A peer review response letter is not a fixed template you can reuse unchanged from one revision to the next. Two variables change what it should contain: whether the editor asked for major or minor revisions, and which publisher’s submission system and Guide/Instructions for Authors you’re working within. This guide focuses specifically on those two axes. For the underlying mechanics of a response letter — the standard point-by-point format, tone, and how to handle conflicting reviewers — see CASRAI’s How to Write a Response to Reviewers Letter and Reviewer Comments to Author: Worked Examples. For what a “revise and resubmit” decision itself means before you start drafting a response, see Revise and Resubmit.
Two independent variables, not one template
Editors and reviewers rarely use “major” and “minor” as strictly defined categories — the labels vary by journal and by editor, and some journals use a numeric or tiered scale instead. In practice, though, the label an editor assigns still changes reader expectations about your response: a major-revision letter is read as a fuller account of how a substantially reworked manuscript addresses serious concerns, while a minor-revision letter is read as confirmation that a smaller, well-scoped set of fixes was made. Separately, and independently of revision type, each publisher’s (often each individual journal’s) submission system sets its own rules for what files you upload and how comments are formatted. Getting both right — matching the letter’s structure to the revision type, and matching the file package to what the specific journal expects — is what this guide covers.
How a major-revision response letter differs structurally
Where reviewers or the editor have asked for substantial changes — new analyses, restructured arguments, additional data, or a materially different framing — the response letter typically needs to do more work than a simple point-by-point list:
- An opening summary paragraph. Before the point-by-point section, a short overview paragraph is common practice: it tells the editor, in a few sentences, what changed at a high level and why, so the scale of the revision is legible before they read forty individual responses. This is especially useful when the manuscript’s structure or argument has shifted enough that individual line-level changes don’t convey the overall picture.
- Fuller justification when you decline a suggestion. On a major revision, an editor is more likely to be weighing your explanation against a substantial change to the paper’s claims or methods, so a one-line disagreement is less likely to satisfy them than it might on a minor point. Where you don’t make a requested change, the convention is to explain the reasoning in enough depth that an editor unfamiliar with the specific back-and-forth can follow it.
- A change matrix or summary table, in some cases. For manuscripts with a high volume of changes across many sections, some authors add a table mapping each reviewer comment to the corresponding manuscript location (section/page/line) and a one-line description of the change, in addition to the full point-by-point narrative. This isn’t a universal requirement of any publisher reviewed for this guide, but it’s a genuinely useful device when the number of changes is large enough that a reviewer or editor would otherwise struggle to track them against the letter alone.
- Closer coordination with a marked-up manuscript. Because major revisions usually touch more of the text, the response letter needs to reference specific locations in a track-changes (or otherwise marked-up) version of the manuscript consistently and accurately — misaligned line numbers are a more visible problem when dozens of changes are involved than when there are three.
- Greater overall length. A major-revision letter is, unsurprisingly, usually longer than a minor-revision one, simply because there is more to document. Length by itself isn’t the goal — padding a response to look thorough is a documented pitfall (see CASRAI’s guide above on common mistakes) — but a genuinely substantial revision produces a genuinely longer, more detailed letter as a byproduct.
How a minor-revision response letter differs structurally
Where the editor has asked for minor revisions — typically clarifications, additional citations, figure or wording tweaks, or small analytical additions — the response letter is usually shorter and more mechanical:
- Often no summary paragraph is needed. If every reviewer comment maps to a small, self-contained fix, a scene-setting overview paragraph before the point-by-point list adds length without adding information; many authors go straight into the itemized responses.
- Shorter, more itemized responses. Each comment and response pair tends to be brief: quote or paraphrase the comment, state the change made (or, less often on a minor revision, why no change was made), and give the location in the revised manuscript.
- Less justification needed for declined items, but not none. Even on a minor revision, if you decline a specific suggestion you still need to explain why — editors and reviewers are checking that every point was actually considered, not just that most were. The difference from a major revision is usually in depth, not in whether an explanation is required at all.
- Faster expected turnaround. Editors typically expect minor-revision responses back on a shorter timeline than major ones, which is a practical reason (beyond the content itself) that these letters tend to be more concise and to the point.
Major vs. minor revision response letters, side by side
| Dimension | Major revision | Minor revision |
|---|---|---|
| Opening summary paragraph | Common, often expected | Usually unnecessary |
| Typical length | Longer — proportional to scope of changes | Shorter, more itemized |
| Justification for declined suggestions | Fuller, more detailed reasoning expected | Still required, but usually brief |
| Change matrix / summary table | Sometimes used for high-volume changes | Rarely necessary |
| Coordination with track-changes manuscript | Closer, more extensive cross-referencing | Lighter, fewer locations to reference |
| Editorial turnaround expectation | Longer review cycle typical | Shorter review cycle typical |
These are patterns drawn from common editorial guidance and publisher instructions, not fixed rules — always follow what your specific decision letter and journal actually ask for over any general convention.
