Responding to Reviewer Comments: Letter Templates

You sent in your manuscript, waited weeks — sometimes months — and finally the verdict lands: “revise and resubmit”. Answering peer review comments stresses many researchers more than writing the paper did. Still, a clear, professional and complete response letter is among the strongest factors in whether a revised manuscript gets accepted. Here you will find a copy-ready template, a phrase bank for each reviewer situation, worked examples and a step-by-step plan.

To see the whole revision process — planning, co-authors and resubmission — read our step-by-step guide to responding to reviewer comments as well. The page you are on is the toolkit, offering templates, phrases and examples that you can adapt right away.

Making Sense of Journal Decision Types

Before writing anything, make sure you know what the editor’s decision really asks you to do. Terminology differs between journals, but most decisions belong to one of these six groups.

Before Writing: Read, Step Back and Triage

Go through the decision letter and every comment once, then take a day or two away from it. Replies drafted in the first hour tend to sound defensive. On your return, copy each comment into a working document and assign it a number and a category. A calm second reading often shows that a harsh-sounding remark is really a request for clarification.

This sheet forms the backbone of your response letter and keeps all co-authors working from one list.

How a Response Letter Is Built: 5 Parts

1. Opening note to the editor (three or four sentences): express thanks to the editor and reviewers, and sum up the revision in a single line.
2. Summary of major changes: three to five bullet points that let the editor take in the principal work quickly.
3. Point-by-point response to Reviewer 1: reproduce every comment word for word, reply to it head-on and state the page and line of each change.
4. Point-by-point reply to Reviewer 2 and anyone else: use an identical layout for each reviewer.
5. Closing (two or three sentences): a word of thanks and an offer to make additional changes.

Full Response Letter Template

Copy the template into your word processor and complete each bracketed item. If the reviewers numbered their comments, keep that numbering.

Should the editor have added personal comments, reply to those ahead of the reviewers’ (see below).

Table Template for Lengthy Reviews

Paragraphs work well when comments are few. With many comments, a table of three columns is simpler for editors to check. Go with whichever style your journal favours. Whatever the layout, keep numbering consistent so each reply can be matched to its comment at once.

Answer the Editor First

Because the editor makes the final decision, editor comments belong at the start of your letter. Editors often point out which reviewer points they regard as essential; treat these as non-negotiable or explain very clearly why something cannot be done. If the decision letter adds nothing beyond the reviews, a short opening note will do. Quoting the editor’s own words shows that you have read the instructions carefully.

Phrase Collection: 12 Reviewer Situations

Examples in Practice: Weak and Strong Replies

Disagreeing Without Risking Rejection

It is sometimes necessary, and perfectly acceptable, to disagree with a reviewer. The manner in which you do it determines whether the editor accepts your reasoning.

1. Avoid saying “the reviewer is wrong”. Try this instead: “Thank you for this perspective. Given [evidence], though, we continue to hold that…”
2. Back it up with evidence: cite published studies, your own data or accepted methodological guidance. Disagreement without support comes across as defensive.
3. Propose a middle ground: even if you stay with your approach, a clarifying sentence or a stated limitation shows goodwill.
4. Deal with the real worry behind it: “The concern regarding [X] is understood. Instead of [their suggestion], it has been handled through [your approach], since [reason].”
5. Leave the judgement to the editor: lay out your reasoning openly, since editors appreciate authors who stay clear and calm.

Difficult Situations: Conflicts, Citations, New Data

Two reviewers advise in opposite directions

Select the option that serves the paper best, refer to both comments and justify your choice. When in doubt, consult the editor, whose guidance takes precedence over individual reviewers. Keeping a neutral tone toward both reviewers helps the editor see your decision as balanced.

A reviewer requests citations to their own work

When the suggested papers are truly relevant, cite them. When they are not, decline courteously and, if useful, cite a more fitting source in their place. Do not accuse the reviewer. Should the requests seem like pressure to include irrelevant citations, you can raise the matter confidentially with the editor; the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) regards citation manipulation as an ethical concern.

New experiments that are out of reach

Describe the obstacle (missing data, ethics approval, time or scope), propose a feasible alternative (a re-analysis, a sensitivity check, a sharper statement of the limitation) and leave the verdict to the editor. Being specific about why the work is impossible makes the explanation far more convincing.

