Summary
Receiving peer reviewer comments can be one of the most stressful steps in the academic publishing process. Yet a well-crafted response letter can turn critical feedback into a decisive step toward acceptance. This guide explains how to respond to peer reviewer comments professionally, constructively and efficiently, focusing on structure, tone, clarity and strategy.
The article explores how to process reviewer feedback, how to structure a point-by-point response, how to handle disagreements and contradictory reviews, and how to document revisions clearly for editors and referees. It also addresses the emotional side of revision, emphasising collegial communication and mutual goals. At the end of the article, a section contains a complete Sample Response to the Comments of Peer Reviewers, which you can adapt for your own submissions.
By following the principles described here, authors can transform reviewer feedback into an opportunity to strengthen their manuscripts, demonstrate professionalism and improve their chances of successful publication.
📖 Full Length Article (Click to expand or collapse)
How to Respond to Peer Reviewer Comments Professionally: Sample Letter
Peer review sits at the heart of academic and scientific publishing. It is designed to protect the quality and integrity of the literature, ensure that methods are sound, interpretations reasonable and writing clear. For authors, however, the moment when reviewer reports arrive can be nerve-racking. The comments may be brief and positive, or long, complex and highly critical. Whatever the case, your response letter becomes a crucial part of the evaluation process.
A carefully written response can demonstrate that you are serious about your work, open to improvement and capable of engaging constructively with criticism. A rushed or defensive response, on the other hand, can damage your relationship with the editor and reduce the likelihood of acceptance. This article aims to give you the tools, language and structure needed to respond in a way that is clear, courteous and persuasive.
1. Understanding the Purpose of Reviewer Feedback
It is tempting to read reviewer reports as personal judgments about your expertise or potential as a scholar. In reality, reviewers are primarily assessing the manuscript, not the author. Well-designed peer review asks:
• Is the research question important?
• Are the methods appropriate and transparent?
• Are the results presented clearly and honestly?
• Are the interpretations justified by the evidence?
• Is the writing and organisation suitable for the journal’s audience?
Reviewers may not always express themselves perfectly, but their aim is usually to ensure that what eventually appears in print is reliable, clear and of value to future readers. Seeing reviewer comments as part of a collaborative process — even when they are critical — makes it easier to respond constructively.
2. Processing Feedback Before You Write Anything
Most authors experience an emotional response when they first read reviewer reports. Common reactions include discouragement, irritation, confusion and, in some cases, relief. It is rarely a good idea to draft your response immediately. Instead:
• Read the decision letter and all reviews once, then set them aside. Give yourself time to process the information.
• Re-read the comments calmly a day later. Mark recurring themes: are reviewers concerned about clarity, statistics, theory, ethics, literature coverage, or something else?
• Discuss the reports with co-authors or mentors. A shared discussion helps separate emotional reactions from practical decisions.
Only once you have a clear understanding of what reviewers are asking for — and which changes are feasible — should you begin drafting your response letter and planning revisions.
3. Planning Your Revision Strategy
Before you write a single sentence of your response letter, it is wise to develop a revision strategy. This involves:
• Grouping comments into themes. For example, you may see that multiple reviewers mention sample size, the structure of the discussion or unclear terminology.
• Distinguishing between major and minor issues. Major issues may require new analyses, rewritten sections or additional literature. Minor issues often involve wording, formatting or small clarifications.
• Deciding which suggestions you can fully implement, which you can partially implement and which you must respectfully decline.
Having a clear plan makes the actual writing of both the response and the revised manuscript far more efficient. It also shows the editor that you have engaged with the feedback in a systematic, thoughtful way.
4. The Overall Structure of a Strong Response Letter
Although details vary across journals, an effective response letter almost always includes the following components:
1. An opening paragraph thanking the editor and reviewers and stating that you have revised the manuscript in light of their comments.
2. A brief overview of major changes (for example, “We have rewritten the discussion, added two figures and clarified the methods section”).
3. A point-by-point response organised by reviewer and comment number.
4. Clear reference to where each change appears in the revised manuscript (page, section or line numbers, depending on journal practice).
