How to Write a Strong Response to Reviewers

A strong response to reviewers is not written to argue emotionally. It is written to answer every comment clearly, respectfully, and specifically. The goal is to show the editor and reviewers that their concerns were understood, that appropriate revisions were made, and that the manuscript improved in a concrete way.

The response letter is therefore not just a formality. It is part of the peer review process. A well-prepared response can make the revised manuscript easier to evaluate and can increase the chance of a favorable editorial decision.

Why the Response Letter Matters

When reviewers read a revised manuscript, they usually want to know four things:

• Did the authors understand the comments?
• Did they respond to every point?
• Did they make real changes in the manuscript?
• If they disagreed, did they explain the reason respectfully and convincingly?

A weak response letter makes the editor work harder. A strong response letter makes the revision easy to follow. The best response letters are polite, organized, transparent, and specific.

Key components

Click to enlarge

A strong response does not argue emotionally—it answers every comment clearly, respectfully, and specifically.

Start with a Respectful Opening

The response letter should begin with a short professional opening. Thank the editor and reviewers for their time and feedback. A simple, sincere tone is enough.

We thank the editor and reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and for their constructive comments. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and believe that the changes have improved its clarity, structure, and scientific content.

This opening sets the right tone. It tells the editor that the authors approached the revision seriously and professionally.

Use a Point-by-Point Structure

Every reviewer comment should be addressed separately. This is one of the most important rules of writing a response letter.

Do not merge multiple comments into one vague answer. Do not skip comments that seem minor. Even small wording suggestions, formatting issues, or reference requests should receive a response.

A useful structure is:

Reviewer 1 – Comment 1:
[Reviewer comment]

Response:
[Your response]

Change made in the manuscript:
[Exact revision and page/line location]

This format makes the revision easy to review and reduces the risk that the editor thinks a comment was ignored.

Answer the Actual Concern

A common mistake is responding around the comment instead of answering it directly. Before writing your response, identify what the reviewer is really asking.

Reviewer comments often fall into categories:

A strong response directly addresses the concern and then explains what changed.

Be Specific About Revisions

Avoid vague phrases such as:

• “This has been corrected.”
• “We have revised the manuscript.”
• “The issue has been addressed.”
• “We agree with the reviewer.”

These phrases are not wrong, but they are incomplete. Stronger wording:

We agree with the reviewer. We have revised the Methods section to clarify the inclusion criteria and added the minimum follow-up duration. This change appears on page 5, lines 112–118.

This response is better because it explains agreement, what was changed, and where the change was made.

Give Page and Line Numbers

Whenever possible, include page and line numbers. This is very helpful for reviewers and editors.

Example:

The revised sentence has been added to the Discussion section, page 11, lines 246–252.

If the journal submission system does not preserve line numbers, you can refer to the section and paragraph instead.

This explanation has been added to the third paragraph of the Methods section.

The goal is to make the revision easy to verify.

Use Evidence When Needed

Some reviewer comments require more than a simple wording change. The response may need a short explanation supported by evidence.

This evidence may include:

• Additional analysis
• Clarification of the study design
• A relevant citation
• A methodological rationale
• Reference to existing guidelines
• Explanation of why a requested analysis is not possible

Example:

We agree that this point required clarification. We have added a sentence to explain why logistic regression was selected for the binary primary outcome. We have also added a relevant methodological reference to support this approach.

The response should be informative but concise. The response letter should not become a second manuscript.

How to Disagree Politely

Authors do not have to accept every reviewer suggestion. However, disagreement must be written carefully.

Avoid:

We disagree with the reviewer because this is not necessary.

Better:

We respectfully appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. However, we did not perform this additional subgroup analysis because the number of patients in each subgroup was limited, which would make the analysis underpowered and potentially misleading. We have clarified this limitation in the Discussion section, page 12, lines 281–286.

A good disagreement should include appreciation, a clear reason, scientific justification, and a manuscript revision when appropriate.

Responding to Critical Comments

Some reviewer comments may feel harsh. Do not respond emotionally. The editor will usually judge the response more favorably if the authors remain calm and professional.

If the reviewer identifies a true weakness, acknowledge it.

We agree with the reviewer that the previous version did not explain the follow-up protocol clearly. We have revised the Methods section to provide additional detail.

If the reviewer misunderstands something, do not blame them. A misunderstanding often means the manuscript was not clear enough.

We apologize for the lack of clarity. We have revised the relevant paragraph to make this point more explicit.

When No Change Was Made

If you decide not to change the manuscript, explain why.

Weak response:

No change was made.

Stronger response:

We appreciate this suggestion. However, we did not add this analysis because the available sample size was insufficient for a reliable subgroup comparison. To address the reviewer's concern, we have added this issue as a limitation in the Discussion section.

This shows that the comment was considered, even if the requested change was not made.

Keep the Tone Professional

The response letter should always be calm and respectful. Avoid defensive or emotional wording.

Professional tone matters because the response letter is read by both reviewers and editors.

Weak vs strong response letters

Common Problems in Response Letters

A good response letter should reduce friction, not create it.

Recommended Response Format

Use this format for each comment:

Reviewer 1 – Comment 1:
[Paste the reviewer's comment here.]

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have revised the manuscript to clarify [specific issue]. The revised text now explains [brief explanation].

Change made in the manuscript:
This change has been added to the [section name], page X, lines Y–Z.

For disagreement:

Reviewer 1 – Comment 2:
[Paste the reviewer's comment here.]

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. However, we respectfully believe that [brief rationale]. Because [scientific or methodological reason], we did not make this specific change. To avoid confusion, we have clarified this point in the manuscript.

Change made in the manuscript:
A clarification has been added to the [section name], page X, lines Y–Z.

Core message

A strong response letter should answer:

1. What exactly was the reviewer's comment?
2. How did we respond to it?
3. What did we change in the manuscript?
4. Where was the change made?
5. If no change was made, what is the rationale?

Practical Checklist Before Submission

• Every reviewer comment has a separate response
• The tone is respectful and professional
• Each response answers the actual concern
• All manuscript changes are described clearly
• Page and line numbers are provided
• Disagreements are justified politely
• New analyses are explained briefly
• Limitations are acknowledged when relevant
• The revised manuscript matches the response letter
• The final letter is easy for the editor to follow

A Simple Formula

A strong response to reviewers can often follow this formula:

1. Thank the reviewer for the comment.
2. State whether you agree, partially agree, or respectfully disagree.
3. Explain what you changed or why no change was made.
4. Give the exact location of the revision.
5. Keep the tone calm, specific, and professional.

Example Response

Reviewer 2 – Comment 3:
The authors should clarify how missing follow-up data were handled.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We agree that the previous version did not describe the handling of missing follow-up data clearly. We have revised the Statistical Analysis section to explain that patients with missing primary outcome data were excluded from the primary analysis, and that a sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings.

Change made in the manuscript:
This information has been added to the Statistical Analysis section, page 7, lines 154–161.

In short

A strong response to reviewers is not a defensive letter. It is a clear map of how the manuscript was improved. The best response letters are respectful, point-by-point, specific, transparent, evidence-based when needed, and easy to verify.

For steps after you receive comments, see our peer review report guide — or run a pre-submission review to surface risks before revision.