How to respond to reviewer comments

Read the decision letter correctly

"Major revision" and "minor revision" both mean the journal is still interested. Neither is a promise of acceptance. The editor's letter matters more than any single review: it tells you which points the editor considers essential, and it sets the deadline.

Before you write anything

1. Read all the comments once, then leave them for a day. First reactions make poor replies.
2. Copy every comment into a table, one row each, numbered by reviewer.
3. Mark each as accept, accept in part, or decline, and note the work it needs.
4. Flag comments that conflict with each other, and comments that rest on a misreading. A misreading usually means the text was unclear and should be revised anyway.
5. Agree the plan with your co-authors before revising.

Revise the manuscript first

Make the changes, then write the letter from what you actually did. Use tracked changes or highlighting if the journal asks for it, and keep a clean copy. Record the page and line of each change as you go; finding them afterwards is slow and error-prone.

Layout of a point-by-point response

Repeat that pattern for every comment from every reviewer and the editor. Begin the letter with a short note to the editor thanking the reviewers and summarising the main changes in three or four lines.

Tone

• Thank the reviewers once, at the start. Repeated thanks read as filler.
• Answer the point made. Do not answer a different, easier point.
• Be specific: "we have added a robustness check in Table 4" rather than "we have addressed this".
• Stay courteous when a comment is mistaken or sharply worded. The editor reads your reply as evidence of how you work.

When you disagree

State the reviewer's point fairly, give your reason, and support it with evidence or citations. Where you can, make a smaller change that meets the underlying concern, such as acknowledging a limitation. Decline plainly; do not claim to have made a change you have not made.

Checklist before resubmitting

• Every comment has a numbered reply.
• Every claimed change exists at the page and line stated.
• New analyses are reported in the manuscript, not only in the letter.
• The abstract, tables and references reflect the revisions.
• The files match what the journal's revision instructions ask for.
• The revision is submitted before the deadline, or an extension was requested in advance.

Sources and further reading

Your journal's instructions for revised submissions are the authority. For standards of conduct in peer review and authorship, see the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the ICMJE Recommendations.