Receiving peer review comments can feel demanding, especially after the work involved in preparing a manuscript. A revision request is also an opportunity to improve the clarity, evidence and usefulness of your article. This guide explains how to respond to reviewer feedback in a professional, organised way.
Start by understanding the editorial decision
Read the editor’s letter before responding to individual comments. The decision may be minor revision, major revision, revise and resubmit, or rejection. Note the requested deadline, submission instructions and any points raised directly by the editor. If the instructions are unclear, ask the journal’s editorial office before beginning the revision.
Give yourself time to read the feedback
Read every comment carefully, then step away before drafting a reply. This helps you separate the reviewer’s wording from the useful issue behind it. Group related comments, such as those about methods, literature, analysis, tables or language. Create a working checklist so that no point is missed.
Prepare a clear response letter
A response letter should make the revision easy for an editor and reviewers to assess. Begin by thanking the editor and reviewers for their time. Then respond to each comment in order. Quote or summarise the comment, explain what you changed, and identify the revised section, page or line number where possible.
Use a point-by-point structure
- Reviewer comment: Quote the comment or provide a faithful summary.
- Response: State the action taken and the reason for it.
- Location: Identify where the change appears in the revised manuscript.
Keep the response letter factual and respectful. Avoid defensive language, even when you disagree with a suggestion.
When you agree with a reviewer
Make the change, then explain it briefly. For example: “We clarified the sampling procedure in the Methods section and added the requested eligibility criteria.” A concise explanation and a precise location help the reviewer verify the revision quickly.
When you do not agree
You do not need to accept every recommendation, but a disagreement should be supported by a clear scholarly reason. Explain the reasoning, refer to evidence or the study design where relevant, and consider whether additional explanation in the manuscript could address the concern. Never dismiss a comment without engaging with its underlying point.
Revise the manuscript consistently
Changes in one section often affect another. Check that the abstract, methods, results, tables, discussion and references remain consistent after revision. Follow the journal’s instructions for tracked changes, clean copies, supplementary files and response letters. Before resubmission, proofread both the manuscript and the response letter.
Use peer review to strengthen future submissions
Reviewer feedback can reveal recurring issues in structure, methods reporting, interpretation or presentation. Keep a private record of useful lessons and apply them to future manuscripts. For help before submitting, see Research Leap’s guide on choosing the right academic journal and the Research Leap Manual on Academic Writing.
Frequently asked questions
How long should a response to peer review comments be?
It should be long enough to address every substantive point clearly. Detailed comments may need detailed responses, while simple corrections can be answered briefly.
Should I respond to every reviewer comment?
Yes. A point-by-point response shows that each comment was considered. If no change is made, explain why respectfully.
Can I ask for more time to revise a manuscript?
If you need more time, contact the editorial office as early as possible and explain your request concisely. An extension is at the journal’s discretion.
