Your paper came back with “major revisions” and three pages of comments: where do you start? First, recognize that a revise-and-resubmit decision means the editor sees a publishable paper. What happens next depends largely on your response to reviewers: a clear, complete, polite letter that shows exactly what changed. A defensive or incomplete letter can lead to another round of revisions or a rejection after revision.
This article is part of our guide How to Write a Master’s Thesis by the Mastermind PhD team and relates to our Journal Article support service. Sources last checked: November 2026.
This guide gives a nine-step process, a point-by-point template, phrases for the right tone, and worked examples of replies, including how to disagree with a reviewer.
What is a response to reviewers? A response to reviewers (also called a rebuttal letter or response letter) is a document submitted with a revised manuscript. It quotes each comment from the editor and reviewers in turn, gives the author’s reply, and shows where and how the manuscript was changed, or explains why a requested change was not made. It is read by the editor and usually sent back to the reviewers.
The nine steps of a revision
Taylor & Francis Author Services describes a nine-step process that works for most journals:
- Catalog the revisions. List every requested change, including the editor’s own comments, grouped by editor and reviewer.
- Mark up where changes will go. Note the section or line for each comment, and spot where reviewers raise the same issue.
- Start with the biggest changes. Restructure or reanalyze first, so you do not polish text that will later be cut. Track all changes.
- Update your data. Provide revised tables and figures, and say whether the interpretation changed.
- Add a diagram if it helps. A study flow diagram can resolve confusion about design.
- Clarify misunderstandings. If a reviewer misread something, treat it as a sign that the text needs clearer framing.
- Decide where changes cannot be made. Some requests would need a new study or would change the interpretation; explain these in the letter.
- Write the response letter. Thank the editor and reviewers, quote each comment, reply, and show the revised text.
- Resubmit a clean manuscript. Upload a clean, anonymized version if the journal uses double-anonymized review, plus a tracked version if requested.
How should a response to reviewers be structured?
Frontiers and Taylor & Francis give consistent advice on format: group comments by source, number them, restate each comment in full, and show revised text in italics or a block quote so it stands apart from your commentary.
| Part | What it contains |
|---|---|
| Opening paragraph | Thanks to the editor and reviewers, and a two- or three-sentence summary of the main changes |
| Editor’s comments | Each comment quoted, followed by your reply |
| Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, and so on | Comments numbered (R1.1, R1.2), each with reply and location of the change |
| Revised text | The new wording quoted, with page and line numbers |
| Closing | A short statement that all comments have been addressed |
📱 Ask about journal publication support — Help choosing a suitable journal and meeting author guidelines, with a Turnitin report before submission.
Response to reviewers template
Adapt the brackets and keep the numbering consistent throughout.
Dear Dr [Editor],
Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, “[Title]” ([manuscript number]). We are grateful to the reviewers for their careful reading. The main changes are: [change 1], [change 2] and [change 3]. Below we respond to each comment; reviewer comments are in bold, our replies follow, and revised text is quoted with page and line numbers in the tracked manuscript.
Reviewer 1
R1.1 [Comment quoted in full.]
Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have [action]. The revised text now reads (p. [x], lines [y to z]): “[new text]”.R1.2 [Comment quoted in full.]
Response: [Reply.]We hope the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in [Journal].
Sincerely,
[Corresponding author], on behalf of all authors
Tone: phrases that work and phrases to avoid
The tone of a response to reviewers should be respectful and specific. Frontiers puts it simply: peer review is a dialogue, and it is acceptable to disagree respectfully if you explain why.
| Situation | Phrases that work | Phrases to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| You agree | “We agree and have revised…” / “Thank you; we have added…” | “As requested, we did it.” |
| The reviewer misread | “We have clarified this point, as our original wording was ambiguous.” | “The reviewer clearly did not read Section 3.” |
| You partly agree | “We have addressed this in part by… A full … would require …, which we note as a limitation.” | “This is beyond the scope.” (with no explanation) |
| You disagree | “We respectfully maintain…, because [evidence]. To address the concern, we have added…” | “We disagree.” (alone) |
| Two reviewers conflict | “Reviewers 1 and 2 offered different suggestions on this point; we followed … because …, and we would welcome the editor’s view.” | Silently following one reviewer |
Worked examples of replies
The comments below are fictional examples written for this guide, based on common requests in social science papers.
A request you accept.
R1.3 The sample is described only briefly. Please report response rate and exclusions.
Response: Thank you. We now report that 412 questionnaires were returned, 19 were excluded for incomplete responses, and the analytic sample is 393 (p. 7, lines 140 to 146).
A misunderstanding.
R2.1 It is unclear whether the scale was validated in this population.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this. Our original text was not clear. We have added the results of the confirmatory factor analysis conducted in our sample and cited the earlier validation study (p. 8, lines 160 to 171).
A request you decline, with reasons.
R2.4 The authors should collect longitudinal data to establish causality.
Response: We agree that longitudinal data would strengthen causal claims. Collecting them is not possible within this study, so we have revised the language throughout to avoid causal wording and added this point to the limitations (p. 18, lines 402 to 410).
Each reply thanks the reviewer, states the action, and points to the exact location. That is what lets a reviewer check your revision quickly.
Common mistakes in a response to reviewers
- Skipping comments. Unless the editor says otherwise, address every point, including minor ones and those from a reviewer who recommended rejection.
- Changing the manuscript without saying so. Unreported changes look careless and confuse re-review.
- Replying without changing the paper. A convincing explanation in the letter should usually also appear, briefly, in the manuscript.
- Arguing about tone. Even if a comment felt harsh, reply to its substance.
- Missing the deadline. If you need more time, ask the editor before the deadline expires.
📱 Ask on WhatsApp now — 5 years of experience across all disciplines and 14 academic services. Two-stage payment (80/20); revisions are free until supervisor approval, within 30% of the chapter.
Frequently asked questions
How long should a response to reviewers be?
As long as it needs to be to address every comment clearly. A long, well-organized letter is better than a short one that leaves comments unanswered. Use headings and numbering to keep it easy to follow.
Can I disagree with a reviewer?
Yes. Publisher guidance from Frontiers and Taylor & Francis both treat respectful, evidence-based disagreement as part of peer review. Explain your reasoning and, where possible, make a smaller change that addresses the concern.
Should I submit a tracked-changes version?
Follow the journal’s instructions. Many ask for a clean manuscript plus a marked version, and the response letter should give page and line numbers that match the version reviewers will see.
What if the reviewers contradict each other?
Point out the conflict politely, explain which approach you followed and why, and invite the editor’s view. Do not silently follow one reviewer.
Who should write the response to reviewers in a co-authored paper?
Usually the corresponding author drafts it, but all authors should review and approve it, because the letter commits everyone to the revised claims.
Sources
- Noble, W. S. (2017). Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(10), e1005730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730
- Taylor & Francis Author Services. How to respond to reviewer comments. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/blog/peer-review/how-to-respond-to-reviewer-comments/ (accessed November 2026)
- Frontiers. How to respond to reviewer comments. https://www.frontiersin.org/for-authors/submitting-research/how-to-respond-reviewer-comments (accessed November 2026)
- Elsevier Researcher Academy. How to respond to reviewers’ comments. https://researcheracademy.elsevier.com/node/161 (accessed November 2026)
- COPE Council. (2017). Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (Version 2). Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9
Sources last checked: November 2026. This article is general educational guidance and does not replace your university regulations or your supervisor’s instructions. How we prepare our content.