Summary
For most researchers, the email from a journal editor that includes a long list of reviewer comments is both welcome and uncomfortable. It is welcome because it usually means “revise and resubmit” rather than outright rejection; uncomfortable because the requested changes can be extensive and sometimes feel overwhelming. At that point, your chances of eventual acceptance depend not only on how well you revise the manuscript, but also on how professionally you reply to peer review comments.
This article explains the key dos and don’ts of responding to reviewers. It outlines how to read and interpret feedback, organise a point-by-point response, and show gratitude and collegiality even when criticism feels harsh. It provides a model structure for response letters, including examples of wording for agreeing, disagreeing, and handling contradictory comments. It also discusses when and how to decline a suggestion, how to involve the editor constructively, and why clarity, politeness, and detail in your response can strongly influence the final editorial decision.
Finally, the article highlights common mistakes to avoid—such as ignoring comments, replying defensively, or failing to indicate where changes were made—and offers practical tips to make your reply clear and persuasive. For high-stakes submissions, careful editing and independent proofreading of your response letter, as well as of the revised manuscript, can significantly improve the impression you make on editors and reviewers.
▶ 📖 Full Length Article (Click to collapse)
The Dos and Don’ts of How To Reply to Peer Review Comments
1. Why Your Response Letter Matters So Much
Receiving a decision email that says your manuscript “cannot be accepted in its current form” and is accompanied by pages of reviewer comments can feel like a blow—especially if you were quietly hoping for “accept as is.” Yet in modern academic publishing, a revision request is usually good news. Very few manuscripts are accepted without revisions; many are rejected without even going out for review. If the editor has invested in obtaining detailed feedback and invites you to resubmit, they are signalling that they see potential in your work.
At this stage, two things now determine your chances of eventual acceptance:
- the quality and appropriateness of the revisions you make, and
- the clarity, tone, and completeness of your response to the reviewers.
Your response letter is not an administrative formality; it is a persuasive document addressed to both the editor and the reviewers. It demonstrates whether you have understood their concerns, taken them seriously, and revised the manuscript in a thoughtful, professional way. A confused, defensive, or incomplete reply can undo much of the goodwill created by the editor’s initial “revise and resubmit” decision.
2. First Steps: Reading, Reflecting, and Planning
2.1 Read the comments carefully—and more than once
Before drafting any reply, read the editor’s letter and all reviewer comments several times. Print them out or place them side by side with your manuscript. As you read:
- Highlight or underline key concerns that appear more than once.
- Note which comments are major (affecting methods, results, or overall argument) and which are minor (typos, small clarifications, formatting issues).
- Mark any comments you do not fully understand.
If a reviewer’s meaning is unclear or you are unsure how to address a particular point, discuss it with a trusted colleague, co-author, or mentor. You may later seek clarification from the editor, but your first line of support is your own network.
2.2 Decide on your revision strategy
There are two common ways to approach revisions and the response letter:
- Revise first, then write the response: You modify the manuscript, then describe all changes in your letter.
- Write the response as you revise: For each comment, you simultaneously revise the manuscript and draft a corresponding reply.
Both approaches can work. What matters is that your final response letter and revised manuscript are fully aligned. Every change you describe should actually appear in the text, and every requested change you did not make should be explicitly addressed with a reasoned explanation.
3. Structuring a Clear, Professional Response
3.1 Start with essential information and a positive tone
Begin your response letter by:
- thanking the editor and reviewers for their time and constructive feedback, and
- identifying your manuscript by title and, if applicable, its manuscript ID number.
A brief introductory paragraph might look like this:
“We thank the editor and reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript, ‘[Title]’ (Manuscript ID [XXXX]). We appreciate the thoughtful comments and suggestions, which have helped us to improve the clarity and robustness of the paper. Below we address each point raised, indicating the changes made in the revised manuscript.”
3.2 Use a point-by-point format
The most widely accepted and helpful format is a point-by-point response. For each comment, you:
- Copy or paraphrase the reviewer’s comment.
- Provide your response below it.
- Describe the change you made and indicate where it appears in the manuscript (page and line numbers).
To keep things organised:
- Label each comment clearly (e.g. “Reviewer 1, Comment 1”; “Reviewer 2, Comment 3”).
