When a published article draws a public critique — a letter to the editor, a formal comment, or a matrix/e-letter response — the original authors are usually expected to reply in the same venue. That reply is variously called a rejoinder, a response, or a reply, and it is a distinct genre from the response-to-reviewers letter written during peer review. A peer-review response letter is a private, pre-publication document addressed to an editor and reviewers about a manuscript that has not yet been accepted. A rejoinder is a public, post-publication document, itself typically published alongside the critique it answers, addressed to the readership of the journal as much as to the critic. This guide covers how to structure one, what journals and editorial bodies expect of it, and where it fits alongside the other post-publication correction mechanisms (corrections, expressions of concern, retractions).
What counts as a rejoinder, and when one is expected
The genre covers several closely related formats that journals label differently: a formal “Reply to [Author], [Year],” a “Response” published back-to-back with a “Comment” or “Letter to the Editor,” or, in journals with online commenting, a threaded author reply to a post-publication comment. What they share is the occasion: someone other than the original authors has published a specific, substantive criticism of a specific published article, and the journal is giving the original authors a chance to answer it in the same public record.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) states this expectation directly in its recommendations on correspondence: journals should give readers a mechanism for submitting comments on published articles, and “the authors of articles discussed in correspondence or an online forum have a responsibility to respond to substantial criticisms of their work” through that same mechanism. This is framed as a responsibility, not merely an option — declining to respond to a substantial, on-the-record critique of your own published work is itself read as a signal by editors and readers, even where a journal does not formally compel a reply.
Not every published comment warrants a full rejoinder. ICMJE also gives editors latitude to reject correspondence that lacks merit, screen out discourteous or inaccurate submissions, and impose time limits to keep correspondence threads from running indefinitely. If a critique is minor, tangential, or already addressed in the original article, a short clarifying reply — or, in some cases, no reply at all if the editor doesn’t solicit one — may be more appropriate than an extensive rejoinder. The judgment call belongs to the authors in the first instance, but it is usually made in dialogue with the handling editor, who will typically invite a response and may set a deadline.
Before you start writing: read the critique as your reader will
A rejoinder is read side-by-side with the critique it answers, often on the same page or in the same issue, so it is judged comparatively as much as on its own merits. Before drafting, it helps to:
- Separate the substantive points from the rhetorical ones. A published critique may raise two or three points that genuinely bear on the validity of your findings, wrapped in language that reads as more sweeping than the underlying objection. Answer the substance; don’t let tone dictate structure.
- Check whether the critique is correct. Not every published criticism is wrong. If the critic has identified a genuine limitation, an error, or a legitimate alternative interpretation, the credible response is to say so plainly, not to construct a rebuttal for its own sake. Where the error is significant enough to affect the paper’s conclusions, a rejoinder is the wrong instrument entirely — that’s the threshold for a correction, or, if it goes to reliability of the results, an expression of concern or retraction — see the CASRAI guide on post-publication peer review and the COPE-guided pathway to correction for how editors decide between those instruments.
- Decide what evidence you can bring, not just what argument you can make. A rejoinder is strongest when it can point to something concrete — a re-analysis, a citation the critique overlooked, a clarification of method that resolves the apparent discrepancy — rather than restating the original paper’s conclusions in different words.
Structure of an effective rejoinder
There is no single mandated format the way there is for, say, an IMRaD manuscript, but most published rejoinders converge on a recognizable structure:
1. A brief framing opening
One or two sentences identifying the critique you are answering (author, year, and the specific claim) and, where warranted, thanking the correspondent for their engagement with the work. This is a convention, not flattery for its own sake — it orients a reader who may not have the original critique open alongside your reply, and journals frequently require it as a matter of house style.
2. Point-by-point response
The body of the rejoinder should address each substantive point the critique raised, in the order the critique raised them, rather than reorganizing around your own preferred narrative. This mirrors the point-by-point convention already well established for peer-review response letters, and for the same reason: it lets the editor and readers verify that nothing was skipped, and it makes disagreement legible rather than diffuse. For each point, state what was claimed, what your position is, and the specific evidence or reasoning that supports it — a citation, a re-calculated figure, a clarified method detail.
3. Concede what should be conceded
Where the critique identifies something correct — a limitation not sufficiently flagged, an alternative interpretation that is also defensible, a citation that should have been included — say so directly and specifically, rather than either ignoring it or reflexively defending every element of the original paper. Editors and readers judge a rejoinder’s credibility partly by whether it can distinguish a real point from a rhetorical one; a reply that concedes nothing reads as defensive rather than persuasive.
4. A short closing
A brief closing restating, in one or two sentences, why the original conclusions stand (or stand with the qualification just conceded). Avoid re-litigating the whole paper here — the closing is a summary, not a second round of argument.
