How to respond to peer review comments

A decision letter sitting in your inbox is one of the more charged moments in academic life. Even a “major revisions” verdict — which can feel like a setback — is more often an invitation: the journal wants your paper, and it is telling you what needs to change before it can say yes. Knowing how to respond to reviewer comments well is a learnable skill, and the craft of the response-to-reviewers letter is something that improves with deliberate attention. This guide walks through the entire process, from opening the decision letter to submitting a polished response.

For the broader context on how peer review works, see our guide to peer review.

Step 1: Read the decision letter and sit with it

The instinct to open the reviews and start composing rebuttals is understandable but counterproductive. Before you write a single word:

1. Read the editor’s letter first, not the reviews. The editor has already interpreted the reviewers. Their letter tells you what actually matters to the journal — regardless of the length or tone of what the reviewers wrote.
2. Note the decision type. Accept (rare at first submission), minor revisions, major revisions, revise and resubmit, and reject each carry a different practical implication. Minor revisions typically signal that the journal is confident the paper is publishable and wants polish. Major revisions mean reviewers have substantive scientific or methodological concerns.
3. Give yourself a day. Frustration at comments you consider unfair is legitimate. Writing while frustrated produces responses that read as defensive. A night’s sleep is worth more than an extra hour of writing time.

Step 2: Triage the comments

Not all comments carry equal weight. Before drafting your response, work through every comment and categorize it:

• Required changes: comments the editor has explicitly flagged, and any comment that identifies a genuine gap in your argument, method, or evidence.
• Reasonable improvements: comments you may partially disagree with but that a neutral reader might share. Accepting these builds goodwill and usually strengthens the paper.
• Optional or misguided: comments rooted in a misreading of your work, a request that falls outside the paper’s scope, or a recommendation you have good evidence to decline. You will still respond to these — just differently.

Create a working document that lists every numbered comment alongside your planned response. Color-coding helps. Do not skip any comment, even those you find trivial; an unanswered comment signals to the editor that you missed it.

Step 3: Structure your response-to-reviewers letter

The response letter is a document submitted alongside your revised manuscript. Its job is to make the editor’s life easy: they should be able to read it and see clearly that every concern has been addressed.

The opening paragraph

Thank the editor and reviewers briefly and genuinely. State that you have addressed all comments and, if your revision is substantial, flag the most important changes up front in a sentence or two.

Point-by-point structure

For each reviewer, respond to each numbered comment in order. The convention that works best across disciplines:

Reviewer 2, Comment 3

Original comment: [paste the reviewer’s exact words]

Our response: [your response]

Manuscript change: [exact location — “p. 8, paragraph 3” or “Methods, second paragraph”]

This structure leaves nothing implicit. The editor sees the original comment, your reasoning, and where in the manuscript the change lives — without toggling between documents.

Copy-paste response letter template

The following is a reusable template. Adapt the language to your field and the specific decision type.

Dear [Editor's name],

Thank you for coordinating the review of our manuscript, "[Title]"
(Manuscript ID: [ID]). We are grateful to the reviewers for their
thorough and constructive engagement with our work. We have addressed
all comments and describe our revisions in full below.

---

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1

Comment 1.1
[Paste original reviewer comment verbatim]

Response:
[Your response. Begin with a sentence acknowledging the comment,
then explain your reasoning or the change you made.]

Manuscript change:
[Page/section/line reference]

---

Comment 1.2
[Paste original reviewer comment verbatim]

Response:
[Your response]

Manuscript change:
[Page/section/line reference]

---

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2

[Continue the same format for each reviewer and each comment]

---

We hope these revisions address the concerns raised. We look forward
to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
[Author names]

For longer annotated examples across different disciplines, see our response to reviewers sample.

Three example responses for common situations

1. When you agree with the reviewer

Clear, brief, and action-oriented. Do not over-explain.

Comment: The discussion of limitations is too brief and does not address the small sample size.

Response: We agree. We have substantially expanded the limitations section to address sample size directly, including a discussion of the statistical power implications and the conditions under which the findings should and should not be generalized. This addition appears on p. 14, paragraph 2.

2. When you partially disagree but can make a concession

Acknowledge what is valid in the criticism before explaining where you diverge.

Comment: The theoretical framework feels underdeveloped. The paper would benefit from grounding itself more explicitly in [framework X].

Response: We appreciate this suggestion. We agree that our theoretical framing could be made more explicit, and we have added a paragraph in the introduction situating our work within the broader literature (p. 3, paragraph 4). We have considered [framework X] carefully and, while it is relevant to a subset of our questions, we believe it would require assumptions that do not hold in our study context — specifically, [brief explanation]. We have noted this in a footnote on p. 4, so that readers familiar with [framework X] can see where the frameworks diverge.

3. When you decline the suggestion and have evidence for doing so

Polite, direct, and evidence-backed. Do not apologize for your reasoning.

Comment: The regression model should include [variable Z] as a covariate.

Response: We have carefully considered this suggestion. Including [variable Z] is common in related work, and we tested this specification. The results — available in the revised supplementary materials, Table S4 — show that the addition of [variable Z] does not materially change our estimates: the key coefficient shifts from 0.42 (SE 0.11) to 0.41 (SE 0.12), and the conclusions are unchanged. We have retained our original specification to keep the model interpretable for our primary audience and have noted the robustness check in the Methods section on p. 9.

Major revisions versus minor revisions: what actually changes

Minor revisions typically involve clarifications, additional references, improved figures, or tightened language. The editor is usually already confident the work is publishable. Your response letter can be shorter; the emphasis is on showing that every small item has been handled carefully. Turnaround is usually expected within two to four weeks.