- Use labels such as Comment, Response, and Change so that editors can see at a glance which is which.
- Consider numbering comments sequentially (1, 2, 3…) even if the reviewer did not; this makes later references easier.
Colour coding or different fonts can help you during drafting, but remember that colours may not be preserved in submission systems. Clear labels are more reliable.
3.3 Example of a well-structured reply
Here is a model response to a reviewer comment about the abstract:
Reviewer 1, Comment 1: “The abstract covers the necessary points, but it is too long and appears to be copied from the conclusion. A thorough rewrite in line with the journal’s guidelines is needed, and I would like to see precise percentages for the key findings in the final sentences.”
Response: “We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We agree that providing precise percentages in the abstract will make the main findings clearer. We have also re-checked the journal’s guidelines and recognise that our original abstract did not fully follow the recommended structure.”
Changes: “We have completely rewritten the abstract following the structured format specified by the journal (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions). It is now shorter and focuses more tightly on the key findings. The new final sentences read: ‘[Insert revised sentences here with percentages].’ The revised abstract can be found on page 2, lines 25–47 of the manuscript.”
This response illustrates several important principles: gratitude, agreement where appropriate, acknowledgement of the problem, and precise description of the corrective action.
4. The Dos: Best Practices for Responding to Reviewers
4.1 Do maintain a calm, respectful tone
Even when comments feel harsh or unfair, your tone should remain professional and courteous. Reviewers are usually unpaid volunteers; they have invested time in reading your work. Phrases such as:
- “We appreciate this suggestion…”
- “We agree that this point required clarification…”
- “This is an excellent observation, and we have now…”
help maintain a collegial atmosphere. Avoid sarcasm, rhetorical questions, or language that implies that the reviewer simply failed to understand your superb work.
4.2 Do address every comment
Editors and reviewers expect every point in the decision letter and review reports to be addressed. Skipping a comment, even if you consider it trivial, may give the impression that you are ignoring feedback selectively. If you decide not to act on a minor suggestion (for example, because it conflicts with journal style), say so explicitly and explain why.
4.3 Do make changes wherever you reasonably can
Even when you disagree with a suggestion, ask yourself whether there is a way to accommodate its underlying concern. Often, comments that seemingly “miss the point” signal that a section of your paper was unclear. By improving the explanation—even if you do not make the exact change requested—you demonstrate flexibility and a genuine desire to help readers.
4.4 Do explain and signpost changes clearly
When you describe a change, always indicate where it appears in the revised manuscript. This saves reviewers from having to hunt for modifications and shows that you have taken their time into account. A typical sentence might be:
“We have added a paragraph explaining the sampling criteria in Section 2.3 (page 7, lines 135–152).”
Some journals request that authors highlight changes in the manuscript (for example, using tracked changes or coloured text). Follow these instructions carefully, and ensure that the highlighted changes match the descriptions in your response letter.
4.5 Do seek help when needed
Replying to complex reviews can be challenging, especially if this is your first major revision. Discussing reviewer reports with co-authors or mentors can help you interpret comments and plan effective responses. If English is not your first language, consider asking a colleague or a professional academic proofreading service to check your response letter for clarity, tone, and correctness before submission.
5. The Don’ts: Pitfalls to Avoid
5.1 Don’t respond in anger or frustration
It is normal to feel defensive when your work is criticised. However, emails and letters written in the heat of the moment can cause lasting damage. Never submit a response the same day you read the reviews. Instead, draft your replies, then leave them for at least a night and re-read them with a cooler head. Remove or rephrase anything that sounds emotional, confrontational, or dismissive.
5.2 Don’t ignore major concerns
If reviewers raise substantive issues about your methods, analyses, or interpretation, simply stating “We respectfully disagree” without further argument is unlikely to satisfy the editor. When you cannot fully comply with a request—for example, because collecting new data is impossible within a reasonable timeframe—explain this clearly and offer alternative steps you have taken:
“We agree that additional data from a second site would strengthen the generalisability of our findings. Unfortunately, this is beyond the scope and timeframe of the current project. We have, however, expanded the discussion of this limitation in Section 5 (page 18, lines 390–410) and clarified the boundaries of our conclusions.”
