How to Respond to Peer Reviewer Comments
Getting a decision letter with peer reviewer comments — whether it asks for minor revisions, major revisions, or accompanies an outright rejection — is a normal part of academic publishing, not a signal that the work has failed. How you respond often matters as much as the revisions themselves: a clear, professional, point-by-point response letter makes it easy for an editor to see that every concern was taken seriously, while a defensive or incomplete one can sink an otherwise fixable manuscript. This guide walks through what to do when comments arrive, how to structure a response letter, and how to handle comments you disagree with.
Responding to peer reviewer comments means addressing every point a reviewer raised — point by point, in a separate response letter — explaining what you changed in the manuscript (or why you didn't) for each one. Start by reading all comments once, then set them aside briefly before planning revisions, so early defensiveness doesn't shape your response. Categorize comments (major, minor, methodology, statistics, writing), address the substantive ones in the manuscript itself, and use the response letter to point the editor and reviewers to exactly where each change was made. A professional, non-defensive tone matters even when you disagree with a comment.
Why Your Response to Reviewers Matters
Editors typically decide whether a revised manuscript is ready to move forward based heavily on the response letter, not just the revised manuscript itself — it's often the first thing they read, and it frames how they and the reviewers interpret the changes that follow. A thorough, well-organized response signals that the concerns were taken seriously, even for comments the author ultimately disagrees with. A thin, defensive, or incomplete response is one of the more common reasons a manuscript is rejected at the revision stage rather than at the initial review.
First Steps After Receiving Reviewer Comments
It's common advice to read through all the comments once in full before reacting to any single one, since an initial defensive reaction to a specific point often fades once the comments are seen in context. Many experienced authors recommend setting the comments aside for a day or two after that first read before planning revisions, so the response can be built from a clear head rather than in the moment. If you have coauthors, share the comments and agree on an overall revision plan before drafting responses, especially for any comment where the group might reasonably disagree with the reviewer.
Categorizing the Comments
Before drafting a response, it helps to sort comments into categories: major scientific or methodological concerns, statistical concerns, minor clarifications or wording issues, and formatting or reference-style requests. Major concerns — anything that could affect the study's conclusions, such as sample size, a missing control, or an alternative explanation for the results — need the most careful, substantive response and often require additional analysis or new text. Minor and editorial comments can usually be addressed quickly, but should still each get an explicit response rather than being folded silently into the revision.
Structuring a Point-by-Point Response Letter
A response letter conventionally opens with a short note to the editor thanking the reviewers and summarizing the overall revision, followed by each reviewer's comments reproduced in full, with the author's response immediately below each one. For every comment, the response should state clearly whether the point was addressed, briefly explain how, and point to exactly where in the revised manuscript the change appears (e.g. a page, section, or line number) so reviewers don't have to search for it. Reproducing the reviewer's original comment above each response, rather than paraphrasing it, keeps the letter easy for reviewers and editors to follow.
When You Agree With a Comment
For comments you agree with, revise the manuscript first, then write the response — describing the change made and where it appears, rather than only promising to make it. Where a comment leads to a substantive change (new analysis, additional data, a reframed argument), the response should explain not just that the change was made but briefly why it strengthens the manuscript, which helps the reviewer see the value of their suggestion rather than just a mechanical edit.
When You Disagree With a Comment
Disagreeing with a reviewer is a normal, accepted part of the process, as long as the disagreement is explained with evidence rather than simply asserted. A workable structure is to acknowledge the reviewer's point, explain the reasoning or evidence behind the original approach, and, where possible, offer a middle-ground clarification in the manuscript even if the underlying method or claim isn't changed — for example, adding a sentence acknowledging a limitation the reviewer raised. Comments should never be dismissed outright or left unaddressed, even ones considered mistaken; a respectful, evidence-based explanation is different from ignoring the concern.
