For a journal paper revision, answer reviewers clearly point-by-point with evidence, edits, and reasoning that maps each comment to an exact edit.
Peer review can feel tough, yet it is the shortest path to a stronger paper. Editors want proof that you listened, learned, and improved the manuscript in specific ways. This guide shows you how to craft a response letter and a clean revision that editors can scan fast easily.
You will build a tidy document set: a response letter, a tracked-changes file, and a clean file. Each reviewer comment gets a reply, a pointer to the location of the fix, and, when you disagree, a justification backed by data or citations.
What Editors And Reviewers Expect
Editors look for three things: completeness, clarity, consistency, and tone. Completeness means you answered every comment. Clarity means the reader can follow the trail from comment to change. Tone means you stay respectful, grateful, and factual even when feedback stings.
Response Map: From Comment To Change
| Reviewer Concern | What To Provide | Sample Wording |
|---|---|---|
| Scope or novelty | State the paper’s contribution and tighten claims; add citations or new analyses as needed. | “We refined the claim in the Abstract and Conclusion and cited recent work on Page 2, Lines 18–25.” |
| Method details | Add parameters, datasets, code links, and justify choices; report any new stability checks. | “We added hyperparameters in Methods and shared code at the repository listed on Page 6, Line 12.” |
| Stats or evidence | Re-run tests, add power notes, effect sizes, or confidence intervals; show results in a new figure or table. | “We ran a sensitivity check and report the effect size in Table 3; see Page 9, Lines 3–15.” |
| Writing quality | Rewrite unclear sections, define terms, fix figures, standardize notation, and prune repetition. | “We rewrote Section 2 for flow and replaced Figure 1 with a higher-resolution panel; Page 4, Lines 1–40.” |
| Missing literature | Add balanced citations and explain differences with your work. | “We added Smith 2023 and Liu 2024 and clarified what is new in our approach; Page 3, Lines 20–34.” |
| Interpretation | Temper claims, separate results from speculation, and add limits. | “We softened wording in discussion section and added a limitations paragraph; Page 11, Lines 12–32.” |
| Disagreement | Explain why a change would mislead or fall outside scope; offer an alternative test. | “We did not add a cost trial because data are unavailable; we now include a proxy analysis in Appendix B.” |
| Ethics or compliance | Confirm approvals, consent, preregistration, data sharing, and conflicts. | “IRB approval number and consent wording added in Methods; data and code link added in the Data Availability note.” |
For format and files, see the PLOS guide to revising your manuscript. For tone and ethics, the COPE peer review guidance is a helpful compass.
Answering Reviewers For A Journal Revision: Practical Steps
Start with a short thank-you to the editor and reviewers. Then list each reviewer in order, and copy each comment in full before your reply. Use bold for reviewer text and normal text for your answer so the roles never blur.
Reply in the same sequence as the reports. Number the points. For every point, write three lines of proof: what you changed, where it appears, and why it improves the paper. When a point needs new work, add a line on what you ran and what changed in the results.
Build A Clean Response Letter
Open with a brief paragraph that states the decision type and what you are sending. Then move into a point-by-point section per reviewer.
Use a simple block for each point: a header, the quoted comment, your response, and a location pointer. Keep each block self-contained so editors can forward it without extra notes.
Reusable Block You Can Adapt
Reviewer 2, Comment 3
Comment: Please clarify sampling and report power.
Response: We added a sampling flowchart and a power note based on the observed effect size. The Methods section reports the planned and achieved power for the main test.
Where: Page 7, Lines 5–22; new Figure 2.
Tone, Clarity, And Evidence
Stay grateful and specific. Short sentences beat long ones. Replace vague words with numbers, page ranges, and figure labels.
Never argue about motives. Stick to content. If a comment shows confusion, fix the text in the paper instead of only defending the old version.
When you disagree, give data, citations, and a short rationale. Offer a narrower change or a targeted analysis to meet the core need.
Say No Without Burning Bridges
- Acknowledge the value in the concern.
- State the constraint or risk plainly.
- Offer a feasible test, proxy, or rewrite that keeps the paper honest.
- Add a line that invites the editor to advise if a deeper change is still needed.
