How to Write a Response to Reviewers (Template and Examples)

What is a response to reviewers letter? ¶

A response to reviewers (also called a rebuttal letter or reply to reviewers' comments) is a document you submit with a revised manuscript. It lists each reviewer comment, your answer, and exactly where and how you changed the paper. Its purpose is to let the editor and reviewers verify, quickly and without searching, that every point has been addressed.

A clear response letter often matters as much as the revision itself. Reviewers who can see their concerns handled one by one are more likely to recommend acceptance in the next round. A vague letter ("we have revised the manuscript accordingly") invites another round of questions.

Before you write: read, wait and sort the comments ¶

Critical reviews are hard to read. Most experienced authors read the decision letter once, put it away for a day, and then return to it with a plan.

1. Copy every comment into a table and number it: R1.1, R1.2, R2.1 and so on. Split long comments that contain several requests.
2. Classify each one: minor (wording, typos, references), substantive (analysis, interpretation, missing literature) or major (new data, design concerns).
3. Note the editor's priorities. If the editor highlights certain points, address those most thoroughly.
4. Plan the work: who on the author team handles each point, and what new analysis or text is needed.
5. Check the deadline and ask the editor for an extension early if new experiments are needed.

How to structure a point-by-point response ¶

Responses that say only "Done" frustrate reviewers. One sentence explaining the change is the minimum.

Most journals accept a letter with three parts. Check the decision letter in case the journal wants a specific format or wants responses entered into a submission form.

1. Opening note to the editor

Thank the editor and reviewers in two or three sentences, and summarize the main changes in a short list. This helps an editor who may not reread the full manuscript.

2. Point-by-point replies

For each comment, use the same three elements:

• Comment: the reviewer's words, quoted in full (in italics or a different color).
• Response: a direct answer. Start with what you did: "We agree and have added..." or "We have clarified...".
• Change: the revised text in quotation marks, with page and line numbers in the revised manuscript.

3. Closing

One or two lines confirming that all authors approve the revision, and noting any other changes you made that no reviewer asked for, such as corrected typos or an updated reference.

Number pages and lines in the tracked version and refer to those numbers consistently. If line numbers shift between versions, state which version you are citing.

Tone: how to answer reviewer comments politely ¶

Write as if the reviewer is a respected colleague who has given you their time, because they have. A calm, factual tone also makes disagreement easier for the editor to accept.

Thank the reviewers at the start of the letter and when a comment is especially helpful. Repeating "We thank the reviewer for this excellent comment" before every reply adds length without meaning. Keep sentences short and plain, which also helps if English is not your first language.

How to handle disagreement with a reviewer ¶

You do not have to accept every suggestion. You do have to respond to every one. When you disagree, follow these steps:

1. Acknowledge the concern and show that you understand why it was raised.
2. Give your reason with evidence: citations, data, a supplementary analysis or a methodological standard.
3. Offer a middle path where you can: a sentence in the limitations, a sensitivity analysis in a supplement, or a clearer explanation.
4. Address the editor if two reviewers give contradictory advice. Explain which option you chose and why, and invite the editor's guidance.

Response to Reviewers

Manuscript ID: [ID]
Title: "[Full manuscript title]"

Dear Dr. [Editor's surname],

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are grateful to you and the reviewers for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have improved the paper. We have addressed every comment below. Reviewer comments are shown in italics, followed by our response and the revised text. Page and line numbers refer to the tracked-changes version of the revised manuscript.

Summary of main changes:
1. [e.g., Added socioeconomic covariates to the main regression model (Table 3)]
2. [e.g., Expanded the Methods to describe randomization and blinding]
3. [e.g., Updated the literature review with studies published since 2022]
4. [e.g., Revised the Discussion to clarify limitations]

---

REVIEWER 1

Comment 1.1: [Paste the reviewer's comment in full.]
Response: [We agree / Thank you for this point. State what you did in one to three sentences.]
Change: [Quote the revised text.] (p. [X], lines [X to X])

Comment 1.2: [Comment]
Response: [Response]
Change: [Revised text] (p. [X], lines [X to X])

REVIEWER 2

Comment 2.1: [Comment]
Response: [If you disagree: We appreciate this suggestion. We have not made this change because [reason with evidence or citation]. To address the underlying concern, we have [partial change or clarification].]
Change: [Revised text, if any] (p. [X], lines [X to X])

EDITOR'S COMMENTS (if any)

Comment E.1: [Comment]
Response: [Response]

ADDITIONAL CHANGES
[List any changes not requested by reviewers, e.g., corrected typographical errors, updated a reference, renumbered figures.]

All authors have read and approved the revised manuscript and this response. We hope the revision is now suitable for publication in [Journal name].

Sincerely,

[Corresponding author's name], on behalf of all authors
[Institution]
[Email]

Sample journal reviewer comments with model replies ¶

These reviewer comments to author examples cover the requests authors meet most often. The comments and replies are illustrative.

If you receive a language comment, a field-matched edit from our manuscript editing service returns changes in Track Changes, so you can show reviewers exactly what was revised.

Reviewer comments after a rejection ¶

A rejection letter usually includes reviewer comments too. A typical reviewer comments reject example reads: "The study addresses a relevant question, but the sample is too small to support the conclusions, and the contribution beyond previous work is limited."

You rarely write a formal response in this case. Instead:

• Use the comments to improve the paper before sending it to another journal. The next journal may use the same reviewers.
• Appeal only if you believe there was a clear factual error in the review or a breach of process, and write calmly to the editor with evidence. Appeals succeed less often than resubmission elsewhere.
• If the decision is "reject and resubmit," treat it like a major revision and include a full response letter with the new submission.

Our guide on how to publish a research paper covers choosing the next journal.

Final checklist before resubmitting ¶

• Every comment is numbered and answered, including minor ones.
• Page and line numbers in the letter match the revised manuscript.
• Changes promised in the letter actually appear in the manuscript.
• The abstract, tables and figures reflect any new analyses.
• You have a tracked-changes version and a clean version.
• All co-authors have read and approved the revision and the letter.
• The resubmission is within the deadline, or the editor has approved an extension.

Reviewers act as advisers to the editor, and COPE's ethical guidelines ask them to be constructive and objective. Your letter should meet the same standard. If you would like help checking that your response is complete and well formatted, Copperplate's journal submission support reviews the letter and revised manuscript with you, and you keep full authorship of both.