Answer reviewer comments with a point-by-point, polite, evidence-based reply that explains changes and your reasoning for any requests you decline.
What Reviewer Feedback Asks For
Peer review is a request for clarity, proof, and care. A crisp response letter shows respect for the process and speeds the editor’s call. Two short resources set the tone: the PLOS guide on responding to peer review and Nature’s practical note on point-by-point replies in its Effective Response to Reviewers PDF.
Common Comment Types And Smart Moves
Map each remark to a goal and a move. This keeps replies short and concrete.
| Comment Type | Your Goal | What To Write |
|---|---|---|
| Minor edits or wording | Fix clarity | Quote the line, show the new text, and mark the page/line. |
| Method detail gaps | Supply specifics | Add parameters, software, settings, or citations; point to pages. |
| Data or analysis request | Strengthen evidence | Run the check, add a figure or table, and explain the impact. |
| Conflicting reviews | Show balance | Explain trade-offs, cite standards, and state the chosen path. |
| New experiment scope creep | Protect study bounds | Explain limits, offer a smaller test, or add a limitations note. |
| Tone or presentation | Improve readability | Trim jargon, add signposts, and refresh figures or captions. |
| Editorial instructions | Follow house rules | Confirm compliance with format, word count, and style items. |
Answering Reviewer Comments Step By Step
Read, Pause, And Map
Start by reading the decision letter and all reports end to end. Set the file aside overnight. Fresh eyes cut heat and help you hear the ask inside each note. Open a tracker with three columns: reviewer ID, verbatim quote, and your action. Tag each line with one of five labels: edit, add, justify, defer, or ask editor.
Group Comments By Theme
Next, cluster points across reviewers. Themes might include method detail, stats checks, scope requests, or clarity. A cluster view prevents duplicate work and keeps your manuscript changes tidy. Plan edits in one sweep per section instead of hopping around.
Draft The Overview Letter
Your first page does three jobs. Thank the editor and reviewers. Summarize the main changes. List any items you did not adopt and give clear reasons. Keep this section short. A tight overview helps busy readers trust the rest.
One-Paragraph Template
“We thank the editor and reviewers for careful reading and helpful notes. We revised the Abstract, Methods, and Results. Main changes include a power check, a sensitivity analysis, added method parameters, and clearer figure captions. We did not add a longitudinal follow-up, as the cohort and ethics approval do not permit new contact. We mark all edits in the tracked file and cite page and line numbers in the responses below.”
Write Point-By-Point Replies
Quote each comment in full. Use a visual cue for your reply. Many teams bold their text or prefix lines with “Response:”. After each reply, point to the exact page and line where the change appears. If you ran new work, state what you did and what changed in the story.
Mini Example
Reviewer 1, comment: “Please report the model’s hyperparameters.”
Response: “Added learning rate, batch size, optimizer, and early-stopping rules in Methods, p. 6, lines 112–128. We also posted the config file in the repository.”
Track Edits Cleanly
Prepare three files: a clean manuscript, a tracked-changes version, and the response letter. Keep filenames simple and consistent. In the manuscript, mirror the language in your replies so the editor can jump from letter to text without friction.
Check Tone And Clarity
Polite beats defensive every time. Keep sentences short. Use plain words. Thank people often. Where you disagree, lead with common ground, then give evidence or policy limits. If a point seems off-base, treat it as a sign that a passage needs clearer framing.
Mind The Submission Package
Most journals ask for a submission letter as well. Restate the high-level changes and any new data. Add a bullet list of attachments and links to data or code. Close with a line that invites follow-up questions.
When You Agree, Fix Fast And Show Proof
Easy wins build momentum. Correct typos, update labels, and rewrite vague lines. Then move to technical asks that fit the study. Run checks, add plots, and document every step. In the response letter, state the action and the location. Readers love “Done, p. X, lines Y–Z.”
When You Disagree, Be Firm And Fair
Disagreement needs care. Start by thanking the reviewer for the intent of the note. Explain what you tested and what the test showed. If a request sits outside the study’s bounds, say so and give a reason tied to design, ethics, or resources. Offer a smaller step where possible, or add a transparent limitation.
