Responding to peer reviewers: a practical guide
A clear, respectful response letter can turn a ‘major revision’ into an acceptance. How to structure it, and how to disagree when you need to.
Receiving reviewers’ comments can be uncomfortable, especially when they are long or critical. But a decision of major or minor revision is good news: the editor sees enough value in your manuscript to give it another look. How you respond often decides the outcome.
Pause before you reply
Read the decision letter and all the comments, then put them aside for a day. Comments that seem unfair at first often turn out to be about something you didn’t explain clearly. Reviewers are readers, and if they misunderstood, others will too.
Structure the response letter
- Start with a short thank-you to the editor and reviewers and a summary of the main changes.
- Copy every comment in full, numbered, in the order the reviewers gave them.
- Under each comment, reply and describe exactly what you changed, with page and line numbers.
- Quote the revised text when the change is short.
Make it easy for the editor
Submit a version of the manuscript with tracked changes or highlighted edits, plus a clean copy. The editor should be able to check every change in a few minutes without searching.
How to disagree
You don’t have to accept every suggestion. If you disagree, say so politely and explain why, with evidence or references. Where possible, offer a compromise, such as adding a sentence on the limitation the reviewer raised. Never ignore a comment.
Respond to the substance of each comment, not its tone.
Common mistakes to avoid
- Answering “Done” without saying what was done.
- Making changes that are not mentioned in the letter.
- Arguing with the reviewer instead of addressing the point.
- Missing the resubmission deadline; ask for an extension if you need one.
Our response-to-reviewers and revision support services help authors prepare clear, complete responses. Learn more.