Use a short cover letter and a point-by-point table quoting each comment, your change, and line cites—repeat until every item is closed.
What This Template Delivers
Your reply to peer review has two parts: a concise cover letter and a point-by-point section. The cover letter thanks the editor, lists big fixes, and flags any sensitive items. The point-by-point section quotes each reviewer remark, then pairs it with your reply and the exact place in the manuscript that changed.
Use clear labels so editors scan fast. Keep reviewer text in italics. Keep your replies in normal weight. Cite page and line numbers, or section and figure tags if the journal uses numbered headings. If tracked changes are allowed, keep them on in the main file and state that in the letter.
| Comment Type | What To Show | Sample Move |
|---|---|---|
| Minor clarity | A tiny rewrite with line cites | “We rewrote the first sentence in Results, p. 6, lines 112–118.” |
| Method gap | New detail, protocol link, or code | “Added assay buffer recipe and GitHub link in Methods, p. 9.” |
| Stat concern | New test or power note | “Re-ran with mixed effects; Table 2 now reports ICC.” |
| Conflicting advice | Editor-first summary | “Requests 1 and 3 clash; we followed point 1 per scope.” |
| New experiment | Feasible plan or reasoned refusal | “Ran an extra replicate; not enough signal for a cohort.” |
| Scope change | Brief rationale | “Applies to a different study design, so we clarified limits.” |
| Tone or style | Neutral prose | “Removed strong claims in Abstract and kept effect sizes.” |
| Ethics or data | Approvals, links, or embargo notes | “IRB number added; data live in repository with DOI.” |
| Reference gap | New citations | “Cited Smith 2023 and Li 2024 in Background.” |
Journals share similar patterns for this task. See the Springer Nature guidance and this PLOS response guide for publisher-level tips that match the steps below.
Reviewers’ Comments Response Template: Step-By-Step
Set Up The File
Name the response file like this: “Response_to_Reviewers_[ManuscriptID]_v1”. Keep one thread per round. If the system allows a single upload, paste the cover letter on page one and the point-by-point section after that. If separate uploads are needed, save two PDFs with matching names.
Before you start, list every reviewer point in a checklist. Add editor notes as well. Mark each item A, B, C… in the order given. You will use these tags in headings inside the response so everyone can follow the trail.
Write The Cover Letter
Open with thanks. State the decision type and your action. Summarize the big changes in one tight paragraph: new analyses, added data, trimmed claims, reworked figures, or a reorganized Discussion. If one request sits outside scope, give one sentence on why you took a different route, and where you clarified limits.
Close with a map: “A point-by-point reply follows. We quote each remark in italics, then give our reply in plain text with page and line cites.” Add contact details and a calm sign-off.
Build The Point-By-Point Section
Repeat this block until every item is covered. Keep the reviewer’s words intact. Then give a crisp reply that shows what you changed and where. If you disagree, give a short, neutral reason and, when helpful, a quick reference or data link. Keep to the facts. No sarcasm. No heat.
Reviewer 1, Comment A “Paste the reviewer sentence or bullet here.” Response: Thank you for raising this point. We did X and Y to resolve it. Change made: Background, p. 3, lines 55–63; Figure 1 caption.
If a comment touches several places, split your change notes into bullets with one cite each. If a change would bloat the paper, move detail to a supplement and link it. If you lack data for a request, say so and state the plan you used instead.
Handle Common Situations
Conflicting Requests From Different Reviewers
Lead with an editor-focused note. State the tension in one line, then state the path you chose and why it fits the journal’s scope. Point to the exact edits that flow from that path.
When You Disagree
Keep a respectful tone and show evidence. Offer a cite, a new sensitivity check, or a short note on stability. If the data stay the same after a fresh test, say so and give the numbers.
Requests For New Experiments
Say yes if the study needs it and the work is realistic. If a new study arm would change the design, say no and explain the constraint. Offer a narrower test, a simulation, or a deeper read on the limits section.
Heavy Line Edits Or Language Notes
Thank the reviewer, then confirm a full pass for wording, grammar, and typography. If a journal suggests a service, name it if used. Keep the science terms steady.
