How to prepare a response to reviewers comments

A clear, well-structured response to reviewers is often the difference between a smooth acceptance and a prolonged revision cycle. This page explains exactly what the journal expects when you submit a revised manuscript.

What to submit with your revision

When resubmitting after minor or major revision, upload three items:

  1. Response to Reviewers (Response Letter)
  2. Revised Manuscript (Clean copy)
  3. Revised Manuscript (Tracked changes) (recommended; may be required for major revisions)

If your journal workflow accepts only one manuscript file, upload the clean copy as the main manuscript and the tracked-changes version as a supplementary file.

How to structure your Response Letter

Use the format below. Keep it polite, specific, and easy to verify.

Response Letter Template

Manuscript ID: [if available]
Title: [full title]
Corresponding author: [name + email]

Cover note (2–5 lines):
Thank the editor and reviewers. State that you have addressed all comments and briefly mention major changes.

Then respond reviewer-by-reviewer:

Reviewer #1

Comment 1: [paste exact reviewer comment]
Response: [your response—what you changed and why]
Location in manuscript: Page X, Line Y–Z (or Section/Paragraph)

Comment 2:
Response:
Location:

Reviewer #2

…repeat…

Editor’s comments (if provided)

…repeat…

 “Show the change” — what we mean

A good response has three parts:

  1. What you did (the specific change)
  2. Where you did it (page/line or section)
  3. Why (brief scientific justification if you did not fully follow the suggestion)

Avoid vague replies like: “Corrected” / “Done” / “Revised accordingly” without stating what changed.

How to handle comments you disagree with

Disagreement is allowed—if you do it professionally.

Use this approach:

  • Acknowledge the reviewer’s point
  • Explain your reasoning clearly
  • Provide evidence (citation, additional analysis, or clearer explanation)
  • If you don’t change something, state why and clarify the manuscript to prevent confusion

Example wording (polite but firm):
“Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that X is important. However, in our setting, Y was not feasible because [reason]. To address the underlying concern, we have added [new analysis/clarification] (Page X, Lines Y–Z).”

Common revision mistakes (please avoid)

  • Not pasting the reviewer’s exact comment (makes it hard to track)
  • Ignoring one or two comments (almost always delays decisions)
  • Changing the manuscript but not mentioning it in the response letter
  • Adding new results without updating methods (methods must match results)
  • Changing tables/figures without updating the text and abstract
  • Adding citations that do not support the claim (or appear fabricated)

 

Tips to speed up your decision

To keep the process fast and fair:

  • Number each reviewer comment and response
  • Use page and line numbers (or section headings)
  • Keep responses concise but complete
  • Highlight major additions (new analyses, new tables, new limitations)
  • Ensure the abstract and conclusions reflect any revised results

If you add new analyses or new data

If the revision includes additional analysis, new participants, or major new results:

  • Update the Methods section first
  • Explain in the response letter what was added and why
  • Ensure tables/figures and the narrative are consistent
  • Note that major new content may require re-review

Suggested revision timelines

  • Minor revision: resubmit within 7–14 days
  • Major revision: resubmit within 14–30 days

If you need more time, contact the editorial office early.

Final checklist before resubmission

☐ Response letter is complete (every comment addressed)

☐ Clean revised manuscript uploaded

☐ Tracked-changes manuscript uploaded (recommended/required)

☐ Tables/figures updated and consistent with text

☐ Ethics/COI/funding/data availability statements included

☐ Language is clear enough for editorial assessment