Editors often skim the opening and then focus on the point-by-point section, so clarity, consistent layout and respectful wording are essential.
5. Tone: Collegial, Professional and Precise
One of the most difficult aspects of writing a response letter is getting the tone right. You may be disappointed with the reviews, or even feel they are unfair. Still, your tone must remain calm and professional. Keep in mind:
• You and the reviewers share a common goal: improving the final paper.
• Politeness is not weakness; it is professionalism.
• Firm, evidence-based disagreement is acceptable, but hostility is not.
When you agree with a comment, thank the reviewer and indicate what you have changed. When you disagree, do so tactfully. For instance:
“We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful suggestion. After careful consideration, we believe that implementing the proposed change would move the focus away from our primary research question. Instead, we have clarified the original rationale in Section 3.2 (p. 11) and noted the alternative interpretation in the limitations paragraph.”
Such language acknowledges the reviewer’s effort while making your position clear.
6. Responding Point by Point
The central part of your letter is the detailed response to each comment. A typical structure is:
Reviewer 1
Comment 1: [Reviewer’s comment, quoted or paraphrased]
Response: [Your reply and description of the changes]
Then continue with Comment 2, Comment 3, and so on. Repeat the same pattern for Reviewer 2, Reviewer 3 etc. You may distinguish reviewer text (for example, using italics) from your responses to improve readability, but avoid relying on colours or fonts that could be lost when converted to PDF or plain text.
Quoting the full comment is recommended, even if it feels repetitive. It allows the editor and reviewers to see at a glance exactly what you are responding to and prevents confusion when comments are similar or heavily numbered in the original report.
7. Showing Exactly Where Changes Were Made
Editors and reviewers need to know where to find the revisions you describe. If they must search through the manuscript to verify changes, the process slows significantly. To keep things efficient:
• Mention the relevant page and section for each change.
• If the journal uses line numbers, refer to them.
• If you have used track changes or coloured text, say so explicitly in your letter.
An effective response might read:
“We have clarified the sampling strategy in the second paragraph of Section 2.1 (p. 6) and now specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria in more detail.”
This specificity builds confidence that you have addressed the comment thoroughly.
8. When You Agree with Reviewers
The simplest scenarios are those in which you agree with the feedback. In such cases, briefly acknowledge the comment, thank the reviewer and describe how you have addressed it. For instance:
“We agree that the original wording was ambiguous. We have now revised the sentence on p. 9 to clarify that the longitudinal data were collected at three time points rather than two.”
You do not need to defend the original version; the editorial team is more interested in whether the issue has been resolved.
9. When You Disagree with Reviewers
Disagreement is not only inevitable but sometimes necessary. Reviewers may misinterpret your argument, suggest inappropriate analyses, or ask you to expand the manuscript in ways that exceed its scope. In such cases, your task is to explain your reasoning clearly and respectfully.
Consider a comment that asks for an additional experiment that would require months of work and go well beyond the paper’s central objective. A constructive reply might be:
“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to test the model in an additional population. While this would be a valuable extension, it lies beyond the scope and resources of the current study. We have now acknowledged this limitation in the final paragraph of the discussion (p. 21) and highlighted it as an important direction for future research.”
This approach shows that you understand the value of the suggestion, while also explaining why you have not implemented it in this revision.
10. Dealing with Conflicting Reviewer Advice
One of the most frustrating situations authors face is conflicting reviewer recommendations. Reviewer 1 might demand removal of a table that Reviewer 2 insists be expanded. Reviewer 1 might want more theory; Reviewer 2 wants less. When this happens, do not panic. Editors are familiar with such conflicts.
A good strategy is to:
• Identify the solution that best serves the manuscript’s goals.
• Clearly explain in your response how you balanced both perspectives.
• If necessary, explicitly ask the editor for guidance.
You might write:
“We note that Reviewers 1 and 2 offered differing suggestions regarding Table 1. Reviewer 1 found it unnecessary, whereas Reviewer 2 asked for more detail. To accommodate both views, we have retained the table but simplified the main text to reduce redundancy. We would welcome the editor’s preference if further adjustment is needed.”
