How to Respond to Peer Review Comments Effectively: A Practical Guide for Authors

The Response Letter That Determines Your Paper’s Fate

Responding to peer review comments is a decisive stage in academic publishing. A strong response does not merely accept or reject reviewer feedback—it demonstrates scholarly judgment, professionalism, and concrete improvement of the manuscript. Editors often base their decision less on goodwill and more on how clearly and rigorously authors engage with critique.

This guide explains how editors evaluate response letters, what reviewers expect to see, and how authors can structure effective, editor-friendly replies, drawing on real editorial practices used by major publishers.

Many rejections after revision are not caused by new flaws, but by unresolved issues that editors had already identified as key reasons journals reject manuscripts.

As a research engineer who has navigated the peer review process across multiple journals and served as a reviewer for IEEE, Elsevier, and Springer publications, I’ve seen how response quality directly impacts editorial decisions—sometimes more than the revised manuscript itself.

Why the Response to Reviewers Matters So Much

At the revision stage, editors ask a practical question:

Can these authors engage constructively with expert critique and reduce editorial risk?

The response document helps editors assess:

• Academic maturity and professionalism
• Willingness to improve clarity and rigor
• Whether reviewer’s concerns were fully understood

A technically strong revision can still be rejected if the response to reviewers is superficial, defensive, or poorly structured. Major publishers like Elsevier provide helpful guidance on responding to
reviewers.

A “revise and resubmit” decision is not a guaranteed acceptance—it’s an invitation that can still result in rejection if the response fails to demonstrate adequate engagement with reviewer concerns.

How Editors Actually Read Response Letters

In most journals, editors do not begin with the revised manuscript.

A typical editorial workflow is:

1. Review the response-to-reviewers document
2. Check whether each major concern is addressed clearly
3. Evaluate tone, reasoning, and completeness
4. Examine the revised manuscript only after that

This makes the response letter a decision-driving document, not an administrative formality.

Editors managing 20-30 revised submissions monthly rely on response letters to efficiently evaluate whether revisions warrant acceptance. A well-structured response that makes verification easy significantly improves your chances.

Recommended Structure for a Response to Reviewers

Editors favor responses that are predictable and easy to evaluate. A standard structure includes:

• A brief, polite opening note to the editor and reviewers
• Reviewer comments reproduced verbatim or accurately summarized
• Point-by-point responses following the same order
• Precise references to manuscript changes (page and line numbers)

Avoid narrative explanations that are not clearly linked to specific reviewer comments.

The systematic approach that works: Treating the response letter like a legal document—where every claim must be verifiable and every change must have a specific location—transforms how editors perceive your work.

Sample Response Template (Editor-Friendly Format)

Below is a simplified example illustrating how editors expect responses to be presented:

Reviewer 1, Comment 2:
The methods section lacks clarity regarding sample selection.

Author Response:
Thank you for this valuable observation. We have revised the Methods section to clarify the sample selection process, including eligibility criteria and statistical justification (Page 5, Paragraphs 2–3).

This format shows:

• Acknowledgement of the reviewer
• Clear action taken
• Exact location of the revision

Common mistake to avoid: Vague responses like “We have improved the methods section as suggested” without location references force editors and reviewers to search through the manuscript, creating unnecessary friction in the evaluation process.

Using a Table to Organize Reviewer Responses

Many journals and publishers recommend using tables to improve clarity, especially for major revisions.

Tables help editors quickly verify whether all concerns were addressed.

When to use tables: For revisions with more than 10 reviewer comments, table format provides superior clarity compared to flowing paragraphs. For simpler revisions with fewer comments, the point-by-point format works well.

How to Maintain a Professional Academic Tone

Editors are sensitive to tone, particularly when reviewers disagree with authors.

Effective responses:

• Remain neutral and respectful
• Focus on scholarly reasoning
• Avoid emotional or defensive language

Preferred phrasing includes:

• “We appreciate this suggestion and have revised…”
• “We agree and have clarified…”
• “We respectfully disagree and explain our reasoning below…”

The tone principle: Even when reviewer comments seem harsh or unfair, respond to their intent rather than their phrasing. Reviewers volunteer their time, and professional courtesy should be maintained regardless of critique severity.

