A revision decision is good news — the editor sees enough promise to give your paper another chance. But that promise only converts into an acceptance if you respond well. The document you write back, the point-by-point response to reviewers, is where papers are won or lost at the revision stage.
This guide shows you exactly how to respond to reviewer comments: the mindset to adopt, how to structure your response letter, a worked example, and how to handle the comments you disagree with without losing the editor's goodwill.
papers that reach review are asked to revise before acceptance. A thorough, respectful response is what carries a major or minor revision over the line.
Responding to reviewers is the stage that follows a revision decision. If you are still making sense of the outcome itself, our overview of the complete peer review process explains what each decision means and where this step sits.
Before drafting a single reply, internalise these principles. They apply to every response you will ever write.
Before you write, read all the comments through once without reacting, then a second time making a list. Group them by theme and by effort: quick fixes, substantive changes, and points you may push back on. This stops you being overwhelmed by a long list and lets you see whether the reviewers are converging on the same underlying concern — which they often are. Tackle the substantive changes in the manuscript first, then write the response letter to describe what you did.
The standard format is a separate document that reproduces each reviewer comment in turn, followed immediately by your response. Open with a brief, warm note to the editor, then work through the reviewers in order.
Dear Dr [Editor], Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their careful and constructive comments, which have substantially improved the paper. Below we respond to each point in turn. Reviewer comments are shown in italics; our responses follow, with changes noted by page and line. REVIEWER 1 Comment 1.1: [reviewer's comment, quoted in full] Response: [what you did, where, and the new wording] Comment 1.2: ... REVIEWER 2 Comment 2.1: ...
Reproduce each comment in full so the reviewer does not have to hunt for context, and keep your responses in the same order the reviewer used. Quoting the revised text directly in your response saves the reviewer flipping back to the manuscript — a small courtesy that makes re-review noticeably smoother and signals that you have taken their time seriously.
Here is how the three most common types of response look in practice: full agreement, partial agreement, and respectful disagreement.
Reviewer comment
"The sample size is not justified. Why 214 participants?"
Response — agree & act
We thank the reviewer for this point. We have added a power analysis justifying the sample size (p. 8, lines 12–18) and now report the assumptions used.
Reviewer comment
"The discussion overstates the causal implications of a cross-sectional design."
Response — partially agree
We agree the causal language was too strong and have softened it throughout the discussion (pp. 15–16). We have retained the theoretical argument but reframed it as association rather than causation, and added this as a limitation (p. 17).
Reviewer comment
"The authors should remove the second study; it adds little."
Response — respectfully disagree
We appreciate this suggestion but respectfully retain the second study, as it provides the replication that reviewers of this design typically expect. To address the underlying concern about length, we have condensed its reporting (pp. 11–12) and clarified its distinct contribution (p. 10).
Notice the pattern even in disagreement: acknowledge the point, give a clear reasoned justification, and offer a constructive change that addresses the reviewer's underlying concern. For the trickier cases, see our guides on handling contradictory reviewer feedback and disagreeing with a reviewer professionally.
"You do not have to agree with every comment — but you do have to answer every one, with respect and a reason."
Common Mistake
Claiming you made a change that is not actually in the revised manuscript. Reviewers check. A response that does not match the paper destroys trust and can turn a winnable revision into a rejection.
Pro Tip
Submit a clean copy and a tracked-changes copy of the manuscript alongside your response. Reviewers can then see instantly what moved, which speeds re-review and signals that you have nothing to hide.
How you respond depends partly on the decision you received. The expectations for a minor revision differ from a major one — our guide to major revision vs minor revision explains how to calibrate the depth of your response to each. A minor revision usually calls for concise, targeted replies; a major revision expects fuller explanation and evidence that you have genuinely reworked the paper, not merely patched it.
A quick readiness scan helps confirm your changes hold together before re-review.
Knowing how to respond to reviewer comments is a craft, and a high-stakes one. Our Review & Response Support helps you plan the revision and shape measured, persuasive responses — while the scientific decisions and revisions remain entirely yours. We help you present them in the way most likely to win the editor over.
Real result
A management researcher worked through a demanding major revision, responding point by point to every reviewer comment, and secured an SSCI Q4 acceptance. The response letter was central to the outcome.
Read the Leadership Styles SSCI Q4 case study →Bring your decision letter and manuscript to a free consultation, and we'll help you plan a thorough, persuasive point-by-point response.
Get revision support →