How publisher and journal templates vary
The second variable is what your specific publisher’s submission system requires as a file package, and how it wants reviewer comments handled. This varies more by individual journal than by publisher as a whole — even within one publisher’s portfolio, different journals set different rules, so always check the specific journal’s Guide/Instructions for Authors before assuming a pattern from one journal applies to another at the same publisher.
| Publisher | What’s documented | Where to verify |
|---|---|---|
| PLOS | PLOS journals’ revision instructions specify a required “Response to Reviewers” file addressing every reviewer and editor point, a separate “Revised Article with Changes Highlighted” file using Word’s Track Changes (or equivalent), and a clean copy uploaded as the “Manuscript” file — three distinct files with three distinct roles. | Each PLOS journal’s “Revising Your Manuscript” page (e.g. journals.plos.org/plosone/s/revising-your-manuscript) |
| Elsevier | Elsevier’s own author guidance emphasizes factual, complete, and polite rebuttals to reviewer comments, and directs authors to the specific journal’s Guide for Authors for the exact cover letter and revision-file requirements — Elsevier does not publish one uniform response-to-reviewers template across all of its journals. | The specific journal’s “Guide for Authors” on its ScienceDirect/journal homepage |
| Springer Nature / Nature-branded journals | Springer Nature’s support pages give general cover letter guidance (what to state about the manuscript’s background and significance) but response-to-reviewers file handling is set at the individual journal level, typically within that journal’s own online submission system. | The specific journal’s Instructions for Authors and its submission system (support.springernature.com covers cover letter conventions only) |
| Wiley | No single publisher-wide response-to-reviewers template was found for Wiley’s journal portfolio; requirements are set per journal, consistent with how Wiley’s Author Guidelines are structured (per-journal, not portfolio-wide). | The specific journal’s Author Guidelines |
| Taylor & Francis | No single publisher-wide response-to-reviewers template was found; as with the other publishers above, treat this as journal-specific until you’ve checked the individual title’s instructions. | The specific journal’s Instructions for Authors |
Two conventions recur widely enough across publishers and submission platforms (ScholarOne Manuscripts, Editorial Manager, and similar systems) that they’re worth treating as a safe default when a journal’s instructions don’t say otherwise: submit the response to reviewers as its own document, separate from any cover letter to the editor, and submit both a track-changes (or otherwise marked-up) version of the manuscript and a clean copy. Confirm against the actual journal instructions before relying on this as more than a starting assumption — it is a common pattern, not a universal rule verified for every publisher.
Conventions that hold regardless of publisher or revision type
- Address every point. Every reviewer and editor comment gets a response, whether or not you agree with it — an unanswered comment reads as overlooked, not implicitly accepted.
- Reference specific locations in the revised manuscript. Page and line numbers (or section headings, for less line-stable formats) let an editor or reviewer verify a claimed change without re-reading the whole paper.
- Some journals specify a numbering convention. A number of journals expect comments labeled consistently (for example, by reviewer and comment number) with your response placed immediately below each one — check your decision letter or the journal’s own instructions for the convention it expects, since this is one of the details that varies most by outlet.
For the full detail on tone, format, and common mistakes within any individual letter, see CASRAI’s response to reviewers guide and worked response-letter examples. If the manuscript was rejected outright rather than sent back for revision, see reviewer comments on a rejected manuscript and, if you intend to contest the decision, how to write an appeal letter to a journal editor. If you’re still deciding whether to revise and resubmit versus pursue another venue, CASRAI’s comparison of reject-and-resubmit vs. revise-and-resubmit lays out the distinction. For the accompanying cover letter itself, see journal cover letter example.
A practical checklist before you submit
- Re-read the decision letter and the journal’s current Instructions/Guide for Authors — file requirements and naming conventions change between journals and sometimes between editorial systems, even at the same publisher.
- Match your letter’s structure to the revision type: add a summary paragraph and expect greater length for a major revision; keep it itemized and concise for a minor one.
- Confirm whether a separate track-changes manuscript and a clean copy are both required, and upload each to the correct slot in the submission system.
- Check whether the journal wants reviewer comments reproduced verbatim, paraphrased, or simply referenced by number.
- For a major revision with many changes, consider whether a change-summary table would help the editor track changes, even if it’s not formally required.
- Proofread the response letter as carefully as the manuscript itself — it’s the document an editor often reads first when deciding whether the revision satisfied reviewers.
Frequently asked questions
Does a minor-revision response letter need an opening summary paragraph?
Usually not. A summary paragraph earns its place when the scale or shape of the changes needs explaining before the itemized detail makes sense — on a minor revision, the itemized list is usually already easy for an editor to follow without an overview. Include one anyway if a specific journal’s instructions ask for it, or if even your minor revision touched enough of the paper that a short orienting paragraph would genuinely help.
Do I need a separate “response to reviewers” file for every journal?
Many submission systems have a dedicated upload slot for it, distinct from the cover letter, but this isn’t universal or uniform across every publisher and journal — PLOS documents this explicitly as a required file; other publishers set the requirement at the individual journal level rather than portfolio-wide. Check the specific journal’s current Instructions for Authors rather than assuming based on the publisher.
Is a change matrix or response table required, or just optional?
It isn’t a formal requirement documented by any major publisher reviewed for this guide. It’s a practical device authors use, most often on major revisions with a high volume of changes, to give the editor a fast way to see what changed and where, alongside the fuller point-by-point letter — not a substitute for it.
Can I reuse the same response-letter format across different publishers?
The underlying discipline — address every point, reference specific manuscript locations, justify any disagreement — travels across publishers. The file package (how many documents, what each is called, whether comments must be verbatim) does not travel automatically; re-check it for each journal rather than assuming a format that worked for one publisher’s system will satisfy another’s.
What if the editor’s decision letter doesn’t say “major” or “minor” at all?
Some journals use a different scale (for example, numeric tiers, or “revise” without a major/minor label) or simply describe what’s required in prose. Where that’s the case, judge the scale of your response letter by the substance of what’s being asked — a request for new analyses or a reworked argument warrants the fuller major-revision structure above regardless of what label, if any, the editor used.
