Receiving a decision letter with major revisions is a routine part of academic publishing, but writing the response letter that follows is one of the least taught parts of the process. Most researchers know how to revise a manuscript. However, far fewer know how to write a response letter that addresses every comment clearly, handles disagreements professionally, and gives the editor confidence in the revision.
This guide covers the full process: how to structure your response letter, a template you can adapt directly, how to handle each type of reviewer comment, and how to disagree with a reviewer without weakening your case. In addition, it addresses the situations researchers find most stressful, such as conflicting comments between reviewers and pushback that feels unfair. By the end, you will have a clear method you can apply to any revision, in any discipline.
First, Read This: Major Revisions Is Good News
Before anything else, take a breath. If your decision is “major revisions” or “revise and resubmit,” the editor sees publishable potential in your paper. They could have rejected it outright. They did not. They asked you to come back.
Acceptance rates after major revisions are usually higher than first-submission acceptance rates. As long as you respond well, you are in a strong position.
Here is what each common decision actually means:
- Accept as is: Rare. Almost no paper gets this on first submission.
- Minor revisions: The paper is essentially accepted. You just need to make small changes.
- Major revisions: The editor wants the paper but needs substantial work. Most papers go through this stage.
- Reject and resubmit: The work has merit, but the version submitted needs major rework. Treat like major revisions, with more caution.
- Reject: The paper does not fit the journal or has fundamental issues. Take feedback and submit elsewhere.
So if you got major revisions, the editor is not your enemy. They are giving you a roadmap to acceptance. Your job is to follow it cleanly.
Step 1: Read the Letter Three Times Before You Write Anything
The biggest mistake researchers make is responding emotionally on the first read. Do not do that. Read the decision letter and reviewer comments three separate times, with a gap between each read.
First read (just absorb). Read the whole letter once without writing anything, without reacting. Let the initial frustration or panic pass. Walk away for a few hours if you need to.
Second read (categorize). Read again with a notebook or document open. Number every distinct comment. Mark each one with a label: agree, partially agree, disagree, or misunderstanding.
Third read (plan). Now plan what changes you will make and where. Estimate how long each will take. This tells you whether you can meet the deadline or need to email the editor for an extension.
Most authors who skip this step end up writing defensive responses they regret. The 24-hour cooling-off period is real and it works.
Step 2: Understand the Structure of a Response Letter
Every good response letter has three parts:
- A short cover letter to the editor. Thank them, summarize the major changes you made, and confirm the revised manuscript and response document are attached.
- A point-by-point response document. This is where you address every reviewer comment, one by one, in order.
- The revised manuscript with track changes or highlighted edits. Most journals require both a clean copy and a marked-up copy.
The point-by-point document is the heart of your response. That is what we focus on next.
The Response Letter Template (Copy and Adapt)
Here is the universal structure that works for almost every journal. Copy this format directly:
Response to Reviewer 1
Comment 1.1: [Copy the reviewer’s exact comment here, in italics.]
Response: Thank you for raising this point. [Your clear, polite response goes here. State whether you agree, partially agree, or disagree. Explain what you have done.]
Change in manuscript: [Quote the exact text you added or changed, with the page and line number, e.g., “Page 4, lines 112 to 118.”]
Comment 1.2: [Next comment in italics.]
Response: [Your response.]
Change in manuscript: [Specific location and quoted change.]
Repeat for every comment from Reviewer 1, then start a new section for Reviewer 2. Same format.
Three things make this format work:
- Quoting the comment back shows the reviewer you read it carefully.
- Stating the change with line numbers lets the reviewer find your revision in 5 seconds instead of 5 minutes. Reviewers reading 14 comments across 30 pages will love you for this.
- Keeping each comment self-contained means the reviewer can verify each point without flipping back and forth.
This is the format that Springer’s official guidance for revising papers recommends, and it is the standard most major publishers expect.
The Four Types of Reviewer Comments (and How to Handle Each)
Once you have categorized your comments, every single one falls into one of four types. Here is how to respond to each.
Type 1: Comments You Fully Agree With
These are the easiest. Make the change, acknowledge it, move on.
Comment: “The introduction does not clearly state the research gap.”
Response: We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We have rewritten paragraph three of the Introduction to explicitly state the research gap.
Change in manuscript: Page 2, lines 45 to 53.
