The response letter is the document reviewers read first when your revision comes back, and often the only one they read carefully. A good one lets a reviewer confirm in ten minutes that every concern was heard and handled. A poor one sends them back into the manuscript hunting for changes, irritated before they start. This guide gives the format of a point-by-point response to reviewers that works at SCI and SSCI journals, with templates for each type of comment and examples of the tone that gets papers accepted.
修改稿返回时，回复信是审稿人最先阅读的文件，往往也是唯一会仔细阅读的文件。一封好的回复信让审稿人在十分钟内确认每个顾虑都被听到并处理。一封差的回复信让他们回到稿件里翻找改动，还没开始就已恼火。本指南给出适用于 SCI 和 SSCI 期刊的逐条回复审稿人格式，附各类意见的模板，以及让论文被录用的语气示例。
The format
One document, in this order. Editors and reviewers expect it, and deviations cost goodwill.
- Opening paragraph to the editor.Thank the editor and reviewers, state that all comments have been addressed, summarise the two or three largest changes in one sentence each, and note the page numbers of major additions.
- Reviewer by reviewer, comment by comment.Reproduce each comment verbatim, numbered. Below it, your response. Below that, the changed text or a precise pointer (section, page, lines) to it.
- A list of other changes.Anything you altered that no reviewer asked for, so nothing surprises them.
- Closing sentence.Brief thanks and availability for further clarification.
Reviewer comments in italics or a shaded box; your responses in plain text; quoted revised passages indented or in a different colour. Consistent numbering (R1.1, R1.2, R2.1) that matches the tracked-changes manuscript. Reviewers can then move between the two documents without losing their place.
格式
一份文件，按以下顺序。编辑和审稿人期望如此，偏离会损失好感。
- 致编辑的开头段。感谢编辑和审稿人，说明所有意见均已处理，用各一句话概括两三项最大的改动，并注明主要新增内容的页码。
- 逐位审稿人，逐条意见。逐字复制每条意见并编号。下方是您的回复。再下方是修改后的文字，或精确的指向（章节、页、行）。
- 其他改动清单。任何没有审稿人要求但您做的改动，以免让他们意外。
- 结束句。简短致谢，并表示可进一步说明。
审稿意见用斜体或底纹框；回复用正文格式；引用的修改段落缩进或用不同颜色。统一编号（R1.1、R1.2、R2.1），并与修订模式的稿件一致。审稿人便能在两份文件之间来回而不迷失位置。
Templates by comment type
| Comment type | Response pattern | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Essential fix | Agree, state what was done, point to it | "We agree. We have re-run the analysis controlling for firm size. The revised results appear in Table 3 and Section 4.2 (pp. 14 to 15). The main effect remains significant (β = 0.21, p < .01)." |
| Clarification | Thank, explain briefly, show the clarified text | "Thank you for pointing out this ambiguity. We intended X, not Y. We have rewritten the sentence (p. 6, lines 12 to 14) to read: '...'." |
| Addition you made | Agree, describe the addition, note its effect on conclusions | "We have added a robustness check using an alternative measure (Appendix B). The results are consistent with the main analysis; we note this on p. 17." |
| Addition you declined | Acknowledge value, give the concrete reason, add a limitation | "We agree a longitudinal design would strengthen causal inference. The data were collected at one time point and this cannot be changed; we now state this as a limitation (p. 21) and suggest it for future research." |
| Disagreement | Respect, evidence, concession where due, decision | "We appreciate this perspective. However, recent work (A, 2024; B, 2025) reports the same pattern in comparable samples, which we now cite (p. 9). We have softened our claim from 'demonstrates' to 'suggests' to reflect the reviewer's caution." |
| Contradiction between reviewers | Name both, choose with a reason, tell the editor | "Reviewer 1 asked us to shorten the literature review; Reviewer 2 asked for more on theory Z. We have condensed the general review by 400 words and added a focused paragraph on theory Z (Section 2.3), which we hope satisfies both concerns." |
Our post on how to respond to reviewer comments step by step expands each pattern, and how to disagree with a reviewer professionally covers the hardest row.