Handle Tough Or Unfair Comments
Some notes will feel off-target or harsh. Pause before writing. Cool heads write better letters.
If a comment is vague, propose a concrete reading and respond to that. If it crosses a line, state your concern to the editor in neutral language and stick to facts.
If two reviewers conflict, signal the tension and choose the path that best matches the journal’s scope. Offer text that meets both where possible.
Track Changes And Version Control
Upload three files: the tracked-changes manuscript, the clean manuscript, and the response letter. Name files with manuscript ID and date so the record is clean.
Use consistent page and line numbers across files. If the journal numbers lines at upload, add internal anchors such as section headers and figure labels in your response.
Figures, Data, And Code
When you add a figure, cite it in the response and in the text. Match captions across versions. If you correct a panel, say what changed and why.
Share data and code when allowed. Add a link in a Data Availability note and repeat that link in the response letter so editors can verify the change fast.
Line Numbers, Labels, And Citations That Stick
Give reviewers anchors they can spot in seconds. Use line numbering in the manuscript editor or add steady markers such as section headers, equation tags, and figure labels. When you cite a change, pair the section name with a page range so checks work even if pagination shifts at upload. For citations, keep a consistent style and add DOIs where possible. If you replace or merge references, confirm that in-text callouts still match the list.
When you rename variables or update notation, write one line in the letter that lists the old and new symbols. Add that same note in the Methods or an Appendix. Small naming fixes remove friction and help readers connect the response letter with the revised text.
When Extra Experiments Are Not Feasible
Time, funding, safety, or access can block new data. You can still meet the core need behind a request. Offer a plan that reduces risk of overclaiming while keeping the paper lean and honest.
- Run a narrower analysis on existing data that tests the same direction.
- Use simulation to stress the main assumption and report where the result holds.
- Strengthen theory or mechanism with a short derivation or a schematic.
- Add a power note that shows the limits of the study design.
Timing, Editor Note, And Resubmission Checklist
Reply before the deadline or request a short extension early. A short note that lists what extra work you plan earns goodwill.
Use a tight editor note that thanks the editor, lists major upgrades, and flags any requests where you chose a narrower route.
Revision Checklist
| Item | What To Verify |
|---|---|
| Files ready | Response letter; tracked-changes file; clean file |
| Pointers added | Page and line ranges; figure and table labels |
| New work logged | Extra analyses, code link, data link |
| Writing fixes | Abstract, title, captions, and Methods updated |
| Limits stated | Scope boundaries and assumptions made plain |
| Conflicts and approvals | Funding, IRB, consent, registrations |
| Final sweep | Typos, numbering, reference order, figure callouts |
Common Pitfalls To Avoid
- Skipping minor points. Small fixes show respect and reduce back-and-forth.
- Replying only in the letter. Put the fix into the manuscript where readers will see it.
- Defensive language. Replace heat with data and citations.
- Messy cross-referencing. Use page ranges and line numbers so checks are quick.
- New claims without backing. Add data or trim the claim.
Sample Language For Frequent Situations
Thank-you opener: “We thank the editor and reviewers for careful reading and clear suggestions. The paper is better because of this input.”
Softening a claim: “We revised the Abstract and Results commentary to use measured wording and to separate results from interpretation.”
Adding limits: “We added a paragraph that states design limits and the range over which results should be read.”
Disagreeing with respect: “We understand the concern. The proposed change would introduce a bias because X. Instead, we ran Y and report it in Table 2.”
Seeking guidance: “Reviewers 1 and 3 request different paths. We chose the approach in Section 3 to match the journal’s scope, but we are ready to adjust if advised.”
After Acceptance Or Further Rounds
Keep your files and notes. Later rounds often revisit earlier points. A clean archive saves hours.
If the editor requests a narrow fix, reply fast with a short note and a pinpointed change. Keep the tone steady and grateful.
Why This Approach Works
You lower the editor’s workload and make checks easy. You also show ownership of the science. A clear trail from comment to change proves that readers will get a better paper.
In short, respond point-by-point, improve the manuscript itself, and let facts carry the case. That is how to answer reviewers for a journal paper revision with confidence and care.