How to Write a Response to Reviewers (Journal Revisions)

Getting a “major revision” decision feels like bad news, but it is usually the opposite: the editor thinks your paper could be publishable. The response letter is where most revisions are won or lost, because reviewers and editors read it before they re-read your paper. A clear, complete, polite letter makes acceptance much more likely.

The five rules

1. Answer every comment. All of them, including the ones you disagree with. A skipped comment is the fastest route to a second rejection.
2. Be polite, even when the reviewer is wrong or rude. You are writing for the editor as much as for the reviewer.
3. Say what you changed and where. Give the section, page, or line number, and paste new text where it helps.
4. Make it easy to check. Quote each comment, answer directly beneath it, and highlight changes in the manuscript.
5. Disagree with evidence. “We respectfully maintain our approach because [reason]” is fine. “The reviewer misunderstood” is not.

The structure of the letter

A good response letter has two parts. The first is a short cover note to the editor. The second is a numbered point-by-point response, organised by reviewer.

Part 1: A short cover note

Thank the editor and reviewers, then summarise the two or three most important changes, so the editor sees the improvement immediately. Keep it to a paragraph or two.

Part 2: Point-by-point responses

Number the comments (R1.1, R1.2, R2.1...) so everyone can follow. Use the same three-part block for each one:

Comment R1.1: [Paste the reviewer's comment exactly, unedited.]

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. [State how you addressed
it, in one to three sentences.]

Changes made: [Section 4.2, page 8, lines 12-20: describe the change, or
paste the new text in quotes.]

Wording for the tricky situations

Notice that the “misunderstood” response takes the blame for unclear writing. That keeps the tone collaborative, and it is honest: if a careful reader got confused, the text can probably be clearer.

Handling a harsh reviewer

Do not mirror the tone. Find the technical point underneath the harshness and answer that: “We understand the concern to be [neutral restatement]. We have addressed it by [change].” Editors notice who stays professional. If a comment is genuinely inappropriate, mention it briefly and politely to the editor in your cover note rather than arguing with the reviewer.

Before you send it

• Every comment from every reviewer, and from the editor, has a response.
• Every response says what changed and where, and the page and line numbers match the revised manuscript.
• Changes are highlighted in the manuscript (colour or tracked changes), and any new data or code statements are updated.
• A co-author has read the whole letter, and the tone is polite and non-defensive throughout.