5.3 Don’t misrepresent changes
Occasionally authors say “we have changed X” when, on close inspection, the modification is minimal or nonexistent. This erodes trust. If you decide to make only a small change, describe it honestly. It is better to say:
“We have slightly rephrased the sentence on page 10, line 210 to…”
than to claim a “thorough revision” when only cosmetic edits were made.
5.4 Don’t play reviewers against one another without care
Sometimes reviewers contradict each other. One may urge you to cut a section that another insists is vital. In such cases, do not simply choose whichever comment you prefer and ignore the other. Instead:
- explain the conflict in your response letter,
- justify your chosen approach, and
- where appropriate, ask for the editor’s guidance.
For example:
“Reviewer 1 suggested removing Figure 2, while Reviewer 2 emphasised its importance. We have retained the figure but simplified the caption and cross-referencing, as we believe it is helpful for readers. We would be happy to follow further guidance from the editor on this point.”
6. When and How To Disagree with Reviewers
You are not obliged to accept every suggestion. There are legitimate reasons to decline a change, including:
- the suggestion is factually incorrect or based on a misunderstanding of your data,
- implementing it would harm the integrity of the study or misrepresent your findings, or
- the requested work is clearly beyond the reasonable scope of the current project.
However, any disagreement must be argued calmly and backed by evidence or clear reasoning.
Useful phrases include:
- “We appreciate this suggestion but believe that…”
- “We respectfully disagree for the following reasons…”
- “We have considered this point carefully; however, our data do not allow us to…”
Where possible, support your position with citations or methodological standards in your field. For example:
“The reviewer recommends using test X instead of test Y. In our field, test Y is the standard approach for data of this type (see Smith et al., 2020; Lee & Gomez, 2022), and applying test X would violate the assumption of independence. We therefore retain test Y but have expanded Section 3.3 to justify this choice more clearly (page 9, lines 190–210).”
7. Involving the Editor Constructively
Editors are not passive message carriers between authors and reviewers; they are responsible for balancing different viewpoints and making informed decisions. If you encounter:
- irreconcilable reviewer conflicts,
- comments that seem unprofessional or outside the scope of the review, or
- requests that contradict journal policy,
you can bring these issues to the editor’s attention—politely and briefly. For example:
“We are grateful for the detailed feedback from both reviewers. We note, however, that their recommendations regarding the length of the introduction are directly opposed: Reviewer 1 suggests a substantial reduction, while Reviewer 2 requests further background information. We have tried to strike a balance by streamlining some sections and adding two clarifying paragraphs (pages 3–4). We would welcome the editor’s guidance on whether additional changes are required.”
Editors appreciate authors who engage constructively with the process and recognise the editor’s role in resolving such dilemmas.
8. Final Checks Before Submission
Before uploading your revised manuscript and response letter, perform a final set of checks:
- Have you addressed every comment from the editor and reviewers?
- Is the response letter clearly structured, easy to follow, and free of typographical and grammatical errors?
- Do the revisions in the manuscript match the changes you describe?
- Have you followed all journal-specific instructions for resubmissions (file naming, track changes, highlighting, etc.)?
It is often worth having a colleague read your response letter to check whether your tone and explanations are clear. For important submissions, many authors also use professional academic proofreading to improve precision and polish.
9. Conclusion: Professionalism, Patience and Persistence
Responding to peer review comments is an integral part of scholarly publishing. It demands not only technical knowledge of your field, but also diplomacy, attention to detail, and the ability to see criticism as an opportunity rather than a personal attack. A revision request, however daunting, is a sign that editors and reviewers see value in your work.
By reading the feedback carefully, planning your revisions, and crafting a clear, respectful, point-by-point response, you greatly increase your chances of turning a “revise and resubmit” into an eventual acceptance. When you disagree, doing so with evidence and courtesy shows that you are a confident, responsible researcher. When you agree, implementing changes thoroughly and transparently demonstrates your commitment to quality.
Above all, remember that peer review is a conversation. Your response letter is your side of that conversation. Treat it with the same care and professionalism that you apply to your research itself, and it will become a powerful tool in your publishing success.