Tone: professional and specific, not personal
ICMJE’s correspondence recommendations note that editors “must make an effort to screen discourteous, inaccurate, or libellous comments” — the same standard applies to your reply as to the original critique. Journals routinely reject or send back for revision a rejoinder that reads as an attack on the critic rather than an answer to the critique. In practice this means:
- Address arguments, not motives. Avoid characterizing the critic’s intentions, competence, or good faith.
- Be specific rather than dismissive. “This point overlooks X, reported in Table 2” is answerable and credible; “this critique is without merit” is neither.
- Keep the reply proportionate to the critique. A rejoinder that is substantially longer or more elaborate than the critique it answers can read as disproportionate, and many journals impose an explicit word limit on correspondence for exactly this reason.
Formatting and submission mechanics
Mechanics vary by journal, but several conventions are close to universal:
- Same submission channel as the original critique. Correspondence and replies are typically submitted through the journal’s regular manuscript system (the same platforms covered in CASRAI’s guides on ScholarOne and Editorial Manager), tagged as a “Letter,” “Reply,” or “Correspondence” article type rather than a research article.
- Word and reference limits. Journals commonly cap correspondence at a few hundred to around a thousand words, with a small reference list — check the specific journal’s instructions for authors rather than assuming your original manuscript’s limits carry over.
- Competing-interests declaration. ICMJE specifies that “authors of correspondence should be asked to declare any competing relationships or activities” — the same disclosure obligation that applies to the original article applies to the rejoinder, and is easy to overlook because the reply feels like an extension of a paper you’ve already disclosed for.
- Editorial review and copyediting. Journals may edit correspondence “for length, grammatical correctness, and journal style” before publication (ICMJE’s own phrasing), so a rejoinder typically goes through a lighter version of the same editorial process as the original article, not straight to publication as submitted.
- DOI and linkage. A published rejoinder gets its own DOI and is normally reciprocally linked to both the original article and the critique it answers, often via CrossMark or the journal’s own cross-referencing, so a reader arriving at any one of the three pieces can find the other two.
Common pitfalls
- Ignoring a point rather than answering it. An unaddressed point in the critique reads, by omission, as conceded — silence is not a neutral choice.
- Treating the rejoinder as a second peer-review rebuttal. Reviewers evaluate a manuscript before publication and privately; a post-publication critic and the readership are evaluating a public record. Arguments that worked to satisfy a reviewer in private (“we’ve added this to the limitations section”) don’t always translate to a public reply, which needs to stand on its own without pointing to text a general reader can’t easily locate.
- Missing the response window. Many journals set a deadline for authors to reply to a critique, after which the critique may be published without a companion response, or with an editorial note that the authors did not respond. Confirm the deadline with the handling editor as soon as you’re notified of the critique.
- Over-claiming certainty the original paper didn’t establish. A rejoinder that defends a stronger claim than the original article actually made is easy for an attentive critic or reader to catch, and undermines the reply’s credibility on the points that are genuinely well-supported.
When a rejoinder isn’t the right instrument
A rejoinder answers a disagreement about interpretation, methodology, or emphasis — it is not the mechanism for correcting an actual error in the published record. If, in the course of preparing your reply, you determine that the critique has identified a genuine mistake, that’s a conversation with the editor about a formal correction (or, where the reliability of the results themselves is in question while an investigation proceeds, an expression of concern), not something to fold into a rejoinder as an aside. CASRAI’s guide to post-publication peer review, from concern to correction covers how that COPE-guided pathway works and how it differs from ordinary scholarly correspondence. Services such as Retraction Watch track the more serious end of that spectrum, which a well-handled rejoinder is specifically meant to stay well clear of.
Frequently asked questions
Is a rejoinder the same as a response to peer reviewers?
No. A response to peer reviewers is a private, pre-publication document addressed to an editor and reviewers during the revise-and-resubmit stage of a manuscript that has not yet been published. A rejoinder is a public, post-publication reply to a critique of an article that is already in the published record, and it is usually published itself, alongside the critique. See CASRAI’s guide on peer-review response letters for the pre-publication counterpart.
Am I obligated to respond to a published critique of my work?
ICMJE’s recommendations describe this as a responsibility: authors of a criticized article are expected to respond to substantial criticism through the journal’s own correspondence mechanism. Individual journal policies vary in how firmly they enforce this, and editors retain discretion over which critiques warrant a reply, but declining to respond to a substantive, on-the-record critique is a choice with its own visible consequences in the scholarly record.
Do I need to declare competing interests in a rejoinder?
Yes. ICMJE specifies that authors of correspondence, including replies, should be asked to declare competing relationships or activities, on the same basis as the original article.
What if the critique is right?
Say so, specifically and without minimizing it. If the point is substantial enough to affect the paper’s conclusions, that’s a discussion with the editor about a formal correction rather than something to concede quietly inside a rejoinder — see the section above on when a rejoinder isn’t the right instrument.
Is there a word limit for a rejoinder?
Most journals impose one, typically in the range of a few hundred to around a thousand words for correspondence-type content, though the exact figure is journal-specific — check the target journal’s instructions for authors rather than assuming a standard figure applies.