Maintaining a Professional Tone
Tone in a response letter matters roughly as much as content — editors and reviewers read defensiveness, sarcasm, or dismissiveness as a signal about how the author will handle future feedback, not just about this one manuscript. Opening the letter by thanking the reviewers for their time, even when some comments are frustrating or feel mistaken, sets a collaborative tone for everything that follows. Responses that treat a reviewer as a collaborator helping improve the work, rather than an obstacle to get past, tend to read better and are less likely to trigger a defensive counter-response in a second round of review.
Common Reviewer Concerns and How to Address Them
Certain concerns recur across fields: sample size or statistical power (address with a power analysis, a clearer justification, or tempered conclusions), missing recent literature (add the specific citations and briefly integrate them, rather than just appending a reference list), unclear methodology (add the missing procedural detail so another researcher could assess or replicate it), and overreaching conclusions (narrow the claims in the discussion to what the data actually support). Addressing the underlying concern in the manuscript itself, not just in the response letter, is what actually resolves the reviewer's objection in a second round.
Revising the Manuscript vs. Writing the Response Letter
The response letter and the revised manuscript are two different documents doing two different jobs: the manuscript needs to read well as a stand-alone piece of research, while the response letter exists to walk the editor and reviewers through what changed and why. It's a common mistake to make a change in the manuscript but describe it inconsistently — or not at all — in the response letter, or the reverse: to promise a change in the letter that never actually made it into the manuscript. Cross-checking the two against each other before resubmission catches this class of error.
Timelines for Resubmission
Most journals give a specific window for resubmission, commonly somewhere between 30 and 90 days depending on the journal and the extent of the requested revisions, stated in the decision letter. Missing that window without contacting the editor can result in the manuscript being treated as a new submission, restarting the review process; if more time is genuinely needed (e.g. new data collection was requested), it's generally better to request an extension from the editor directly than to submit late or rushed.
Common Mistakes
The most frequent problems in responses to reviewers are: addressing comments too briefly for a reviewer to see what actually changed, responding defensively or dismissively to a valid concern, fixing an issue in the manuscript but forgetting to note it in the response letter (or vice versa), skipping a comment entirely because it seemed minor, and missing the journal's resubmission deadline without requesting an extension.
When to Get Support Responding to Reviewers
Drafting a response to a long or technically demanding set of reviewer comments — especially across multiple reviewers with conflicting suggestions — is often where authors get stuck, particularly on how to firmly but professionally push back on a comment they disagree with. Getting outside help planning the response strategy and revised manuscript language before the resubmission deadline, rather than submitting a rushed response, is generally the more efficient path, especially for non-native English speakers or authors managing several reviewer rounds under an approaching deadline.
Frequently asked questions
It's a separate document submitted alongside a revised manuscript that reproduces each reviewer's comments and explains, point by point, what was changed in response (and where) or why a change wasn't made.
Yes — every comment should get an explicit response, even minor ones or ones you disagree with. Skipping a comment, even an apparently unimportant one, can read as an oversight to the editor and reviewers.
You can disagree, but the disagreement needs to be explained with evidence or reasoning rather than simply asserted, and stated respectfully rather than dismissively. Offering a small clarification in the manuscript, even without changing the underlying approach, often helps.
It varies by journal, but 30–90 days is common. The exact window is stated in the decision letter; contact the editor for an extension rather than submitting late or rushed if more time is genuinely needed.
Yes — drafting clear, point-by-point responses to reviewer feedback, alongside the manuscript revisions themselves, is one of our publication support services.
References
- PMC (National Library of Medicine) — A Practical Guide on Responding to Reviews
A peer-reviewed overview of the process and etiquette of responding to peer review comments during manuscript revision.
- Editage Insights — Tips for New Authors on Responding to Peer Reviewers
Practical, author-facing guidance on structuring and tone for a response-to-reviewers letter.
- AJE — Responding to Peer Reviewers: You Can't Always Say What You'd Like
Guidance on maintaining a professional, persuasive tone when responding to reviewer criticism.
- Thesify — How to Respond to Journal Reviewer Comments and Conflicting Reports
A walkthrough of handling reviewer feedback, including conflicting comments between reviewers.