How to Disagree With a Reviewer (Safely)

Disagreement is acceptable when supported by academic reasoning. Many authors struggle with how to express disagreement without sounding dismissive or confrontational, especially when responding to critical reviewer feedback. In such cases, using alternative phrases to “we respectfully disagree” in response to reviewers can significantly improve the tone and effectiveness of your rebuttal. Rather than stating disagreement directly, experienced authors often reframe their response by acknowledging the reviewer’s perspective, clarifying their original intent, or explaining methodological constraints with evidence-based reasoning. This approach reassures editors that the comment was carefully considered, even when the suggested change was not adopted, and helps maintain a constructive dialogue throughout the peer review process.

Valid grounds include:

• Reviewer misunderstanding of the manuscript
• Methodological constraints already justified
• Requests outside the journal’s scope

When disagreeing:

• Explain the rationale clearly
• Cite relevant literature where appropriate
• Avoid absolute or dismissive language

Editors often value reasoned disagreement more than unquestioning compliance.

Example of effective disagreement:

“We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding statistical analysis. However, we respectfully maintain our original approach for the following reasons: [1] Our data structure violates the assumptions of the suggested test (non-normal distribution, confirmed by Shapiro-Wilk test, p < 0.001), [2] The method we employed is specifically designed for this scenario and is recommended by [citation], and [3] We have added supplementary analysis (Appendix B) comparing both approaches to demonstrate that the suggested method produces unstable estimates in our case.”

Key elements of successful disagreement:

• Respectful acknowledgment
• Clear technical reasoning
• Supporting citations
• Evidence (supplementary analysis or additional data)

Showing Exactly What Changed

Vague statements such as “The manuscript has been revised accordingly” are insufficient.

Editors expect authors to specify:

• What was changed
• Where it was changed
• Why the change resolves the concern

Example:

“Section 4.1 was revised to expand the discussion of limitations, addressing the reviewer’s concern about generalizability (Page 10, Paragraph 1).”

Best practice for change tracking: Use track changes in your manuscript or create a version with highlighted revisions. In your response letter, point to specific locations with phrases like:

• “We added three paragraphs (page 4, lines 89-112, highlighted in yellow)”
• “Figure 3 has been replaced with a clearer visualization (page 9)”
• “The entire Results section has been reorganized following the reviewer’s suggestion (pages 11-15, see tracked changes)”

Precision builds trust. Vagueness creates doubt.

Common Reasons Revisions Are Rejected

Rejection after revision often results from:

• Superficial or partial responses
• Ignoring the core logic of reviewer critiques
• Addressing minor points while missing major concerns
• Overly long responses without clear structure

A revised submission is evaluated as a new editorial decision, not a continuation of the previous round.

The pattern in rejected revisions: Authors often address easy comments (typos, formatting, minor clarifications) while dodging difficult ones (fundamental methodological concerns, conceptual gaps, contradictory findings). Editors and reviewers distinguish between genuine engagement and surface-level compliance.

Critical principle: If a critique is fundamental, either fix it properly or explain convincingly why it cannot or should not be fixed. Half-measures are worse than transparent limitations.

What Happens After You Submit the Revision

Authors who understand both editorial decision logic and common rejection triggers are better positioned to respond strategically and reduce the risk of rejection.

Possible outcomes include:

• Acceptance
• Minor revision
• Major Revision
• Additional major revision
• Rejection

Understanding the difference between major and minor revision helps you calibrate the depth of response needed.

A rejection at this stage usually reflects insufficient engagement with reviewer concerns, rather than newly identified problems.

Timeline expectations:

• Best case: Decision within 2-4 weeks (reviewers satisfied, editor accepts)
• Typical case: 6-8 weeks (reviewers need time to verify changes)
• Extended case: 3-4 months (editor seeks additional opinions due to disagreement)

If you haven’t heard back after 8 weeks, a polite status inquiry to the editor is appropriate.

Strategic addition for your response: Include a summary paragraph at the beginning:

“We thank the editor and reviewers for their constructive feedback. In this revision, we have: [1] expanded the methodology section with detailed validation procedures, [2] added three new figures clarifying the conceptual framework, [3] revised the discussion to address generalizability concerns, and [4] corrected all minor issues identified. Below we provide point-by-point responses to each comment.”

This gives the editor an immediate overview before diving into details.

Good vs. Problematic Responses

Problematic Response (What NOT to Do):

Reviewer Comment: “The literature review is incomplete. Recent work by Smith et al. (2023) and Jones et al. (2024) directly addresses your research question.”

Bad Author Response: “We have updated the literature review.”

Why this fails:

• No specifics about what was added
• No acknowledgment of the cited papers
• No location reference
• Doesn’t show understanding of the critique

Effective Response (What TO Do):

Reviewer Comment: “The literature review is incomplete. Recent work by Smith et al. (2023) and Jones et al. (2024) directly addresses your research question.”

