Use this structure when an editor asks for major revisions, minor revisions, or a revised manuscript with tracked changes. Then let Peereply turn the same reviewer comments into a strategy board, response draft, citation angles, and export-ready package.
Replace the bracketed text with your reviewer comments, manuscript sections, citations, and line numbers. If the review is complex, build a strategy board before drafting.
Dear Editor and Reviewers, We thank the editor and reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript. The comments were constructive and helped us improve the clarity, rigor, and presentation of the work. Below, we provide a point-by-point response. Reviewer comments are shown first, followed by our response and the changes made in the revised manuscript. Summary of major changes - [Major change 1] - [Major change 2] - [Major change 3] Reviewer 1 Comment 1.1: [Paste reviewer comment] Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that [issue] required clarification. We have revised [section] to explain [specific change]. The revised manuscript now states: "[brief revised text or summary]." This change appears in [section/line numbers]. Comment 1.2: [Paste reviewer comment] Response: We appreciate the reviewer raising this point. To address it, we have [added analysis / revised figure / added citation / clarified limitation]. These changes are included in [section/line numbers]. Reviewer 2 Comment 2.1: [Paste reviewer comment] Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have updated the manuscript to [specific action]. We also added [citation or explanation] to support this revision. Closing We hope the revised manuscript and the responses below satisfactorily address the reviewers' concerns. We are grateful for the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript.
A template is safer when each response names the action, evidence, and manuscript location.
Dear Editor and Reviewers, We thank the editor and reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript. The comments were constructive and helped us improve the clarity, rigor, and presentation of the work. Below, we provide a point-by-point response. Reviewer comments are shown first, followed by our response and the changes made in the revised manuscript.
Reviewer comment: [Paste the reviewer comment here] Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We agree that [issue] needed clarification. We have revised the manuscript to [specific change]. This change appears in [section/paragraph/line numbers].
Reviewer comment: [Paste the reviewer comment here] Response: We appreciate the reviewer raising this point. We considered this suggestion carefully. However, we retained [method/interpretation/analysis] because [brief scientific reason]. To make this clearer, we have added [new explanation, limitation, or citation] in [section/line numbers].
Reviewer comment: [Paste the reviewer comment here] Response: We agree that additional context would strengthen the manuscript. We have added and discussed relevant literature on [topic], including [citation placeholders]. The revised text now better explains how our findings relate to prior work.
Reviewer comment: [Paste the reviewer comment here] Response: We understand the reviewer's interest in this additional experiment. Unfortunately, [constraint] prevents us from performing it within the scope of the current revision. We have addressed the concern by [alternative analysis, expanded limitation, additional explanation, or citation support] and have clarified this limitation in the Discussion.
A static template gives you structure. Peereply gives you the revision workflow around it: risk triage, reviewer-by-reviewer strategy, evidence needs, citation angles, manuscript edits, and export-ready response language. That is the gap general academic writing tools do not own.
A response to reviewers should include a short opening note, a summary of major changes, every reviewer comment, a specific response to each comment, and the exact manuscript change or location where the issue was addressed.
Yes, but the disagreement should be respectful, evidence-based, and specific. A strong response acknowledges the concern, explains the scientific reason for not making the requested change, and adds clarification or limitations where useful.
Usually yes. Including the revised text or a concise summary makes it easier for editors and reviewers to verify what changed without searching through the manuscript.
