Par
Nathan Auyeung
—
How to Respond to Peer Review Comments: Examples, Template, and Tips for Researchers
Nathan Auyeung
Expert-comptable senior chez EY
Diplômé avec une Licence en Comptabilité, suivi d'un Diplôme de Postgraduate en Comptabilité
Getting a revise and resubmit decision is good news. It means the journal wants your paper. But sitting down to respond to 47 reviewer comments is a different kind of challenge. The response letter is something most researchers figure out on their own, which is exactly why so many get it wrong.
This guide shows you how to respond to peer review comments step by step: real examples of how to phrase your replies, a template you can use immediately, and guidance on how to handle the cases where you disagree with a reviewer.
<CTA title="Fix the Issues Before You Resubmit" description="Use Jenni to strengthen your revised manuscript. Verify your claims, close citation gaps, and polish before sending it back." buttonLabel="Try Jenni Free" link="https://app.jenni.ai/register" />
What Editors Are Actually Looking for in Your Response
Editors read the response letter as evidence of how seriously you engaged with the review. It is not a formality. Editors read it alongside the revised manuscript to assess whether the concerns raised were thoroughly addressed or just acknowledged. Three things matter most:
Completeness: Every comment addressed, even if your answer is "we respectfully disagree."
Clarity: Easy to trace exactly where each change was made in the manuscript.
Professionalism: No defensiveness, no dismissiveness, no arguing in circles.
A response letter that skips even one comment, however minor, signals to the editor that the revision was not thorough. Completeness is non-negotiable. Understanding the types of peer review your journal uses can also inform how formal your response needs to be. Open review processes, for example, may require more detailed explanations since your response can become part of the public record.
How to Structure Your Response Letter
The Opening Paragraph
Start with a brief professional acknowledgement. One or two sentences is enough. Keep it sincere and specific, not formulaic. Avoid openers that could apply to any manuscript. Reference the reviewers' constructive engagement where it is warranted.
"We would like to thank the editor and the two reviewers for their thorough and constructive feedback. We have carefully addressed each comment below and believe the manuscript is significantly stronger as a result."
The Comment-Response Format
Quote every reviewer comment verbatim before writing your response. Never paraphrase. Paraphrasing introduces ambiguity about what you are actually responding to, and editors notice the difference.
The format is simple: quote first, then respond directly below.
Reviewer 1, Comment 3: "The discussion section overstates the generalizability of the findings given the sample size."
Response: "We agree with this concern. We have revised the final paragraph of the Discussion (page 14, lines 312-318) to limit our generalizability claims to the specific population studied. We have also added a limitations subsection that addresses this directly."
<ProTip title="📌 Reminder:" description="Always quote the reviewer comment verbatim before your response. Never paraphrase it. Paraphrasing introduces ambiguity about what you are actually responding to." />
How to Disagree Respectfully
Disagreeing is completely acceptable. Think of it as presenting a counter-argument to a colleague, not defending yourself. Be specific, stay professional, and point the editor to evidence that supports your position.
"We appreciate the reviewer's concern regarding the choice of statistical model. However, we respectfully maintain our original approach because [specific reason]. We have added a footnote on page 8 explaining this methodological decision in greater detail."
Research confirms that respectful disagreement is a normal part of the peer review process. What editors want to see is that you engaged with the concern seriously, even when you do not accept the conclusion. A well-argued pushback is far more credible than a forced concession.
How to Respond to Peer Review Comments, Step by Step
Work through these steps in order. Skipping ahead to writing responses before you have read everything is the most common source of errors in revision letters.
Step 1 — Read Everything Before Responding to Anything
Read all reviewer comments from start to finish before writing a single word. Sometimes Reviewer 2's comment explains why Reviewer 1's comment felt contradictory. Reading the full picture first prevents you from making changes that conflict with each other. It also helps you spot patterns: two reviewers asking for the same clarification means it is worth addressing in detail.
Step 2 — Categorize Each Comment
Before writing, sort every comment into one of three categories. This gives you a clear sense of the revision scope before you commit to any changes.
Easy fix: Factual corrections, typos, minor clarifications you can address quickly.
Major revision: Requests for new analysis, restructuring, or additional data that require significant work.
Disagreement: Cases where you believe the reviewer is factually incorrect or the request falls outside the paper's scope.
Step 3 — Build Your Response Table
Before writing the formal letter, build a tracking table in a Google Doc or Word file. Columns: Reviewer number, Comment number, Summary of comment, Your planned response, Manuscript location of change. This becomes your master document and ensures nothing slips through.