Good Author Response:
“Thank you for identifying these important recent publications. We have substantially revised the literature review (Section 2.2, pages 4-6) to include:

• Discussion of Smith et al. (2023) and their findings on [specific topic], which align with our hypothesis (page 5, paragraph 2)
• Analysis of Jones et al. (2024) and how our approach differs in [specific way] (page 5, paragraph 3)
• A new comparative table (Table 1, page 6) positioning our contribution relative to these and other recent studies

These additions strengthen our positioning and clarify how our work extends the current literature.”

Why this works:

• Acknowledges the value of the suggestion
• Shows you actually read the cited papers
• Provides exact locations
• Explains how the changes improve the manuscript

The “Revision Summary” Document

For major revisions with substantial changes, consider creating two documents:

1. Point-by-point response letter (addresses every comment)
2. Revision summary (1-2 page overview of major changes)

Structure for revision summary:

SUMMARY OF MAJOR REVISIONS

1. Expanded Methodology (Reviewer 1, Comments 2-4; Reviewer 2, Comment 1)
   - Added detailed description of sampling procedure (Section 3.1)
   - Included power analysis justification (Section 3.3)
   - Added supplementary validation study (Appendix A)

2. Strengthened Theoretical Framework (Reviewer 1, Comment 1; Reviewer 3, Comment 2)
   - Restructured introduction with clearer hypothesis development
   - Added Figure 1 illustrating conceptual model
   - Expanded discussion of theoretical implications

3. Addressed Generalizability Concerns (All reviewers)
   - Added limitations section explicitly discussing scope (Section 5.3)
   - Included discussion of contextual factors
   - Suggested directions for future research

This document helps editors see the big picture before diving into granular details.

Response Letter Strategies Based on Revision Type

For Minor Revisions (typically 3-8 comments):

• Use point-by-point format
• Keep responses concise (2-4 sentences per comment)
• Focus on clarity and precision
• Expected length: 2-3 pages

For Major Revisions (typically 15+ comments):

• Use table format for organization
• Add a summary overview at the beginning
• Group related changes where appropriate
• Consider a separate “major changes” document
• Expected length: 6-10 pages

For Multiple Review Rounds:

• Reference previous responses when relevant
• Show cumulative improvement
• Acknowledge persistent concerns directly
• Demonstrate commitment to quality

Common Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

Pitfall 1: Selective Response

Problem: Addressing minor comments while ignoring major ones
Solution: Address comments in order of importance, with major concerns first

Pitfall 2: Excessive Length Without Structure

Problem: 15-page responses that are difficult to navigate
Solution: Use clear headers, tables, and cross-references

Pitfall 3: Defensive Language

Problem: Responses that argue rather than engage
Solution: Replace “The reviewer misunderstood…” with “To clarify our approach…”

Pitfall 4: Inadequate Specificity

Problem: “We revised as suggested” without details
Solution: Always include location and description of changes

Pitfall 5: Ignoring the Editor

Problem: Focusing only on reviewer comments
Solution: Include a cover letter to the editor summarizing major improvements

Final Checklist Before Resubmission

Before submitting your revision, ensure that:

• ☐ Every reviewer comment is addressed (use the reviewers’ numbering system)
• ☐ Responses are clear, polite, and specific
• ☐ Disagreements are justified with evidence
• ☐ All changes are traceable in the manuscript (use track changes or highlights)
• ☐ Page and line numbers are accurate
• ☐ The cover letter to the editor summarizes major changes
• ☐ Someone else has read your response letter (fresh eyes catch gaps)
• ☐ You’ve proofread for tone and professionalism
• ☐ All supplementary materials referenced are included
• ☐ File naming conventions follow journal guidelines

Quality control practice: Maintain a checklist spreadsheet marking off each reviewer comment as addressed. This prevents accidentally skipping comments during submission.

Key Takeaway

Responding to peer review comments is an editorial negotiation grounded in clarity, professionalism, and academic judgment. Authors who treat the response letter as a strategic document—supported by transparent structure and precise revisions—significantly improve their chances of acceptance.

Successful authors consistently:

• See revision as opportunity, not burden
• Treat reviewers as colleagues, not opponents
• Make their revisions transparent and verifiable
• Take criticism seriously but not personally
• Invest as much care in the response letter as the manuscript itself

The response letter is where you prove you can engage with expert critique professionally and rigorously. Master this skill, and you transform “revise and resubmit” from a setback into a clear path to publication.