For many researchers, replying to reviewer comments is tougher than writing the paper itself. The tone has to be polite and professional, the responses must be clear and specific, and you need to show real improvements in the manuscript. If English is not your first language or if your institution expects journals indexed by Scopus or Web of Science, the pressure can be intense. This post offers a simple, repeatable approach plus ready-to-use templates you can copy and adapt for your next revision.
Table of Contents
Why good replies matter
A strong response letter does three things:
1) It shows respect for the reviewers’ time.
2) It proves you understood the comments and took action.
3) It makes it easy for the editor to accept your revision.
Editors are busy. When your letter is clear and point‑by‑point, with exact locations of changes, you reduce friction. That directly improves your chances of acceptance, even when the requested changes are substantial.
The 5‑step method (that works across disciplines)
Use this method every time you revise a manuscript. It keeps your replies respectful, specific, and quick to read.
- Thank and acknowledge – Open by thanking the reviewers and editor. A positive tone sets up a positive reading.
- Restate briefly** – Paraphrase the reviewer’s comment in your own words. This proves understanding and avoids talking past each other.
- State what you changed** – Be specific. Mention page/section/table/figure numbers and the nature of the change.
- Justify (if needed)** – If you disagree or chose a different solution, explain clearly with references or data.
- Point to the manuscript** – Tell them exactly where to find the change (e.g., “Page 7, Paragraph 2”).
Copy‑adapt templates for common reviewer requests
**Results clarity (statistics, tables)**
“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We revised the Results to report effect sizes and confidence intervals more clearly and reorganised Table 2 for readability (Page 6, Table 2).”
**Adding detail to methods**
“Thank you for pointing this out. We added details on sampling, inclusion criteria, and power analysis, so that the study is fully replicable (Page 5, Methods).”
**Discussion: addressing limitations**
“In response, we expanded the limitations section to cover potential selection bias and measurement error, and we added references to two recent regional studies to balance the interpretation (Page 10, Discussion).”
**When you disagree (politely)**
“We are grateful for this perspective. After checking the data, we believe changing X would reduce validity because …. Instead, we have clarified our rationale and added sensitivity analyses (Page 8).”
Tone: respectful, specific, brief
Reviewers are collaborators, not opponents. Keep replies short but concrete. Avoid emotional language or defensive phrasing. Use bullet points, white space, and consistent formatting so the editor can scan quickly. Here are small style choices that make a big difference:
• Use “Thank you for this helpful suggestion” rather than “We disagree”.
• Replace vague lines like “We fixed it” with “We added a robustness check (Page 9, Fig. 3)”.
• Mirror the reviewer’s words in your restatement so it’s obvious you addressed the right issue.
Structure for your response letter
Use this simple structure and repeat for every comment:
• **Reviewer Comment X**: (short paraphrase)
• **Author Response**: (what you changed + where, or your reasoned alternative)
• **Manuscript Location**: (Page/Section/Table/Figure)
If there are dozens of comments, group by sections (Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion) and keep numbering consistent.
Mini examples (before/after)
**Example 1: Vague response → specific response**
Vague: “We have improved the introduction.”
Specific: “We added background on national policy drivers and clarified the research gap (Page 3, Paragraph 2), citing recent studies to justify the hypothesis.”
**Example 2: Defensive tone → constructive tone**
Defensive: “The reviewer misunderstood our method.”
Constructive: “We regret the lack of clarity. We expanded the Methods to specify inclusion criteria and added a flowchart (Figure 1) to make the process transparent.”
**Example 3: Disagreement with evidence**
“We appreciate the suggestion to remove variable Z. However, variable Z captures an essential confounder in our context. We retained Z but added sensitivity analyses excluding it; results are materially unchanged (Page 9, Table 3).”
Common pitfalls to avoid
• **No manuscript pointers** – Reviewers should never have to hunt for changes. Always include locations.
• **Over‑defending** – You can disagree, but offer data or references and propose a reasonable alternative.
• **Copy‑pasting without adapting** – Templates save time, but poorly adapted text can create new issues.
• **Language errors** – Run a final language pass; small mistakes can undermine credibility.
Localization: English first, local language support
If you work in a bilingual environment or where English proficiency varies, prepare two versions of the response letter: an English version for the journal and a companion version in your local language to coordinate co‑authors. This simple step avoids miscommunication and speeds up sign‑off.
Quick checklist before you hit “submit”
- I thanked the reviewers and kept a respectful tone.
- I restated each comment in my own words.
- I described exactly what changed and where.
- I justified any deviations with data or citations.
- I proofread the response letter and updated the manuscript.
Final thought
Clear, respectful replies help editors say “yes.” Use the 5‑step method and the templates above to move faster with less stress. If you want a ready‑made response letter format, download our free toolkit and adapt the lines to your study. Small improvements in clarity and structure can tip the decision in your favour.
Click here read more such interesting blogs.