<ProTip title="💡 Pro Tip:" description="Build the table in a Google Doc or Word file before writing your formal letter. It becomes your master tracking document and makes it almost impossible to accidentally miss a comment." />
Step 4 — Write Your Responses with Precise Manuscript References
Every response needs to point the editor to exactly where the change was made. Vague responses like "we have revised the manuscript accordingly" frustrate reviewers and fail to convince editors. Use specific page and line numbers every time.
"We have revised [section] on page X, lines Y-Z to address this concern."
"We have added a new paragraph in the Discussion (page 12) explaining..."
"The figure has been updated to include error bars as requested (now Figure 3)."
<ProTip title="📝 Note:" description="If a reviewer asks for something you cannot do, explain why clearly and offer an alternative. A well-reasoned response explaining what you have done instead is always better than silence." />
Step 5 — Track Changes in the Manuscript
Submit your revised manuscript with tracked changes enabled so reviewers and editors can see exactly what changed and where. Also include a clean copy without tracked changes. Check the journal's submission guidelines first, as some journals ask for clean copies only.
Response to Reviewers Template
Copy and save this as your base file. Fill it in for every revision you submit. The structure works across journals and disciplines, so you are never starting from scratch again.
<ProTip title="💡 Pro Tip:" description="Save this template as a base file and fill it in for every revision you submit. The structure is consistent across journals, so you are never starting from a blank page again." />
How to Use Jenni to Draft Your Response Letter
Jenni can help you work through the manuscript revisions themselves so your responses are grounded in a stronger, more rigorous draft. Start with the substance, then sharpen the language — for a structured walkthrough of the manuscript edits themselves, see our how to revise a research paper guide.
Step 1: Open your revised manuscript in Jenni Upload your revised manuscript to the Jenni document library. Keep it alongside your original version if you want to compare changes directly during the response process.
Step 2: Verify that your revised claims are properly supported
Before writing your responses, confirm that the changes you made actually hold up. Open AI Chat with your document selected and run this prompt:
"Check whether the claims in my revised Discussion section are all supported by cited sources"
Step 4: Run Jenni Reviews one final time before submitting Before you send the revised manuscript back, run one final pass through the Jenni Reviews feature. Editing can introduce new issues, and the last thing you want after a thorough revision is a new unsupported claim slipping through.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long should a response to reviewers be?
A response to reviewers should be as long as it needs to be to address every comment thoroughly. Most responses run between two and six pages depending on the number of comments. There is no maximum. What matters is that every reviewer comment is addressed clearly, with specific manuscript references where changes were made.
What if I disagree with a reviewer?
Disagreeing with a reviewer is acceptable and sometimes necessary. Quote the comment verbatim, explain your reasoning clearly, and point the editor to evidence supporting your position. Never dismiss a concern without engaging with it. A well-argued disagreement is far more credible to an editor than a forced concession.
Do I have to make every change a reviewer suggests?
No. You are not required to accept every suggestion, but you must address every comment. For changes you decline, explain why clearly and offer an alternative where possible. Editors understand that reviewers sometimes ask for things outside the scope of a paper. A clear, professional explanation is always sufficient.
What does revise and resubmit mean?
Revise and resubmit means the journal is interested in your paper but requires changes before it can be accepted. It is not a rejection. The editor wants you to address the reviewer comments and send a revised manuscript with a detailed response letter explaining every change you made.
Should I use track changes when resubmitting?
Yes, in most cases. Submit your revised manuscript with tracked changes enabled so the editor and reviewers can see exactly what was changed and where. Also include a clean copy without tracked changes. Check the journal's submission guidelines first, as a small number of journals ask for clean copies only.
Your Response Letter Is Part of the Paper
A strong response is not just a formality. It is part of how your paper gets accepted. Editors read it carefully. Treat it with the same rigor you applied to the manuscript itself: be specific, be professional, and give reviewers a clear path to see that you took their feedback seriously.
<CTA title="Make Your Revision Stronger Before You Resubmit" description="Use Jenni to verify your revised claims, close citation gaps, and check your manuscript is ready for round two." buttonLabel="Try Jenni Free" link="https://app.jenni.ai/register" />
Once your response is submitted and the paper comes back for a final check, use Jenni to run one last review of your manuscript. If you are preparing to write a review yourself rather than respond to one, start with our guide on how to write a peer review report. For more guidance on navigating the revision process, see our peer review feedback tips.