按意见类型的模板
| 意见类型 | 回复模式 | 示例 |
|---|---|---|
| 必须修正 | 同意，说明做了什么，指出位置 | "我们同意。我们已控制企业规模重新进行分析。修改后的结果见表 3 和第 4.2 节（第 14 至 15 页）。主效应仍然显著（β = 0.21，p < .01）。" |
| 要求澄清 | 致谢，简要解释，展示澄清后的文字 | "感谢您指出这一歧义。我们的本意是 X，而非 Y。我们已重写该句（第 6 页，第 12 至 14 行）为：'……'。" |
| 已做的补充 | 同意，描述补充内容，说明对结论的影响 | "我们已使用替代测量增加了稳健性检验（附录 B）。结果与主分析一致；我们在第 17 页对此作了说明。" |
| 拒绝的补充 | 承认价值，给出具体理由，加入局限性 | "我们同意纵向设计会加强因果推断。数据在单一时点收集，这无法改变；我们现已将其列为局限性（第 21 页），并建议作为未来研究方向。" |
| 意见分歧 | 尊重，证据，应让步处让步，决定 | "我们理解这一观点。然而，近期研究（A，2024；B，2025）在可比样本中报告了相同模式，我们现已引用（第 9 页）。我们已将表述从'证明'改为'表明'，以体现审稿人的审慎。" |
| 审稿人之间的矛盾 | 点明双方，有理由地选择，告知编辑 | "审稿人 1 要求缩短文献综述；审稿人 2 要求增加理论 Z 的内容。我们将一般性综述压缩了 400 词，并增加了一段聚焦理论 Z 的内容（第 2.3 节），希望能同时满足两方面的关切。" |
《如何逐步回复审稿意见》展开了每种模式，《如何专业地与审稿人不同意》讲解最难的那一行。
Tone: the three rules
First, every response begins by taking the comment seriously, even when you will decline it. "We thank the reviewer for this important point" is fine once; "the reviewer is mistaken" is never fine. Second, every response ends with a concrete action or a concrete reason. Third, never claim a change that is not in the manuscript. Reviewers check the pointer, and one false claim discredits the whole letter.
Language that works
- "We agree and have..."
- "To address this, we now..."
- "We have clarified this on p. X to read..."
- "We respectfully note that..."
- "We have added this as a limitation and a direction for future research."
Language that costs you
- "As we already explained in the original..."
- "The reviewer seems to have missed..."
- "This is beyond the scope" with no reason
- "We have addressed this" with no pointer
- "We strongly disagree"
Length and completeness
A response letter for a major revision at an SSCI journal commonly runs 10 to 25 pages, because comments are quoted in full and revised text is reproduced. That length is expected. What is not expected is a two-page summary that says "all comments addressed". Every comment, including the small ones and the ones you disagree with, gets its own numbered response. If a reviewer made twenty points, you make twenty responses.
语气：三条规则
第一，每条回复都以认真对待意见开头，即使您将拒绝它。"感谢审稿人提出这一重要观点"用一次没问题；"审稿人弄错了"永远不行。第二，每条回复都以具体的行动或具体的理由结尾。第三，绝不声称稿件中没有的改动。审稿人会核对指向，一处虚假声明会让整封信失去可信度。
有效的措辞
- "我们同意，并已……"
- "为回应这一点，我们现在……"
- "我们已在第 X 页澄清为……"
- "我们谨指出……"
- "我们已将此列为局限性和未来研究方向。"
有代价的措辞
- "正如我们在原稿中已经解释的……"
- "审稿人似乎忽略了……"
- "这超出了范围"却不给理由
- "我们已处理"却没有指向
- "我们强烈不同意"
篇幅与完整性
SSCI 期刊大修的回复信通常长达 10 至 25 页，因为意见全文引用、修改文字全部复现。这个长度是意料之中的。意料之外的是一份两页的总结，说"所有意见均已处理"。每一条意见，包括小的和您不同意的，都有自己编号的回复。审稿人提了二十点，您就回复二十条。
A worked opening paragraph
"Dear Professor [Editor], thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript [ID], and please convey our thanks to the three reviewers for their careful reading. We have addressed every comment; our responses follow, with reviewer comments in italics and revised text quoted. The three most substantial changes are: (1) a new robustness analysis using an alternative measure of X (Section 4.3, Appendix B), requested by Reviewers 1 and 3; (2) a rewritten theoretical framework that positions the study within theory Z (Section 2, pp. 5 to 9), requested by Reviewer 2; and (3) an expanded limitations section (pp. 21 to 22). A tracked-changes version of the manuscript is included. We hope the revised paper is now suitable for publication in [journal]."
