How to Respond to Reviewer Comments: Template + Examples
Table of contents
A strong response to reviewers addresses every comment point by point: quote the comment, state what you changed, and say exactly where the change appears in the revised manuscript. Thank reviewers briefly, agree where you can, disagree with evidence when you must, and make the editor's decision as easy as possible.
This guide shows you how to respond to reviewer comments in practice: a copy-paste letter template, six worked examples for the hardest situations, and what editors check when they read your response. Whether you received a major or minor revision, the mechanics are the same.
Your response letter is a persuasion document
The response letter is not paperwork. It is often the first thing the editor reads when your revision arrives (before the manuscript itself) and it frames how reviewers approach round two.
The editor's real question is simple: can I accept this now, or does it need another full round of review? A complete, organized, calm letter answers that question in your favor. A letter that skips comments, argues with everything, or hides changes behind vague statements ("we have revised the discussion accordingly") invites another round, or worse.
Reviewers, meanwhile, check whether you took them seriously. A comment with no visible response will be found, and it will color how they read everything else.
How to respond to reviewer comments point by point
The system that works across fields is a numbered, point-by-point response. For every comment, provide three things:
- The comment, quoted verbatim and numbered (R1.1, R1.2, R2.1, ...).
- Your response: what you did and why, or why you respectfully did not.
- The change and its location: section, page, and line numbers in the revised manuscript.
Some journals ask for exactly this table format; even when they don't, it is the clearest way to draft. (The reviewer comments below are composite examples based on common feedback patterns.)
| # | Reviewer comment (verbatim) | Response | Change made + location |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1.1 | "The inclusion criteria are unclear." | We agree and have clarified the criteria. | Methods, p. 6, lines 112–119: criteria now listed explicitly. |
| R1.2 | "Figure 2 is hard to read." | We agree and have redrawn the figure. | Figure 2 replaced; larger labels, colorblind-safe palette. |
| R2.1 | "Why was regression used instead of ANOVA?" | We explain our rationale and now state it in the text. | Methods, p. 7, lines 134–138: justification added. |
Three rules make this system work:
- Never merge comments. If a reviewer raises three issues in one paragraph, split them into three numbered points.
- Quote your own revised text. It saves the reviewer a search and proves the change is real.
- Answer everything, including compliments. A brief "Thank you" under positive comments shows you read the full review.
Response to reviewers template
Use this letter structure. It works for most journals; adjust the header details to the journal's submission system.
Dear Dr. [Editor's surname],
Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, "[Title]"
([Manuscript ID]). We thank both reviewers for their careful reading
and constructive comments, which have improved the paper.
We have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below we respond to each
comment point by point. Reviewer comments are quoted and numbered;
our responses follow. Page and line numbers refer to the clean revised
manuscript.
Summary of major changes:
1. [Biggest change, one line]
2. [Second change, one line]
3. [Third change, one line]
---------------------------------------------------------------
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1
Comment R1.1: [Paste the comment verbatim.]
Response: [What you did and why, or your reasoned disagreement.]
Change: [Section, page, line numbers; quote new text if brief.]
Comment R1.2: [...]
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2
Comment R2.1: [...]
Response: [...]
Change: [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------
We hope the revised manuscript now meets the expectations of the
reviewers and the journal. We would be glad to make any further
changes if needed.
Sincerely,
[Corresponding author], on behalf of all authors
Six worked examples for the hard cases
The following are composite examples based on common feedback patterns, not quotes from real reviews. Adapt the wording to your field.
1. You fully agree
Comment R1.1: "The sample size is not justified anywhere in the Methods."
Response: We agree: this was an omission. We have added our a priori power analysis, including the assumed effect size and its source. Change: Methods, p. 6, lines 118–124.
When you agree, don't pad. Fix it, locate it, move on.
2. You partially agree
Comment R2.3: "The Discussion should address selection bias, and the analysis should be rerun excluding the second cohort."
Response: We agree that selection bias deserves explicit discussion and have added a limitations paragraph (Discussion, p. 13, lines 261–270). We respectfully did not rerun the analysis excluding the second cohort: this would reduce power below the level our design requires, and a sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Table 3) shows the findings are unchanged when the cohorts are analyzed separately.
Split the comment, grant the reasonable half fully, and give evidence for the half you decline.
3. You politely disagree, with evidence
Comment R1.4: "A parametric test is inappropriate here; the authors should use a non-parametric alternative."
Response: We appreciate the concern. We retained the parametric test because its assumptions were checked and met (now reported in Methods, p. 8, lines 150–155). For completeness, we ran the non-parametric alternative and report it in Supplementary Table 4; the conclusions are unchanged.
The pattern: acknowledge, justify with checkable evidence, and where cheap, run the alternative anyway; it removes the argument entirely. If you disagree with most of a review, or with the decision itself, that calls for a more formal document; see our guide to writing a rebuttal letter to a journal.