Short, clean, no over-explaining. Reviewers appreciate authors who simply fix the issue.
Type 2: Comments You Partially Agree With
This is where most authors get clumsy. You agree with part of the comment but not all of it. Acknowledge what is valid, then clarify what is not.
Comment: “The sample size is too small and the methodology is inadequate.”
Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. We agree that the sample size limits the generalizability of our findings, and we have added a paragraph to the Limitations section acknowledging this (page 14, lines 380 to 390). However, regarding the methodology, our approach follows the standard protocol established by [Author, Year] and used in similar studies in this field. We have added a sentence on page 6, lines 145 to 148, to make this precedent clearer to the reader.
Notice the structure: thank, agree where you can, push back where you cannot, and add evidence.
Type 3: Comments You Disagree With
This is the hardest type to handle. You think the reviewer is wrong, but you cannot say “the reviewer is wrong.” Here is how to push back professionally.
Comment: “The authors should use ANOVA instead of regression analysis.”
Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. However, we respectfully maintain that regression analysis is the appropriate method for this dataset, for two reasons. First, our outcome variable is continuous and we are examining the effect of multiple continuous predictors, which ANOVA is not designed to handle. Second, [Author, Year] used the same regression approach for comparable data and the method has been validated in our field. To address the reviewer’s underlying concern, we have added a brief justification of our statistical choice to the Methods section (page 8, lines 200 to 205).
Three principles for disagreeing well:
- Never say the reviewer is wrong. Say you “respectfully maintain” or “see this differently” or “interpret the evidence differently.”
- Always give evidence. Cite a paper, reference a standard, or show data. Evidence beats opinion every time.
- Acknowledge the underlying concern even when you disagree with the suggestion. Often a reviewer is right about a problem but wrong about the fix. Show you understood the problem.
Type 4: Comments Based on Misunderstanding
Sometimes a reviewer misunderstands your paper. The temptation is to write “the reviewer misunderstood, as we clearly stated on page 5.” Do not do this. It sounds defensive and it implies your writing was unclear (which it must have been, if a careful reader got confused).
Instead, treat the misunderstanding as a sign your manuscript needs to be clearer.
Comment: “The authors did not measure variable X.”
Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment and apologize for any lack of clarity in our original manuscript. Variable X was in fact measured and is reported in Table 2. To make this clearer, we have added a sentence to the Methods section explicitly stating how Variable X was measured (page 7, lines 175 to 178) and a forward reference to Table 2.
You take the responsibility, fix the clarity issue, and the reviewer feels respected rather than corrected.
What to Do When Reviewers Contradict Each Other
This is one of the most stressful situations in peer review, and it is also one of the most common. Reviewer 1 says “add a literature review section.” Reviewer 2 says “the literature review is too long, cut it.”
Do not try to please both. You will end up with a Frankenstein paper that satisfies neither. Instead:
- Pick the position you can defend with evidence. Usually one reviewer has a stronger case based on field norms or paper scope.
- Acknowledge the conflict openly to the editor. In your cover letter or response, briefly note that the two reviewers disagreed and explain why you chose the direction you did.
- Let the editor decide if needed. Editors expect this. They are paid to make these calls.
Example response: “We note that Reviewer 1 recommended expanding the literature review while Reviewer 2 suggested shortening it. After consideration, we chose to maintain the current length but reorganize the section for stronger flow, because the existing length already matches the journal’s typical article structure. We have made the structural changes suggested by Reviewer 2 (page 3, lines 60 to 95) and added two sentences requested by Reviewer 1 about the [specific point] (page 4, lines 100 to 105).”
This kind of response shows the editor you read both reviews carefully and made a thoughtful, defensible choice. That is exactly what editors want to see.
Phrases That Work (and Phrases That Get Papers Rejected)
Tone matters more than most authors realize. Reviewers are unpaid academics donating their time. A defensive or dismissive response can turn a sympathetic reviewer into a hostile one.
Phrases That Land Well
- “We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment.”
- “We agree with the reviewer that…”
- “We have now revised [section] to address this point.”
- “We respectfully maintain that [position], for the following reasons…”
- “To address this concern, we have added…”
- “We appreciate this suggestion and have considered it carefully.”
Phrases to Avoid
- “The reviewer misunderstood…” (Too defensive. Take the blame for clarity instead.)
- “As we already stated on page X…” (Sounds dismissive. Just restate clearly.)
