How to Write a Point-by-Point Response to Reviewers
A response letter should make it easy for an editor or reviewer to verify that every concern was addressed. The clearest format keeps each reviewer comment next to the author's response and the exact location of the change.
Write the response letter reviewer by reviewer and comment by comment. Reproduce or clearly identify each comment, follow it with a direct response, explain exactly what changed, and give the page, section, or line location in the revised manuscript. If no change was made, state that clearly and explain why with evidence or methodological reasoning. Keep the tone professional and make sure the letter and revised manuscript agree before resubmission.
Recommended Structure
Open with a short note to the editor, summarize the main revision, then create separate sections for each reviewer. Under each section, place the reviewer's comment first and the author's response immediately below.
Describe the Change, Not Just the Intention
Avoid responses such as 'done' or 'we agree.' State what changed and where. A reviewer should be able to move directly from the response letter to the revised passage.
Use Locations Consistently
Use page and line numbers when the journal provides them, or section/subsection names when line numbering is unstable. Keep the same convention throughout the letter.
When No Change Is Made
A response can explain why the original approach is retained, but it should still address the concern and, where useful, add clarification or a limitation to the manuscript.
Final Cross-Check
Before submission, verify each response against the manuscript. This catches the common error of promising a change in the response letter that was not actually added to the revised file.
Frequently asked questions
Usually yes. Reproducing the comment makes the response easier to follow and reduces ambiguity.
Long enough to resolve the concern and explain the change. Simple editorial points can be brief; methodological or interpretive issues may require a fuller explanation.
Only when they clearly concern the same issue. Otherwise respond separately so no point appears to have been skipped.
References
- PMC — A Practical Guide on Responding to Reviews
Peer-reviewed practical guidance on preparing revisions and point-by-point responses.
- ICMJE Recommendations
International recommendations on responsible manuscript preparation, reporting, and editorial practice.