Summary
Editorial requests can sting, but they are an invitation—not a verdict. A thoughtful, well-structured response letter often determines whether your manuscript advances to acceptance. This guide shows how to transform criticism into a constructive revision plan: thank the editor, map every point to an action, revise with evidence, and keep your tone gracious and precise—even when you disagree. Use a response matrix, quote-and-answer format, tracked changes, and clear page/line references to make the editor’s job effortless.
Key moves: pause before replying; sort comments into scientific, presentation, and policy/style; acknowledge good catches; implement analyses and clarifications; rebut respectfully when warranted; confirm compliance (ethics, data availability, word limits); and submit a clean + tracked file pair with a meticulous point-by-point letter.
Bottom line: respond as a collaborative scholar. Editors want to say “yes” to authors who are careful, courteous, and solution-oriented. A gentle, systematic reply turns a tough letter into a pathway to publication.
📖 Full Length (Click to collapse)
The Gentle Art of Responding to Journal Editors’ Requests
How to turn tough editorial letters into clear, courteous, and convincing revisions
An editorial decision email can feel like a blow: paragraphs of criticism, dense reviewer reports, and a list of changes you did not foresee. Yet an editor who invests time to explain what must change is offering something valuable—a route to acceptance. Your task is to respond with care: calm your first reaction, plan a systematic revision, and write a response letter that radiates professionalism, gratitude, and intellectual rigour.
1) Pause, Parse, Plan
- Pause. Give yourself 24 hours before drafting. Strong replies are rarely written in the first 15 minutes.
- Parse. Copy the editor’s summary and each reviewer report into a working document. Highlight actionable requests, factual corrections, and optional suggestions.
- Plan. Build a response matrix that maps every point to a concrete action, status, and manuscript location.
| Editor/Reviewer comment (verbatim) | Type | Action you’ll take | Where addressed | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| “Results section is lengthy; key trends obscured.” | Presentation | Condense §3.2; move tables T3–T4 to Supplement; add Figure 2 trend plot | Results p. 9–12; Fig. 2; Supp. S1 | Done |
| “Power analysis missing for primary outcome.” | Scientific | Add a priori power calc; justify n; report effect sizes & CI | Methods §2.4; p. 7 | Done |
| “Consider excluding Site B due to protocol deviation.” | Interpretation | Retain Site B; add sensitivity analyses; discuss limitation | Results §3.4; Supp. S3; Discussion p. 16 | Done |
2) Lead with Gratitude and Composure
Your opening paragraph sets the tone. Thank the editor and reviewers, signal that you have engaged deeply, and preview the major improvements.
Model opener:
Dear Dr [Surname], Many thanks for your detailed decision letter and the reviewers’ thoughtful comments on our manuscript, “[Title].” We have carefully revised the paper. Major changes include (i) a power analysis and clearer sampling rationale, (ii) condensed Results with new figure summaries, and (iii) added robustness checks and a fuller limitations section. Below we respond point-by-point; page and line references are to the clean manuscript.
3) Respond Point-by-Point (Quote, Answer, Evidence)
Use a three-part pattern for every item:
- Quote the comment (verbatim, in italics or quotes).
- Answer with your action or reasoned rebuttal.
- Evidence where to find the change (page/line) or what analysis/authority supports your position.
Reviewer 2: “Please justify the sample size.”
Response: We added an a priori power analysis (Methods §2.4, p. 7) showing n=142 exceeds the required n=128 for d=0.45 at α=.05, 1–β=.80. We also report effect sizes and 95% CIs throughout (Results p. 10–12).
4) Keep Your Tone Gentle—Especially in Disagreement
You may legitimately disagree. Do so with evidence and respect; propose a compromise if feasible.
Constructive disagreement template:
We appreciate the suggestion to remove Site B due to deviation X. Because Site B uniquely represents high-altitude contexts (the target of RQ2), exclusion would limit external validity. Instead, we (i) report analyses with and without Site B (Supp. S3), (ii) add a model with a deviation indicator (Results §3.4), and (iii) acknowledge this limitation (Discussion p. 16).
Avoid: “The reviewer is wrong,” “misunderstood,” or sarcasm. Replace with we have clarified, we now show, or we provide additional evidence.
5) Revise the Manuscript with Precision
- Methods: pre-specify analyses; add missing details (randomisation, blinding, inclusion/exclusion).
- Results: privilege clarity: fewer, sharper tables/figures; avoid duplication between text and tables.
- Discussion: right-size claims; integrate reviewer prompts; sharpen limitations and implications.
- Presentation: consistent terminology, units, and statistical reporting; correct reference style.
6) Submit Clean + Tracked Files (and Say So)
Editors and reviewers should be able to see changes instantly. Provide both versions and mention this in your letter.
