Researcher Guide
How to Respond to
Peer Reviewers
A complete guide to writing point-by-point responses that satisfy editors, address reviewer concerns, and get your manuscript accepted.
Before you start responding
Receiving a decision with reviewer comments — whether major revisions, minor revisions, or a reject-and-resubmit — can feel overwhelming. Before writing a single word, do this:
- Read every comment from every reviewer in full without stopping to respond
- Let the feedback sit for 24–48 hours if the comments feel harsh — distance helps
- Note which concerns are shared across multiple reviewers (editors weight these heavily)
- Check the editor's decision letter for hints about which concerns are dealbreakers
If two reviewers contradict each other, acknowledge both views in your response letter and explain the position you have taken and why.
How to structure your response letter
A standard peer review response letter has three parts:
Opening paragraph
Thank the editor and reviewers by role (not name, since reviews are typically anonymous). Briefly summarize the major changes made. Keep this to 2–3 sentences.
Point-by-point responses
Address every comment individually. Quote or paraphrase the reviewer comment, then provide your response directly below. If you made a change to the manuscript, state exactly what changed and where.
Closing statement
A brief closing thanking the reviewers and expressing confidence in the revised manuscript. Optional but adds a professional touch.
Step-by-step: responding to each comment
Quote the comment
Copy the reviewer's exact words. This makes it easy for the editor to follow along without flipping between documents.
Acknowledge the concern
Start with a brief acknowledgment — even if you disagree. "We thank the reviewer for raising this point." This isn't empty flattery; it signals that you read the comment carefully.
State your response clearly
Either: (a) we agree and have made the following change, or (b) we respectfully disagree for the following reasons. Be specific — "we revised the methods section" is weak; "we added two paragraphs to lines 142–158 clarifying our sample exclusion criteria" is strong.
Cite supporting literature if relevant
For methodological or interpretive concerns, reference published literature that supports your approach. New citations added to the manuscript should also appear in your response.
Quote the revised manuscript text
Include the revised text directly in the response letter. Editors should not have to open the manuscript to verify you made the change.
Getting the tone right
Peer review is a collaborative process, even when it doesn't feel like it. The right tone is: professional, confident but not defensive, and always collegial.
Avoid
- ✕ "The reviewer has misunderstood our work"
- ✕ "This concern is outside the scope of this paper"
- ✕ "As we clearly stated in the methods..."
- ✕ Dismissing comments without explanation
Use instead
- ✓ "We appreciate this comment and have clarified..."
- ✓ "While a full analysis is beyond the current scope, we have added a limitation..."
- ✓ "We acknowledge the methods section was unclear and have revised..."
- ✓ Always explain your reasoning
How to disagree with a reviewer
You do not have to accept every suggestion. Reviewers are sometimes wrong, and editors know this. But how you disagree matters enormously.
Frame disagreement as a scientific difference of interpretation, not a personal correction of the reviewer's error.
A reliable structure for disagreeing:
- Acknowledge what prompted the reviewer's concern
- Explain the scientific reasoning for your original approach or interpretation
- Cite supporting literature where possible
- Offer a compromise if one exists (e.g., adding a limitation or clarifying a caveat)
Example: "We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We considered an alternative approach but retained our original method because [reason], consistent with [Author et al., Year] and [Author et al., Year]. We have added a note on this alternative in the Discussion (lines 287–291)."
Finding and using citations
Reviewers who raise scientific concerns want to see evidence, not argument. The fastest way to strengthen a response is a well-chosen recent citation.
- Search PubMed, Google Scholar, or Semantic Scholar for the specific concern raised
- Prefer high-impact, recent papers (last 5 years unless citing a foundational work)
- Add any new citations to both the response letter and the revised manuscript
- Don't cite papers you haven't read — reviewers sometimes ask follow-up questions
Peereply automatically searches PubMed and Crossref for citations relevant to each reviewer comment, verifies they exist, and formats them in your preferred citation manager style.
Tracked changes and revision letters
Most journals require a clean manuscript and a tracked-changes version showing every edit. Your response letter should reference line numbers in the revised manuscript so editors can verify changes instantly.
- Use Word's Track Changes or a comparable tool for the marked-up manuscript
- Reference specific line numbers or section headings in your response letter
- If you made broad language edits, note that in the opening paragraph rather than listing every change
- Export your response letter as a clean PDF — some journals require this format
Response letter templates
Opening (use for all responses):
We thank you and the reviewers for your careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the opportunity to revise and resubmit. We have addressed all reviewer comments point by point below. Major changes include: [1–3 sentence summary]. We believe the revised manuscript is substantially strengthened and hope it now meets the standards of [Journal Name].
Accepting a suggestion:
Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We agree and have revised [section] accordingly. The revised text now reads: "[Paste revised passage]" (lines X–Y).
Disagreeing with a suggestion:
Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this concern. We have considered this carefully and respectfully maintain our original approach because [scientific reason]. This is consistent with [Author et al., Year], who demonstrated [finding]. To address the underlying concern, we have added the following clarification to the [section] (lines X–Y): "[Revised text]".
Skip the blank page
Peereply reads your manuscript and reviewer comments, then drafts a complete point-by-point response — with citations — in minutes. You edit, approve, and export.
Try free — 10 credits included