Ready to Revise, but Writing to the Journal Editor?

Ready to Revise—But Writing to the Journal Editor? A Practical Guide to the “Please Reconsider” Letter

An editorial “no” with detailed feedback is not a dead end; it is an invitation to negotiate a path to “yes.” Your covering letter shapes that path. It signals professionalism, synthesises the editor’s concerns, commits to concrete fixes, and protects the integrity of your research. Below is a step-by-step playbook, with templates and checklists, to help you write a persuasive, time-efficient letter that earns reconsideration.

1) Reset Your Frame: What the Editor Needs From You

• Evidence you listened. Echo the journal’s language and priorities. Show you grasp the editorial rationale.
• Decisions, not wishes. Editors evaluate actions—what you will add, cut, reanalyse, or clarify—rather than intentions.
• Effort vs. payoff. A realistic plan that meaningfully improves fit with the journal’s scope and standards.
• Professional tone. Courteous, concise, fact-based, and free of defensiveness.

2) Structure of a Strong Reconsideration Letter (One Page)

1. Opening thanks + ID line. Manuscript title, ID, decision date; sincere appreciation for the feedback.
2. Two–three sentence synthesis. What, in your own words, were the key reasons for non-acceptance?
3. Action plan overview. A brief roadmap of major revisions (methods, analyses, framing, length, figures, language).
4. Non-changes with rationale (if any). One compact paragraph explaining principled constraints and offering alternatives.
5. Deliverables + timeline. Point-by-point response document; expected turnaround (e.g., 4–6 weeks); commitment to standards (e.g., reporting checklists, language editing).
6. Close. Polite request for conditional reconsideration and readiness to adjust further.

3) Template: Cover Letter for Editorial Reconsideration

Subject: Reconsideration request – Manuscript [J-2025-0148], “Title”

Dear Dr [Editor Surname],

Thank you for your thoughtful decision letter of 3 November regarding our manuscript,
“[Title]” (J-2025-0148). We appreciate the detailed guidance on scope, methods
transparency, and framing relative to [Journal Name].

We understand that acceptance was not possible primarily because (i) the study’s
positioning against recent work in [subfield] was incomplete, (ii) key methodological
details (randomisation, exclusion criteria) were insufficiently reported, and (iii) the
discussion overstated generalisability beyond the sampled settings.

We propose the following revisions for a resubmission to [Journal Name]:
1) Literature positioning (Intro §2): add a compact synthesis of [A–D], clarify our
distinct contribution, and include a pre-specified replication comparison (Fig. 3).
2) Methods transparency (Methods §§3–4; Supplement S1–S3): explicitly report the
randomisation sequence, blinding, power calculation, preregistration links, and full
exclusion criteria; provide code and dataset DOIs.
3) Analyses: add robustness checks requested (alt. model; per-site analysis) and correct
for multiple testing (Benjamini–Hochberg); move exploratory analyses to Supplement S4.
4) Framing and claims (Discussion §6): narrow the claims, add limitations on
generalisability, and align with the journal’s scope statement; reduce manuscript length
by ~900 words.
5) Language and style: engage a professional editor to ensure clarity and conformity
with [journal’s] author guidelines; we will submit a clean and a tracked-changes file.

Regarding [specific request X], we cannot collect new biomarker data within the timeframe
without compromising participant consent constraints. Instead, we will include a
pre-registered sensitivity analysis using archival measures (Supplement S5), which
addresses the underlying validity concern.

We anticipate completing these revisions within five weeks of your approval and will
provide a point-by-point response mapping each editorial/reviewer comment to the
corresponding change (page/line references). If you believe additional adjustments would
improve fit with [Journal Name], we would be grateful for your guidance.

Thank you again for your consideration. We hope these concrete revisions will make the
manuscript suitable for reconsideration at [Journal Name].

With best regards,
[Name, Affiliation]
[ORCID] | [Email] | [Phone]

4) Your Point-by-Point Response: The Editor’s Favourite Artifact

Attach a separate response mapping each comment to an action. Keep the tone appreciative and the format predictable.

Tip: If several comments share a theme (e.g., “transparency”), respond once comprehensively and cross-reference individual notes to avoid repetition.

5) What to Say When You Can’t Do Everything

Sometimes a request conflicts with ethics, cost, timelines, or scientific rationale. Declining can be persuasive when you:

• Show alignment on goals. Acknowledge the underlying concern (e.g., validity, power, bias).
• Offer a principled alternative. A sensitivity analysis, theory-based justification, or transparent limitation.
• Quantify impact. “Power for subgroup C would be 0.41; we therefore avoid inferential claims and report descriptives only.”
• Keep it brief. One tight paragraph beats a page of special pleading.

6) Tone, Length, and Style: Small Choices That Matter

• Lead with gratitude. It sets the tone and defuses defensiveness.
• Mirror terminology. Use the journal’s scope language and the editor’s key terms.
• Be specific, not exhaustive. Give one representative example rather than listing every micro-edit.
• Demonstrate polished English. If language was flagged, say what you are doing (professional edit, native-speaker co-author review).
• One page max for the letter. Depth belongs in the response table and the revised manuscript.