This makes it clear that you have taken both comments seriously and attempted a reasonable compromise.
11. Requests for Additional Data, Analyses or Literature
Reviewers sometimes ask for more than a simple rephrasing. They might request new analyses, the inclusion of additional datasets, or engagement with particular theoretical perspectives. When these requests are justified and feasible, fulfilling them usually strengthens your paper and your relationship with the editor.
However, if a request is disproportionate or beyond your available data, explain openly. For instance:
“The reviewer suggests conducting a new structural equation model. Unfortunately, the sample size and variable coverage of our dataset do not support this level of analysis without risk of overfitting. Instead, we have carried out a more conservative regression analysis and described this constraint in Section 3.4 (pp. 13–14).”
Editors appreciate realism. Over-promising or including weak supplementary analyses can harm your paper more than declining a request with sound justification.
12. Using Citations Within Your Responses
In some cases, reviewers will recommend particular papers or suggest that you situate your work within a broader body of literature. When you incorporate these suggestions, it is helpful to mention them explicitly in your letter.
For example:
“We thank the reviewer for drawing our attention to the study by Lopez and Singh (2020). We have now cited this work in the first paragraph of the introduction (p. 3) and discussed its relationship to our findings in the second paragraph of the discussion (p. 18).”
Doing this shows that you take peer recommendation seriously and are willing to engage with recent developments in the field.
13. When Reviewer Comments Reveal Problems in Your Writing
Sometimes reviewers flag problems that are not actually present in your data or methods, but in your explanation of them. For instance, if reviewers express confusion about your sampling strategy or interpret your variables differently than you intended, that confusion may have arisen because your text is ambiguous.
Rather than concluding that “the reviewer did not read carefully,” use such comments as diagnostic clues. Ask yourself:
• Was my explanation too brief?
• Did I assume knowledge that readers may not have?
• Is the logical order of my sections clear?
Then improve the manuscript accordingly. This not only satisfies reviewers but also makes your work more accessible to future readers.
14. When Reviewer Tone Is Harsh or Unprofessional
Most reviewers communicate respectfully, but occasionally a report may contain blunt or discouraging language. Even then, your response should focus on the substance rather than the tone. Editors will see both the review and your reply; your professionalism will stand out.
For instance, if a reviewer writes, “The authors clearly do not understand basic statistics,” you might respond:
“We appreciate the reviewer’s concern about our statistical approach. We have now clarified the rationale for using mixed-effects models in Section 2.5 (pp. 9–10) and added two references that support this method. We hope this revision demonstrates more clearly that the approach is appropriate for our data structure.”
By addressing the technical issue calmly and thoroughly, you reinforce the impression that you take the science seriously, regardless of tone.
15. Communicating with the Editor Separately (When Necessary)
Occasionally, there are sensitive matters that you may wish to raise with the editor but not with the reviewers — for example, concerns about reviewer bias, confidentiality, or ethical issues. In such cases, it is acceptable to send a short, separate communication addressed only to the editor. Make sure this is clearly labelled and distinct from the response letter intended for reviewers.
Use such communications sparingly and factually, avoiding speculation or personal attacks. Editors are experienced at identifying and managing potential issues, but they rely on authors to communicate concerns clearly and professionally.
16. The Emotional and Professional Value of Gratitude
Finally, remember that peer review is unpaid work. Reviewers and editors devote time to reading, evaluating and commenting on your manuscript. A brief but sincere expression of thanks shows appreciation and reinforces collegiality.
Avoid over-the-top praise, which can sound insincere. A simple line like “We thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive comments, which have greatly improved our manuscript” is usually sufficient. Demonstrating that you have carefully addressed the comments is ultimately the best form of gratitude.
17. Conclusion
Responding to peer reviewer comments is an art as much as a skill. It requires emotional resilience, intellectual flexibility and clear communication. When approached thoughtfully, the process not only moves your manuscript closer to publication, but also sharpens your arguments, deepens your understanding of your own work and improves your writing for future projects.