Before you upload the response
- Every comment quoted verbatim and numbered
- Every response ends with an action or a reason
- Every pointer (page, section, line) verified against the final tracked manuscript
- Changes not requested by reviewers listed separately
- Tone checked by a co-author who was not angry
- Any comment skipped because it seemed minor
- Any "we have addressed this" without a location
A management researcher completed a major revision under an 11-day deadline with a response letter built exactly this way, and the paper was accepted in an SSCI journal after three earlier rejections. Read the case study → Our Review and Response Support service helps you structure, draft and check the response, and our post on our revision support process explains how we work alongside authors. For the stages before and after this one, read handling the decision letter and major revisions and changing journals.
一段开头范例
"尊敬的[编辑]教授：感谢您给予我们修改稿件[编号]的机会，并请代为感谢三位审稿人的仔细阅读。我们已处理每一条意见；回复如下，审稿意见为斜体，修改文字予以引用。三项最实质性的改动是：（1）应审稿人 1 和 3 的要求，新增使用 X 的替代测量的稳健性分析（第 4.3 节，附录 B）；（2）应审稿人 2 的要求，重写理论框架，将本研究置于理论 Z 之中（第 2 节，第 5 至 9 页）；（3）扩展了局限性部分（第 21 至 22 页）。随附修订模式的稿件。我们希望修改后的论文现已适合在[期刊]发表。"
上传回复之前
- 每条意见逐字引用并编号
- 每条回复以行动或理由结尾
- 每个指向（页、节、行）已对照最终修订稿核实
- 审稿人未要求的改动单独列出
- 语气已由一位没有生气的合著者检查
- 有意见因看似次要而被跳过
- 有"我们已处理"却没有位置
一位管理学研究者用完全按此方式构建的回复信，在 11 天期限内完成大修，论文在此前三次被拒后被一本 SSCI 期刊录用。阅读案例 → 审稿回复支持服务帮助您组织、起草和检查回复，《我们的修改支持流程》解释了我们如何与作者协作。本阶段之前和之后的内容，请读《解读决定信》和《大修与换期刊》。
Second-round responses
If the revision returns with further comments, the second response is shorter but follows the same rules. Quote each new comment, respond, point. Where a reviewer repeats a first-round concern, do not repeat your first answer word for word; acknowledge that the concern remains, and either make a further change or explain, with new evidence, why the current version is right. Editors read second-round responses closely for signs of an author who has stopped listening.
第二轮回复
如果修改稿带着新意见返回，第二次回复更短但遵循同样的规则。引用每条新意见，回复，指向。当审稿人重复第一轮的顾虑时，不要逐字重复第一次的回答；承认顾虑仍在，然后要么进一步修改，要么用新证据解释为何当前版本是对的。编辑会仔细阅读第二轮回复，寻找作者已停止倾听的迹象。
Add us on WeChat
Scan the QR code to reach the Research Ramp team directly on WeChat.
Scan to add as friend添加我们的微信
扫描二维码，直接联系 Research Ramp 团队。
扫码添加好友Get a second pair of eyes on your response
Upload the revised manuscript to the free Manuscript Health Checker before resubmission, or ask a PhD editor to review the response letter with you.
Upload your draft freeOr message us on WhatsApp or WeChat让第二双眼睛看看您的回复
重新提交前，将修改稿上传到免费的稿件健康检查工具，或请博士编辑与您一起审阅回复信。
免费上传初稿或通过 WhatsApp 或微信联系我们