To respond to peer reviewer comments, answer every point in a numbered response letter, say exactly what you changed and where, and explain politely when you disagree. Editors want to see that each comment was taken seriously.
This guide covers how to read a decision letter, how to plan revisions, how to structure the response letter, how to handle disagreement and impossible requests, and what to check before you resubmit.
The Core of a Good Response to Reviewers
Thank the reviewers, then copy each comment in full and respond directly beneath it: what you changed, where to find it (page and line numbers) and, if you did not change something, a clear, evidence-based reason.
Keep the tone courteous and specific. The editor, not the reviewer, makes the final decision, so write for the editor.
Reading the Decision Letter
| Decision | What it means | Your next step |
|---|---|---|
| Accept | Ready for publication, perhaps with tiny edits | Complete proofs and production forms |
| Minor revisions | Small changes needed; acceptance is likely but not guaranteed | Revise promptly and respond to every point |
| Major revisions | Substantial work needed; the paper may go back to reviewers | Plan carefully and allow enough time |
| Reject and resubmit | Not acceptable now, but a new submission is invited | Treat as a new submission with a response letter |
| Reject | Not suitable for this journal | Use the comments to improve the paper for another journal |
Read the editor's own comments closely. They often signal which reviewer points matter most and which can be handled lightly.
Read, Wait, Then Plan
Critical reviews sting, even when they are fair. Read the comments once, then leave them for a day before you respond. The second reading is usually calmer and more useful.
On the second reading, ask what each reviewer is really worried about. A comment that seems hostile often points to a genuine ambiguity in the text.
Plan Your Revisions
Copy every comment into a table before changing the manuscript. This keeps track of what needs doing and becomes the skeleton of your response letter.
| No. | Comment summary | Type | Action | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1.1 | Clarify sampling strategy | Clarification | Expand methods paragraph | p. 7, lines 140 to 152 |
| R1.2 | Report effect sizes | Analysis reporting | Add Cohen's d to Table 2 | p. 10 |
| R2.1 | Add a qualitative strand | Out of scope | Explain politely; add as limitation | p. 15, lines 320 to 326 |
Group comments by type: clarifications, extra analyses, new literature, structural changes and requests you cannot meet. Tackle the substantial ones first, since they may change other sections.
Structure of the Response Letter
- Opening: thank the editor and reviewers briefly and summarize the main changes in a few sentences.
- Point-by-point responses: each reviewer in turn, each comment numbered and quoted in full.
- Response under each comment: what you did, why, and where to find it.
- Closing: a short sentence offering any further clarification.
Use a different font color, bold or indentation to separate your responses from the reviewers' comments. Many journals also ask for a tracked-changes version of the manuscript, or highlighted changes.
Example Responses
Reviewer 1, comment 2: "The authors should report effect sizes for the main comparisons."
Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have added Cohen's d with 95% confidence intervals for all primary comparisons in Table 2 (page 10) and reported them in the results text (page 9, lines 188 to 196).
Reviewer 2, comment 4: "The sample is too small to support any conclusions."
Response: We agree that sample size limits generalisability. Our a priori power analysis (page 6, lines 118 to 124) indicated adequate power for the primary outcome, but not for subgroup analyses. We have removed the subgroup claims from the discussion (page 13) and expanded the limitations section to address this directly (page 15, lines 312 to 319).
Both responses acknowledge the point, describe a specific change and give an exact location. The second accepts part of the criticism while defending what the data can support.
Disagreeing with a Reviewer
You do not have to accept every suggestion. Reviewers can be mistaken, or may ask for changes outside the paper's scope. What matters is how you explain your position.
- Thank the reviewer and restate the concern fairly.
- Give a reasoned, evidence-based explanation, citing literature where useful.
- Offer a partial change where possible, such as a clarifying sentence or a limitation.
- Avoid defensive or sarcastic phrasing, even if the comment was blunt.