4. An out-of-scope request
Comment R2.5: "The paper would be much stronger with a second experiment testing the effect in an older population."
Response: We agree this is an important direction and now discuss it as future work (Discussion, p. 14, lines 288–293). However, a second experiment in a different population falls outside the scope of the present study, which was designed and powered to test the effect in population. We have tempered our claims to apply only to the population studied (Abstract, line 21; Discussion, p. 13, lines 255–258).
You are not obligated to run a new study to answer a revision. Narrow your claims instead of expanding your project; editors generally accept this trade.
5. Two reviewers contradict each other
Comment R1.6: "The Introduction is too long and should be cut substantially."Comment R2.2: "The Introduction lacks background on topic and should be expanded."
Response (to both, cross-referenced): Reviewers 1 and 2 offer opposing suggestions on the Introduction. We have tried to honor both: we cut the general background by roughly a third and added a focused paragraph on topic (Introduction, p. 3, lines 45–58). We are happy to follow the editor's guidance if a different balance is preferred.
Name the contradiction openly, propose a resolution, and hand the editor the tiebreaker. Editors expect to arbitrate.
6. Citation requests that don't fit
Comment R2.7: "The authors should cite the following five papers: list."
Response: Thank you for these suggestions. Two of the recommended papers are directly relevant, and we now cite them (Introduction, p. 4, line 72; Discussion, p. 12, line 249). We respectfully did not add the remaining three, which address different question and do not bear on our research question.
Blanket citation requests (sometimes a reviewer's own papers) do not obligate you. Cite what genuinely fits and decline the rest with a reason; most editors recognize the pattern.
Before you send the revision back, it is worth checking whether your changes introduced new weak points; a pre-submission pass with Thesify Reviewer, an AI peer review tool, reads your revised manuscript the way round-two reviewers will.
What editors look for when reading your response
Editors rarely re-read your manuscript line by line; they read your response letter and spot-check. They look for:
- Completeness. Every comment answered, none silently skipped. This is the first check.
- Navigability. Can they find each change in under a minute? Numbering, line references, and quoted revisions all help.
- Substance over assertion. "We have clarified this" with no location or quoted text reads as evasion. Show the change.
- Reasoned disagreement. Declining a request is fine; declining without evidence is not.
- Tone. Defensive or sarcastic responses raise a flag about how round two will go.
Tone rules worth internalizing: thank reviewers once at the top and briefly per point where deserved: no groveling. Never write "the reviewer misunderstood"; write "we have clarified the text, which did not make this point clearly." Every misunderstanding is a revision opportunity: the next reader may stumble in the same place.
Logistics: track changes, clean copies, and deadlines
Files. Most journals want three documents: the response letter, a marked-up manuscript (track changes or highlighted), and a clean copy. Check the decision email and the journal's instructions, and make sure your line numbers refer to the copy you say they do; mismatched numbers quietly erode trust.
Deadlines. The decision letter usually states one. If you need more time (new experiments, an unavailable co-author), email the editorial office before the deadline with a brief reason and a proposed date. Extensions are routinely granted; silent lateness is what causes problems, since some submission systems close overdue revisions.
Co-authors. Circulate the response letter, not just the manuscript, for sign-off. Disagreements with reviewers are made on behalf of all authors.
For the full revision workflow (triage, planning, and sequencing), see our guide to handling a revise and resubmit.
FAQ
How long should a response to reviewers be?
As long as the comments require and no longer. Each point typically needs two to six sentences plus a location reference. For a major revision with several reviewers, letters of ten pages or more are common; editors do not penalize length, only padding and missing answers.
Do I have to do everything reviewers ask?
No. You must respond to everything, but you may decline requests with a clear, evidence-based reason. Out-of-scope experiments, analyses that would weaken the design, and irrelevant citations can all be respectfully refused. Editors expect some pushback; what they will not accept is a comment ignored.
How do I respond to a rude reviewer comment?
Answer the substance and ignore the tone. Extract the technical point buried in the rudeness, respond to it professionally, and let the contrast speak for itself. If a comment is abusive rather than merely blunt, raise it with the editor in a separate note rather than inside the point-by-point response.
Can I ask the editor for guidance?
Yes, and you should when reviewers contradict each other or when a request would change the paper's scope. A short, specific email ("Reviewer 1 asks us to cut the section Reviewer 2 asks us to expand; do you have a preference?") is welcome. Editors would rather answer one question now than referee a mismatch later.
Before you submit, see your paper the way reviewers will. Thesify Reviewer runs a pre-submission review of your revised manuscript. It flags the issues round-two reviewers are most likely to raise, from unsupported claims to gaps your revisions left behind, before the journal sees it. Try Thesify Reviewer