We enclose a clean manuscript and a tracked-changes version highlighting all edits. New text is marked in blue in the tracked file. Figures 2–3 have been replaced at 600 dpi.
7) Address Policy and Compliance Notes Explicitly
- Word/figure limits: declare compliance after condensation.
- Ethics & consent: quote approval numbers; clarify consent procedures.
- Data & code: give repository DOIs or explain constraints with an access plan.
- Reporting standards: note CONSORT/PRISMA/STROBE/ARRIVE checklists where applicable.
8) Handle Conflicting Reviewer Requests
When Reviewer 1 and 2 ask for opposite changes, propose a principled resolution and ask the editor to adjudicate if needed.
Reviewer 1 requests more theory detail; Reviewer 2 requests a shorter introduction.
Resolution: We condensed general background (–220 words) and added a concise paragraph linking constructs X and Y to our hypotheses (p. 4). We hope this balances brevity with theoretical clarity; we welcome the editor’s preference.
9) Keep a Polished, Human Voice
- Thank often. Acknowledge helpful ideas by number: “We thank R2 for Points 3 and 5; both improved the paper materially.”
- Write plainly. Short sentences, active verbs, direct claims backed with data.
- Be consistent. If you adopt a term or notation in the response, mirror it in the manuscript.
10) Response Letter Architecture (Template)
- Heading: manuscript ID, title, authors, date.
- Thank-you paragraph + overview of major changes.
- Checklist confirmation: length, figures, ethics, data, style.
- Editor’s comments (quoted & answered in order).
- Reviewer 1 (quoted & answered point-by-point).
- Reviewer 2 (quoted & answered point-by-point).
- Closing: gratitude; invitation for further clarification.
11) Common Pitfalls (and How to Avoid Them)
| Pitfall | Why it harms | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Selective replies | Signals evasiveness; forces extra rounds | Respond to every point; use a matrix to ensure coverage |
| Defensive tone | Derails collaboration | Thank first; show evidence; propose compromises |
| Vague changes | Editors cannot verify | Give page/line refs; quote new/changed text when helpful |
| Missing files or low-res figures | Delays decision | Supply clean + tracked + high-res figures; confirm in letter |
| Reappearing errors | Undermines trust | Run a global style pass; professional proofreading if possible |
12) Sample Snippets You Can Reuse
Gratitude: We are grateful for the careful, constructive feedback. Several suggestions substantially strengthened the manuscript, especially those regarding [topic].
Adoption: We have adopted the reviewer’s recommendation to [action] and revised [section] accordingly (p. X).
Clarification: We realised our description was ambiguous; we have now clarified [concept] with a definition and example (Methods §2.1).
Respectful rebuttal: We appreciate this perspective. Because [constraint], we could not implement [suggestion]. Instead, we conducted [alternative] and discuss implications (p. Y). We hope this addresses the underlying concern.
13) Final Pre-Submission Checklist
- Every comment appears in the response letter with a corresponding reply.
- All new analyses are reproducible; code and data links work.
- Figures meet resolution/format specs; captions are self-contained.
- Word, reference, and figure limits satisfied; house style applied.
- Ethics approvals and data availability statements complete and consistent.
- Clean and tracked manuscripts generated from the same source file.
- Spelling/grammar checked; acronyms defined at first use.
14) If the Editor’s Request Exceeds Scope
Sometimes requests would materially change your research question or exceed resources. Offer a principled boundary and a partial accommodation.
We thank the reviewers for proposing a longitudinal extension. As this would require a new funding cycle and falls beyond the registered protocol, we cannot add a new wave. We now (i) temper causal language (p. 15), (ii) add a robustness check with lagged predictors (Supp. S4), and (iii) outline the longitudinal design for future work.
15) Etiquette Essentials
- Address the editor by name and spell it correctly.
- Use neutral, inclusive language.
- Do not speculate about reviewer identity in your letter.
- Meet deadlines or request an extension early with a brief rationale.
16) When to Seek Help
If your letter includes substantial language revisions, complex formatting, or style conversions, a professional subject-specialist proofreader can help ensure consistency and polish so presentation never distracts from substance. A colleague uninvolved with the project can also sanity-check tone and clarity—they are immune to your manuscript’s emotional weight and can spot unintended defensiveness.
Conclusion: Courtesy + Clarity = Credibility
Editors champion manuscripts that are accurate, well argued, and easy to process. Your response letter is the bridge between critique and that final “accept.” Lead with gratitude, respond point-by-point, revise visibly, and disagree—when you must—with evidence and grace. Do this, and even the toughest decision letters become opportunities to demonstrate scholarly maturity and to bring your work over the finish line.