- “This is incorrect because…” (Confrontational. Use “we see this differently” instead.)
- “We disagree.” (Too blunt. Soften with “we respectfully maintain.”)
- “The reviewer is wrong.” (Never. Under any circumstances.)
- “This comment is outside the scope of our paper.” (Reframe as: “While this is an interesting question, it sits beyond the scope of the present study, as our research question focused specifically on…”)
The principle behind all of these: respect the reviewer’s effort even when you disagree with their conclusion. Tone protects you when content has to push back.
For Non-Native English Speakers: A Note on Tone
If English is not your first language, response letters are one of the hardest documents to write because tone is so subtle. A phrase that sounds neutral to you can sound rude or arrogant in English. A phrase that sounds polite can sound weak.
Three safe practices:
- Use the template phrases above as your default. They are tested and they read well to native English speakers.
- Avoid translating polite phrases from your native language directly. What sounds polite in Hindi, Urdu, Chinese, or Arabic often sounds either overly formal or oddly indirect in English.
- Get a human editor to review your response letter, not just your manuscript. The response letter is what the editor reads first. It deserves the same care as the paper itself.
A Full Worked Example
Here is a complete response to a real-style reviewer comment:
Reviewer 2, Comment 3: “The discussion section does not adequately address the contradiction between your findings and those of [Smith et al., 2021]. The authors must explain this discrepancy.”
Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. The reviewer is correct that our findings appear to contradict Smith et al. (2021), and the original manuscript did not give this contradiction the attention it deserves.
We have now added a new paragraph to the Discussion (page 12, lines 320 to 340) that explores three possible explanations for the discrepancy: (1) differences in sample population (Smith et al. studied adolescents, while our sample was adults aged 25 to 45), (2) different measurement instruments (we used the X scale, they used the Y scale), and (3) methodological differences (their study was cross-sectional, ours was longitudinal). We argue that the population and methodological differences are the most likely explanation, and we cite [Author, Year] who reports a similar age-related effect.
Change in manuscript: Page 12, lines 320 to 340. Two new references added to the bibliography (Smith et al., 2021; [Author, Year]).
This response works because it acknowledges the reviewer’s point, takes responsibility for the original weakness, gives a substantive answer, and tells the reviewer exactly where to find the revision.
Pre-Send Checklist
Before you hit submit on your revision, run through this:
- [ ] Did you respond to every single comment, including small ones?
- [ ] Did you quote the original comment before each response?
- [ ] Did you give specific page and line numbers for every change?
- [ ] Did you use respectful language throughout, even where you disagreed?
- [ ] Did you avoid the dismissive phrases (“as we said,” “the reviewer misunderstood”)?
- [ ] Did you submit a clean copy AND a track-changes or highlighted copy?
- [ ] Did you write a short cover letter summarizing the major changes?
- [ ] Did you proofread the response letter for grammar and tone?
If you can tick all of these, your response is ready.
When a Professional Editor Helps
Response letters often decide whether a paper gets accepted on the second round. A weak response can sink an otherwise strong revision. A strong response can pull a borderline paper into acceptance.
At ManuscriptLab, we help researchers prepare both their revised manuscripts and their response letters. Our editors have responded to thousands of reviewer comments across disciplines and know exactly what tone, format, and level of detail journals expect.
The services most relevant when you are handling a revision:
- Journal Manuscript Editing: Editing of your revised manuscript so it meets your target journal’s standards.
- Research Paper Editing: Comprehensive editing for any changes you made in response to reviewer feedback.
- Academic Proofreading: Final language polish on both the manuscript and the response letter.
- Thesis and Dissertation Editing: For revision of dissertation chapters submitted as journal articles.
If you want a second pair of eyes on your response letter before you send it, contact our team and we will match you with an editor in your discipline.
For further reading, Wiley’s author guidance on peer review gives you the reviewer’s side of the process, which helps you write a response letter that anticipates what they care about.
One Last Thing
Responding to reviewer comments is not about defending your paper. It is about showing the editor and the reviewers that you read the feedback carefully, took it seriously, and improved the work.
Follow the template. Read the decision letter three times. Categorize every comment. Stay respectful even when you disagree. Give specific line numbers. Acknowledge mistakes, push back with evidence, and let the editor decide on conflicts.
Do that, and the next email in your inbox is much more likely to be an acceptance.