Sample Lines That Keep Bridges Intact
“We agree that X matters for real-world use. Our dataset does not include Y, so we cannot add that analysis. We now state this in Limitations, p. 14, lines 310–322, and we uploaded a template script for later cohorts.”
“We tested the suggested control on a subset (N=120). The effect size stayed within the prior confidence interval, so the main claim remains the same. We include the new table as Supplementary Table S4 and cite it in Results, p. 9.”
Handle Conflicting Reviews With A Clear Rationale
Editors spot split advice fast. A short, neutral explanation helps them decide. Lay out the two paths, cite field standards, and pick one. Point to any test you ran and the effect on claims or limits.
Keep Records Tight So Revisions Go Smoothly
Version control saves nerves. Keep a changelog with dates, file names, and one-line summaries. Use consistent figure names and callouts. Store the response letter, tracked manuscript, clean manuscript, and any supplements in a single folder ready for upload.
Phrase Bank For Tough Moments
These short lines keep replies calm and precise. Mix and match to fit your case.
| Phrase Bank | When To Use | Example |
|---|---|---|
| “Thank you for this helpful point.” | Open a reply | Sets a positive tone before details. |
| “We revised the text on p. X, lines Y–Z.” | Point to edits | Shows action and location in one line. |
| “We ran the requested check.” | New analysis | Adds proof without fluff. |
| “The study design does not support X.” | Scope limit | States a bound without blame. |
| “We added this as a limitation.” | Defer with transparency | Signals honesty and care. |
| “Please see Supplementary Fig. S1.” | Extra material | Moves detail out of the main text. |
| “We invite further guidance from the editor.” | Conflicting advice | Invites a tie-breaker. |
Make Your Manuscript Reflect The Letter
The best response packet pairs with precise edits in the paper. Update the Abstract if claims shift. Refresh Methods when you add parameters, software versions, or sample sizes. If new results move the needle, adjust the Discussion and the takeaway sentence so readers do not meet old claims in the published record.
Polish Figures, Tables, And Captions
Small visual tweaks cut confusion. Align axis ranges across panels. Use consistent units and abbreviations. Write captions that tell the reader what changed and why the panel matters. If a plot raised questions, add a guide line or a small inset that answers that question right away.
Respect Journal Rules Without Guesswork
House style affects length, figure limits, and file types. Before upload, check the guide for authors again. Confirm word count, ref style, and any requests for editable figure files. Tight alignment with those rules keeps review cycles short.
Time And Project Management Tricks
Break the work into blocks. Tackle quick fixes first, then larger tasks. Set a short internal deadline for the response letter and a second one for the tracked manuscript. Book a final read by a teammate not tied to the original draft. Fresh readers spot gaps fast.
Template For A Clean Response Letter
Copy this skeleton into your document and fill it in.
Submission letter
- Thank the editor and note the decision type.
- One paragraph that lists the main changes.
- Links to data/code if the journal allows them.
Response to reviewers
- Overview paragraph as shown above.
- Reviewer 1
- Comment 1: [quote]
Response: [your reply; page/line refs]
- Comment 2: [quote]
Response: [your reply; page/line refs]
- Reviewer 2
- Comment 1: [quote]
Response: [your reply; page/line refs]
Attachments
- Clean manuscript (PDF)
- Tracked-changes manuscript (Word or LaTeX diff)
- Response letter (PDF)
- Any supplements (figures, tables, data)
Ask The Editor When Needed
Some reports leave room for doubt. If a comment feels vague, or two requests pull in opposite directions, send a short note to the handling editor. Keep it neutral. Quote the exact lines, outline two or three feasible paths, and ask which path best fits the journal’s aims. Editors prefer a quick clarifying message over a messy revision set that misses the mark.
Appeals sit in a different bucket. Save them for clear process errors or factual mistakes. If you choose to appeal, stick to evidence. Point to analyses you ran, field standards, or policy text from the journal site. Keep the tone steady and specific, and include a revised manuscript that fixes every point you can. Many authors win outcomes by asking for guidance and reserving appeals for rare cases.
Final Checks Before You Resubmit
Run a last pass for tone, page and line numbers, and broken cross-refs. Open every link. Confirm that file names match what the letter lists. Ask one colleague to read only the response letter. Ask a second to read only the tracked file. If both can follow the story, the editor can too. Good luck.