Response: We appreciate the suggestion to add a qualitative strand. Collecting new data is beyond the scope of this study, which was designed and approved as a cross-sectional survey. We have, however, noted the value of qualitative follow-up in the limitations and future research section (page 15, lines 320 to 326).
When Reviewers Disagree with Each Other
Reviewers sometimes ask for opposite changes: one wants a shorter introduction, another wants more background. Choose the option that best serves the paper, explain your choice to both, and mention the conflict in your cover letter to the editor.
If you are unsure which way the editor leans, a short, polite query to the editorial office is acceptable.
Difficult Requests
| Request | How to handle it |
|---|---|
| New data collection | Explain that it is beyond scope; address as a limitation |
| Extra analysis | Run it if feasible and appropriate; report it, perhaps in a supplement |
| Unclear comment | State your interpretation and how you responded to it |
| Cutting length while adding content | Move detail to supplementary material |
| Citations to unrelated work, possibly the reviewer's own | Add only genuinely relevant sources; raise concerns with the editor if pressured |
COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, treats pressure to cite irrelevant work as a concern. You are entitled to decline citations that do not support your paper.
Useful Phrases for a Response Letter
- Agreeing: "We agree and have revised the paragraph to..."
- Clarifying: "We realize this was unclear and have rewritten the sentence to state..."
- Adding analysis: "As suggested, we conducted an additional sensitivity analysis, reported in Supplementary Table S3."
- Partially accepting: "We have addressed part of this concern by..., while... remains outside the scope of the study."
- Declining: "We have considered this carefully but believe... because..., as supported by..."
Vary the phrasing so the letter does not read as a template, and keep thanks brief. One sentence of appreciation at the start is enough; repeating "We thank the reviewer" before every answer adds length without value.
Deadlines and Extensions
Journals set a revision deadline in the decision letter, often shorter for minor revisions than for major ones. Check the exact date and ask the editorial office early if you need more time; most journals grant reasonable extensions when asked in advance.
Resubmission Checklist
- Every comment from every reviewer and the editor has a numbered response.
- Page and line numbers match the final revised manuscript.
- Changes are tracked or highlighted, as the journal requires.
- The abstract, tables and conclusions reflect any changed results.
- Word count and reference format still meet the author guidelines.
- All co-authors have approved the revision and response.
- The cover letter summarizes the main changes.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Answering only some comments, or grouping several into one vague reply.
- Writing "Done" without saying what changed or where.
- Arguing with reviewers in a defensive tone.
- Making changes in the manuscript that are not mentioned in the letter.
- Letting page and line references drift out of date after final edits.
How IvyDrafts Helps You Respond to Peer Reviewers
Send your revised manuscript, the decision letter, reviewer comments and your draft responses. An editor in your field checks that every comment is addressed, tightens the response letter's tone and clarity, and edits the revised text to the journal's style.
The research decisions and responses stay yours. Your identity is never shared with the editor, the price is shown before you pay, and free revisions within the scope of your original request are included.
Resubmit with Confidence
Send your manuscript, the decision letter and your draft responses. An editor checks that every comment is addressed, tightens the response letter and edits the revised text.
Order Manuscript EditingFree revisions · Full refund if late · Written from scratch for your order
Frequently Asked Questions
Thank the editor and reviewers briefly, then summarize the main changes in a few sentences before the point-by-point responses.
No. You may decline a suggestion with a polite, evidence-based explanation, ideally offering a partial change or a limitation.
As long as needed to answer every comment clearly. Concise, specific responses with page and line numbers work best.
Choose the option that best serves the paper, explain your reasoning to both and mention the conflict in your cover letter.
Yes. They let the editor and reviewers find each change quickly. Check they match the final manuscript.
Not necessarily. It means the journal is interested, but the revised paper may be reviewed again before a decision.
Yes. Contact the editorial office before the deadline; reasonable extension requests are usually granted.
Add the citation only if it is genuinely relevant. If you feel pressured to cite unrelated work, raise it with the editor.