7) Common Pitfalls—and Better Alternatives

1. Vague promises. “We will improve the discussion.” → “We will add a limitations paragraph specifying [A–C] and remove unsupported claims (pp. 18–19).”
2. Defensiveness. “The reviewer misunderstood.” → “We were unclear; we now clarify by …”
3. Over-committing. Promising new data you cannot ethically or logistically gather. → Offer a rigorous alternative.
4. Wall of text. Dense paragraphs with no signposting. → Use short sections, bullets, and page/figure anchors.
5. Silence on timeline. Editors manage pipelines. → Provide a realistic date range and meet it.

8) If Language Was the Issue: Say This, Do This

Editors and reviewers must be able to parse your argument rapidly. If English mechanics were a barrier:

• State your remedy. “We will engage a professional scientific editor and submit both tracked and clean versions.”
• Show proof of change. Provide a brief before→after excerpt in your response.
• Align to house style. Commit to the journal’s spelling (AmE/BrE), units, and reference style.

9) Micro-Templates You Can Paste

10) Optional Add-Ons That Help (Keep Them Short)

• Reporting checklist. CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA/ARRIVE completed and referenced in the letter.
• Data/code availability. Provide DOIs and access conditions (open, controlled).
• Ethics statements. Confirm approvals where required; note if no new data are collected.

11) A 7-Step Workflow From Decision to Letter

1. Cool-off read (24 hours). Read the decision twice: once for gist, once to extract actionable items.
2. Sort concerns. Categorise into framing, methods, analysis, results, discussion, style, scope.
3. Decide non-negotiables. Identify what you can’t change and prepare principled rationales.
4. Draft your action list. Bullet the changes; assign manuscript locations and responsible co-authors.
5. Write the one-page letter. Use the template; keep it concise and specific.
6. Prepare the response table. Map every comment to an action with page/line references.
7. Internal peer review. Have a colleague read the letter and response for tone and completeness.

12) Example: Short Letter for a Methods-Heavy Paper

Dear Dr [Editor],

Thank you for your detailed evaluation of “[Title].” We understand your main concerns to be:
(1) incomplete positioning relative to recent work in [subfield]; (2) insufficient methods
transparency (randomisation, blinding, exclusions); and (3) claims that extend beyond our
sampling frame.

We propose to revise as follows:
• Intro §2: add a concise synthesis of four pivotal papers (A–D) and explicitly contrast
our approach; move a paragraph of background to Supplement S0 to reduce length.
• Methods §§3–4: report randomisation sequence, blinding, power analysis; include
preregistration link, CONSORT flow, and full exclusion criteria; deposit code/data (DOIs).
• Results §5: add pre-specified robustness checks and site-level analyses; correct for
multiple testing (BH).
• Discussion §6: narrow claims, add limitations on generalisability, and align with the
journal’s scope; reduce ~800 words overall.

Regarding the suggestion to add biomarker X, this would require new sampling and ethics
approval. Instead we implement a validated proxy (Y) and report a sensitivity analysis in S5.

We anticipate submitting the revised manuscript within five weeks and will provide a
point-by-point response with page/line references. We would be grateful for reconsideration.

Sincerely,
[Name]

13) Quick Checklist Before You Send

• [ ] Gratitude, manuscript ID, decision date in the opening paragraph.
• [ ] Two–three sentence synthesis of the editor’s concerns—in their terms.
• [ ] Specific actions tied to manuscript sections/figures/tables.
• [ ] Clear rationale for any non-changes + a credible alternative.
• [ ] Realistic timeline for resubmission.
• [ ] Polished language; if relevant, note professional editing.
• [ ] Separate point-by-point response table prepared.
• [ ] File naming and formatting match the journal’s instructions.

14) FAQs

Q: The editor said “out of scope.” Should I still write?
A: Only if your revision genuinely aligns with the journal’s scope (e.g., reframing to a policy angle for a policy journal). Otherwise, redeploy to a better-fit venue.

Q: A reviewer request conflicts with another’s advice. What now?
A: Acknowledge the conflict in your response; propose a route that satisfies the editorial goal (clarity/validity) and invite the editor’s preference.

Q: Is it acceptable to start a sentence with “However/But/Yet” in the letter?
A: Yes, but sparingly; clarity and professionalism trump rigid stylistic rules.

Q: Can I ask whether an editor will reconsider before doing the work?
A: Yes—this letter’s purpose is exactly that: to secure a conditional green light for a targeted resubmission.

15) Closing Thought: Make Saying “Yes” Easy

Your letter is not a plea; it is a project plan. By translating critique into concrete revisions, acknowledging limits with principled alternatives, and committing to a clean, well-edited manuscript, you reduce editorial risk and effort. Editors reward that professionalism. Write the letter you would want to receive as an editor—brief, clear, courteous, and actionable—and you maximise the chance that your revised work will be welcomed back for reconsideration.

Need help refining the letter or preparing the point-by-point response? Our editors can tailor your cover note to journal scope, harmonise tone, and ensure your revision plan maps cleanly to the manuscript.