The key principles are straightforward: read the comments carefully, develop a revision strategy, respond to every point, explain your reasoning clearly, maintain a respectful tone and show exactly where you have made changes. If you do these things consistently, you transform peer review from a barrier into a valuable part of your research workflow.
To help you apply these principles in practice, the following accordion contains a complete sample response letter, illustrating tone, structure and formatting that you can adapt for your own submissions.
📄 A Sample Response to the Comments of Peer Reviewers (Click to expand or collapse)
Edward Researcher
Palaeography Institute
1717 Writer’s Lane
South River, MI, USA, 484848
734-734-7344
edresearcher@palaeographyinstitute.edu
Dr Helen Wordsmith
Assistant Editor
Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society
717 Reader’s Row
London, UK, SW6 9DE
hwordsmith_ae@jsms.co.uk
November 14, 2017
Subject: Revision and resubmission of manuscript JSMS 17-N6688
Dear Dr Wordsmith,
Thank you for your letter and for the opportunity to revise our paper, “Hidden Treasure: Scribal Hands in the Notorious Brigantine Manuscript.” The suggestions offered by the reviewers have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your insightful comments on revising the abstract and other aspects of the paper.
Immediately following this letter, we include the reviewer comments and our detailed responses. We have addressed each point in turn, explaining how we resolved the issue and indicating where changes appear in the revised manuscript. All four authors have reviewed and approved the revisions, and I have again been selected as the corresponding author. As requested, all changes to the manuscript are marked in red font in the attached document.
Most of the revisions prompted by the reviewers are straightforward and require no further explanation beyond the responses below. However, I would like to highlight the changes made to Table 1. This table now lists, locates and briefly describes each of the hands we distinguish in the Brigantine Manuscript, providing approximate dates and, in the case of the Pantofola di Seta’s first mate, a firm identification. The table does not include hands and scripts that remain uncertain.
Reviewer 1 recommended removing Table 1 and embedding its information into the main text, while Reviewer 2 suggested expanding it to include all possible hands and scripts. After careful consideration, we opted for the latter approach and significantly extended the table. Our reasoning is that readers will find a comprehensive tabular summary more convenient when consulting details about scribes and manuscript production. The expanded table also allowed us to streamline the discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text. That said, if you feel the paper would benefit from reverting to the earlier structure and omitting the table, we would be happy to provide a revised version without it.
In line with your comments on the abstract, we have reduced specialised codicological terminology and emphasised more clearly the narrative interest and historical significance of the manuscript. In particular, we now stress that the Brigantine Manuscript belonged to real pirates and functioned as the logbook of a first mate who was proud of his crew’s exploits. The opening sentences you identified now read:
“Like the pirates whose barbaric activities it celebrates, the Brigantine Manuscript slipped off into the fog in the early fourteenth century, only to emerge again in 2015. It had been miraculously preserved for 700 years in a hidden chamber carved into the keelson of a recently excavated Mediterranean brigantine named Pantofola di Seta (the Silk Slipper). Extensive examination of the book’s contents and scripts has now lifted more of that fog, revealing at least five distinct hands writing over more than 80 years, one of them a rather gifted first mate – Benutto Nero – who logged daily entries in passable Latin for almost six years from 1282 to 1288.”
We hope you will agree that this revised abstract will better capture the interest of both specialist and non-specialist readers.
Regarding minor matters, we have changed the manuscript from American to British spelling, in accordance with the journal’s instructions. We have also consulted the two references you recommended. Susan Goodorder’s article helped us refine the subdivisions and headings in the discussion section, while General Saltydog’s glossary of nautical terms enabled us to correct and standardise our terminology—for example, replacing “ropes” with “lines” throughout.