Timing Constraints
If the editor gave a tight deadline, state what you did within it, and what you kept in reserve. Ask for a short extension only once, with a clear plan and date.
Copy-Ready Response Template
Paste this into your document and fill it in. Keep the tone steady and plain. Adjust headings to match your journal’s style.
Cover Letter Dear Editor, Thank you for the thoughtful decision on “[Full Title]” (Manuscript ID: [ID]). We revised the paper based on the reports. The main updates are: • Rewrote the Background to sharpen the gap. • Added n=2 confirmatory analyses and reported effect sizes. • Clarified Methods with reagent sources and code links. • Softened claims and added limits. A point-by-point reply follows. We quote each remark in italics, then give our reply with page and line cites. Point-By-Point Reply Editor Summary “Paste any editor summary here.” Response: We handled items E1–E3 as noted below. Reviewer 1 Comment A “…” Response: [Your action in 1–3 lines.] Change made: [Where to find it.] Comment B “…” Response: [Your action in 1–3 lines.] Change made: [Where to find it.] Reviewer 2 [Repeat A, B, C…] Data And Materials Links: [Repository DOI], [Code], [Protocol]. Contact [Name], [Affiliation], [Email]
Polish For Trust And Speed
Editors and reviewers scan for clarity, traceability, and care. These tactics help your letter do that job:
- Quote, Then Answer: Always put the reviewer’s words first. It keeps the thread clean.
- Map Every Change: Give page and line cites. If pages shifted, add section tags or figure names.
- Show Effort: Add photos of new assays to the supplement, or attach a small table of fresh stats.
- Be Open: If a request cannot be met, say why in one line and show what you did instead.
- Keep Claims Modest: Replace vague superlatives with numbers, intervals, and concrete boundaries.
- Keep Files Tidy: Label figures and tables in the response so a quick scroll matches the main file.
Many journals echo the same structure and tone for response letters, which you can see in the links above. Aligning with house style speeds decisions and reduces back-and-forth.
| Purpose | Phrase | Use It When |
|---|---|---|
| Thanking | “We appreciate this careful point.” | You start a reply. |
| Agreeing | “We agree and made the change.” | The request is clear and doable. |
| Clarifying | “We now state this on p. 4, lines 70–74.” | You point to edits. |
| Partial change | “We adopted the approach in part and explain why below.” | You adjusted the scope. |
| Disagreeing | “Our data do not support that path; details and a cite follow.” | You keep the current analysis. |
| Limits | “We added a plain limits note to the last paragraph.” | You temper claims. |
| New work | “We ran an added check; the effect holds.” | You add confirmatory work. |
| Deferral | “This would need a new study arm; we clarify this as a next step.” | A request is out of scope. |
Template For Responding To Reviewer Comments: Quick Checks
Before you upload, run this list:
- All reviewer items are quoted in full and tagged A, B, C…
- Every tag has a reply and a “Change made” line with a location.
- Big edits are noted in the cover letter in one tight paragraph.
- Figures, tables, and supplements match the text cites.
- Data and code links open and match the version in review.
- Line numbers are correct in the PDF the editor will see.
- Names, funding notes, and ethics approvals are current.
- One voice across replies; no mixed tenses or slang.
- File names are clean and versioned: v1, v2, v3.
Common Pitfalls To Avoid
Copy-paste drift. When pages move, your line cites can go stale. Export the final PDF, then recheck every cite.
Vague change notes. “Fixed” or “done” tells the reader nothing. Say what you did and where it lives.
Defensive tone. Heat slows decisions. Keep it neutral, even when a remark misses a point.
Buried edits. If a fix hides in a dense paragraph, split it or add a brief parenthetical in the response.
Loose claims. Replace big adjectives with numbers, intervals, and concrete boundaries.
Why This Format Works
It shortens review time. The editor can scan the map in the cover letter, then jump through the tagged replies. It also shows care for the review process, which builds goodwill for later rounds. When your changes are easy to find and verify, the next decision lands faster.