Not enough time before the deadline

Contact the editorial office ahead of the deadline, describe what the additional work entails and ask for a defined extension. Most editors would rather receive a thorough revision than a hurried one.

10 Do’s and Don’ts

Stage by Stage: From Decision Email to Resubmission

1. Read and pause: go through the decision and all comments, then wait a day or two prior to responding.
2. Triage: list each comment with a number and place it in a category (out of scope, disagree, restructuring, new analysis, clarification, easy fix).
3. Plan: tackle the essential changes first and schedule the work to meet the deadline stated in the decision letter.
4. Revise: proceed methodically using tracked changes or highlighting, and store the revised file apart from the original.
5. Write the response letter: follow the template above, quoting every comment and noting where changes are.
6. Write a short cover letter to accompany the resubmission; the cover letter template can help.
7. Final review: confirm that all comments are answered, each page number is accurate and the text has been proofread.
8. Submit via the journal’s official portal.

What to Include When You Upload Your Revision

• A cover letter for the revised submission
• Reply letter for the reviewers (in its own file, unless the portal supplies a text box)
• Clean revised manuscript
• Annotated version showing tracked changes or highlighting
• Revised figures, tables and supplementary files
• Any fresh declarations (for instance, an altered author list requires the agreement of every author)

If Your Paper Is Rejected Following Review

A rejection stings, yet it is an ordinary part of publishing, and even highly successful researchers have papers turned down. Respond to it constructively:

1. Study the comments closely. The reviews that follow a rejection are frequently the most valuable feedback you will ever receive.
2. Revise before sending it elsewhere. Submitting the manuscript untouched tends to bring back the same problems.
3. Pick a journal that fits better. A mismatch of scope is a frequent cause; before submitting, shortlist options using the JMVRA Journal Finder and study how to check a journal.
4. Rethink the level of journal you target. A suitable journal that actually publishes your work is worth more than a string of rejections from an ill-fitting one.
5. Maintain a “lessons learned” file to stop the same weaknesses from reappearing in your next paper.

Revisions at JMVRA

At JMVRA, transparent, double-blind peer review means the reviewers’ comments accompany the decision, so you can see exactly what needs attention. If revision is requested, update the paper and answer each comment point by point, showing what changed and where. The editor then assesses the revised manuscript. Your paper is assessed by specialist reviewers, and the acceptance or rejection decision reaches you by email and WhatsApp.

Share Your Research Through JMVRA

Your At-a-Glance Checklist

1. PausedAnswered after a day or two rather than within the first hour
2. TriagedAll comments numbered and sorted into categories
3. Editor firstEditor’s comments handled at the start
4. LocatedEach change has a page and line
5. EvidencedEvidence supports every disagreement
6. CompleteFour files all set for upload

Tone and Habits for Writing Your Response Letter

A response letter is read by reviewers who gave their time freely, so tone and clarity matter nearly as much as the changes themselves. These habits help your replies land well.

• Wait before drafting replies. Read the comments, set them aside for a day, then return. Initial irritation often fades, and your answers become more measured, accurate and constructive.
• Thank without grovelling. A short, sincere note of appreciation is enough. Excessive praise reads as insincere, while silence can read as indifference. Then move straight to the substance of each point.
• Quote the comment, then answer. Reproduce each reviewer comment exactly and place your reply directly beneath it. This keeps the editor oriented and prevents any suggestion that a point was overlooked.
• Support disagreement with evidence. When you decline a suggestion, explain your reasoning with data, methodology or published sources, and acknowledge the concern behind it. Courteous, well-argued disagreement is usually respected.
• Describe changes where reviewers can find them. Tell the reader where each change appears in the revised manuscript, using the headings or paragraph references. Reviewers should never need to hunt for what you altered.

Answer every comment politely, directly and with evidence, and make each change easy for the reviewer to locate.

Questions Researchers Often Ask

Following acceptance, explore guidance on how to increase your h-index ethically as well as how to increase citations.

In Summary

Replying to peer review is a skill that grows with practice and ranks among the most important in academic publishing. A well-organised, complete and courteous response letter can convert a major revision into an acceptance, whereas a careless one can sink a promising revision. Rely on the template, the phrase bank and the do’s and don’ts: answer every comment, state the location of every change, remain grateful, and let your revised work speak for itself.

References and Sources

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• JMVRA peer review policy
• JMVRA: Responding to Reviewer Comments