Major revisions signal that reviewers have substantive scientific or methodological concerns. Additional data collection, restructured arguments, or new analyses may be required. The response letter needs to work harder here — show reasoning, not just compliance. Editors often re-send major revisions to the original reviewers, so your response letter is read by a critical external audience, not just the editor. Give yourself the time the revision actually requires.

In both cases, treat the revision as an opportunity. A thoughtfully revised paper is nearly always stronger than the original submission.

See also our guide to journal submission for how revision timelines fit into the broader submission process.

Handling conflicting reviewers and a reviewer who is wrong

Conflicting reviewers

When two reviewers recommend opposite changes, do not attempt to satisfy both simultaneously — that rarely works, and the result often satisfies neither. Instead:

1. Make the best scientific judgment about which change strengthens the paper.
2. Explain the conflict openly in your response: “Reviewer 1 suggested X while Reviewer 2 suggested Y. After careful consideration, we have adopted [approach], for the following reasons: […].”
3. Look for what is valid in the suggestion you declined. Often there is something worth incorporating even from the weaker recommendation.

The editor has almost certainly noticed the conflict already. A candid, reasoned response reads as scholarly confidence, not defensiveness.

When a reviewer is wrong

This happens. A reviewer may have misread your methods, cited an inapplicable literature, or raised a concern that your data already answers. How you handle it matters:

• Never tell a reviewer they are wrong in those words. The relationship is asymmetric.
• Quote your own text or data that addresses the concern. If the reviewer missed something that was already in the paper, treat it partly as a communication failure and tighten the relevant passage.
• If the reviewer’s claim is factually incorrect, cite the evidence that shows this, professionally and without condescension.
• Ask yourself whether the misreading signals that other readers might make the same mistake. If so, a small clarification in the manuscript prevents the problem from recurring.

The goal is not to win the argument. The goal is to get the paper accepted.

Tone and etiquette: do’s and don’ts

Do:

• Thank reviewers genuinely in your opening paragraph.
• Number every comment and respond in order without exception.
• Quote the original comment before your response, verbatim.
• Be specific about where in the manuscript each change appears.
• Acknowledge good suggestions openly and warmly.
• Keep your tone professional even when you disagree.

Do not:

• Use dismissive phrases like “as already stated on p. 3” without restating the relevant content.
• Write long, defensive explanations when a brief one will do.
• Leave any comment unaddressed — if a comment is out of scope, say so: “We agree this is an important area; it falls outside the scope of the present paper and we have noted it as a direction for future work.”
• Express frustration about the time the revision required. This reads poorly regardless of how justified it is.
• Alter a reviewer’s quote when pasting it, even slightly.

Frequently asked questions

How long should a response to reviewers be?

There is no standard length. A minor revision might warrant two or three pages; a major revision with extensive new analyses can run ten or more. What matters is completeness — every comment addressed — and economy. Do not pad responses to seem thorough. Editors read many of these and appreciate clarity over volume.

Can I decline to make a change a reviewer requested?

Yes, provided you explain your reasoning clearly and politely. Reviewers are advisers, not editors. The editor makes the final decision. A well-reasoned decline is usually respected; an unexplained one is not. The example in the third scenario above shows a workable approach.

Should I use track changes in my revised manuscript?

Many journals request it. Check the submission guidelines before preparing your files. If no guidance is given, providing a tracked-changes version alongside a clean version is a courteous default, particularly for major revisions.

How do I handle a suggestion to add citations from one of the reviewers’ own papers?

This is a known and occasionally awkward situation. If the suggested papers are genuinely relevant, cite them. If they are not, decline briefly: “We have reviewed these references and, while they address a related question, we believe they fall outside the scope of the present argument.” Editors are aware that reviewers sometimes self-cite; a calm, non-accusatory response is sufficient.

What if I miss the revision deadline?

Contact the editor before the deadline, not after. A brief, professional note explaining the delay and requesting an extension is nearly always granted for a reasonable period. Journals rarely have more to gain from rejecting a revised paper than from allowing a short extension. Missing the deadline without communication, however, can result in the submission being treated as a withdrawal.

Is it acceptable to resubmit without making all the requested changes?

Only if you explain why, fully and professionally, in your response letter. Changes declined without explanation — particularly those flagged by Reviewer 1 or highlighted in the editor’s letter — are one of the most common reasons a revision is desk-rejected without going back out for review.

Pressure-test your revision before resubmitting

Revising in response to peer review is a particular kind of writing pressure: you are trying to satisfy specific critics while preserving the integrity of your argument. One of the most useful things you can do before submitting is have your revised manuscript read by a disinterested reader who has not seen the original reviewers’ comments.

PerfectPaper functions as an AI peer reviewer that reads your revised manuscript from scratch and surfaces the kinds of concerns a careful reviewer might raise — gaps in argument, unclear methods, unsupported claims, and structural weaknesses. Because it has no memory of your previous submission, it reads your revision the way a new reviewer would.

Before you resubmit, PerfectPaper can help you:

• Verify that the concerns raised in the original review have been addressed clearly enough for a reader who has not seen the original manuscript to follow.
• Catch new issues introduced during revision — a common hazard when restructuring sections or adding new analyses.
• Stress-test the passages you rewrote most heavily, which often need more attention than sections left untouched.
• Check that the claims in your response letter accurately reflect what the revised manuscript actually says.

The goal is not to preempt the reviewers — it is to resubmit with confidence that your revised paper is as strong as it can be.

Try PerfectPaper before your next resubmission.