line on tone or accuracy, stay calm. Handle content in the response, and raise conduct or conflict issues in a separate note to the editor, not in the public file.
Build A Clear Cover Letter
Think of the letter as a road map for editors. Keep it to one page. Start with thanks, then list the main upgrades in a short set of bullets. Flag any big new work and any points where disagreement remains. Close with a line that you are happy to clarify items if needed.
One-Page Outline
Opening: Thanks for the chance to revise. One sentence on fit for the journal.
Main changes: Three to five bullets naming the biggest gains, such as new data, sharper methods, clearer framing, or better figures.
Disputed points: One short bullet per item, each with a one-line rationale and a pointer to the response file.
Closing: A polite line that invites further contact.
Checklist Before You Resubmit
- Every comment answered, numbered, and easy to scan
- Pages and lines listed for each change
- Marked file shows all edits
- Clean file is tidy and styled
- Figures rebuilt at print-ready quality
- Data and code links tested
- Cover letter proofread and brief
Polite replies, clean edits, and clear proof turn review into progress. Treat each comment as a chance to refine the work.