We hope that the revised manuscript will now be more suitable for the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society. We remain open to further revision if required and thank you again for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Edward Researcher
Professor of Medieval Latin
Palaeography Institute
Reviewer Comments, Author Responses and Manuscript Changes
Reviewer 1
Comment 1: “‘Hidden Treasure: Scribal Hands in the Notorious Brigantine Manuscript’ was an engaging and informative read and the authors’ assessment of hands and scripts is clear and accurate. The paper is perfect for the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society. I am uncertain that Table 1 is necessary and I have discovered one grammatical error which unfortunately appears throughout the manuscript and must be repaired, but beyond that I have very little helpful commentary to offer.”
Response: We are grateful for these generous comments and are pleased that you find our assessment clear and suitable for the journal. We have addressed both the concerns you raise below.
Comment 2: “Table 1 does not contain all the scripts and hands discussed in the paper, so it seems incomplete. I preferred the longer descriptions in the main text and recommend that the table be removed and the descriptions of the more certain hands used to extend the discussion instead.”
Response: We appreciate your perspective and agree that our original Table 1 was too selective. Reviewer 2, however, proposed an alternative solution—expanding the table to include all hands and scripts. After considering both suggestions, we decided to lengthen the table and retain it as a reference tool, while simplifying the discussion in the main text. We have asked the assistant editor for guidance and are happy to remove the table if the editorial team prefers that approach.
Changes: We expanded Table 1 to include the complete set of hands and scripts identified in the manuscript, providing brief descriptions and approximate dates for each. This change allowed us to shorten and clarify the narrative discussion of scribal characteristics. All modifications are highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.
Comment 3: “Grammar and sentence structure are adequate for the most part, but dangling modifiers are a problem throughout the paper and at times obscure the authors’ meaning. For example, p. 6: ‘With his entrails already tumbling out on the deck, the oarsman gave his victim a last kick and lopped his head off.’ This phrasing suggests that the oarsman, rather than the victim, is losing his entrails. Corrections are needed here and elsewhere.”
Response: Thank you very much for noticing these errors. We recognise that several sentences contained unintended dangling modifiers, and we have now corrected them throughout.
Changes: The sentence you mention now reads: “The oarsman waited until his victim’s entrails were tumbling out on the deck before giving him one last kick and lopping off his head.” Similar revisions have been made wherever necessary to ensure that the subject and modifying phrases align correctly. These changes are marked in red.
Reviewer 2
Comment 1: “It is clear that the authors know more about medieval manuscripts than about seamanship, but the manuscript is worthy of publication provided the following matters are addressed.”
Response: We appreciate your evaluation and agree that our strengths lie in manuscript study. We are grateful for your guidance on improving the nautical aspects of the paper.
Comment 2: “There seems to be some confusion about ‘leeboard’ and ‘starboard’ and, more generally, I would like to see more accurate nautical terminology. Common terms such as ‘lines’ instead of ‘ropes,’ ‘stern’ instead of ‘back of the boat,’ and so on should be used.”
Response: We agree that clearer and more accurate nautical terminology strengthens the paper. Following your suggestion, we consulted the glossary recommended by the assistant editor.
Changes: We have corrected and standardised all nautical terms and ensured their consistent use throughout the manuscript. These adjustments are highlighted in red.
Comment 3: “Table 1 seems too selective. I would prefer a comprehensive list of all hands and scripts, including approximate dates, presented in an accessible tabular format.”
Response: We appreciate this suggestion and agree that a more complete table will better serve readers, especially those who are less familiar with palaeographical analysis.
Changes: As noted above in our response to Reviewer 1, we have extended Table 1 to include all hands and scripts. The table now functions as a central reference for the manuscript’s scribal history.
Comment 4: “The formatting of the discussion section is inconsistent with earlier sections and with the journal’s guidelines. Additional subdivision and clearer headings would make the argument easier to follow.”
Response: We agree that the discussion section in the original manuscript was densely written and could benefit from clearer structure.
Changes: We have reorganised the discussion into subsections with descriptive headings, using a model article from the journal as a guide. We believe this significantly improves readability and the visibility of our main conclusions.
If you would like professional help polishing your own response letter or revised manuscript, our journal article editing and manuscript editing services can support you at every stage of the publication process.
