On this page: what reviewer comments typically look like, how to structure a point-by-point response letter, and three illustrative worked examples covering a methodological objection, a clarity/writing objection, and a comment the authors respectfully disagree with.
What reviewer comments actually look like
Peer reviewer reports vary by journal and discipline, but most fall into a small number of recognizable categories. Recognizing which category a comment belongs to is the first step in drafting a response, because each type calls for a different kind of answer:
- Methodological concerns — questions about study design, sample size, statistical approach, or missing controls. These usually require either new analysis, additional justification, or an acknowledged limitation.
- Clarity and writing issues — passages the reviewer found ambiguous, under-explained, or hard to follow. These are typically resolved with a text revision plus a short explanation of what changed.
- Missing context or literature — a reviewer pointing out relevant prior work that should be cited or discussed. Usually straightforward to address by adding the citation and a sentence of context.
- Scope or interpretation disagreements — the reviewer reads the paper’s claims as broader (or narrower) than the data support. These often require tightening the claim language rather than new data.
- Points the authors disagree with — occasionally a reviewer’s suggestion is based on a misunderstanding, or is a genuine judgment call the authors weigh differently. These need a respectful, evidence-based rebuttal, not silent non-compliance and not reflexive agreement either.
Under the terminology formalized in ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023, this exchange is the “revision” stage of the review process, and the document authors submit is generally called a response letter, response to reviewers, or rebuttal letter depending on the journal’s own house style — the underlying task is the same regardless of the label.
Anatomy of a good response letter
Editors and reviewers read dozens of these; a well-structured letter is easier to evaluate and more likely to lead to a fast decision. Conventions that hold across most journals and disciplines:
- Address every comment, from every reviewer, individually. Don’t summarize or batch unrelated points together — an editor checking for completeness needs to be able to match each reviewer comment to a specific author response.
- Quote the comment, then respond directly beneath it. Most journals expect a “reviewer said / we did” structure, often with the reviewer’s original text in italics or a different color, followed by the author’s response in plain text.
- Say clearly what changed, and where. Reference the specific page, line number, section, or figure in the revised manuscript. “We have revised the Methods section (p. 4, lines 112-118) to clarify…” is far more useful to a reviewer doing a second pass than “We have addressed this.”
- When you agree, say so plainly and describe the fix. No need to over-explain or apologize at length — a concise acknowledgment plus the specific change is sufficient.
- When you disagree, explain why with evidence, not assertion. Point to data already in the manuscript, cite a source, or explain a methodological choice — and stay collegial even when the reviewer’s comment reads as overconfident or mistaken.
- Keep the tone professional throughout, even under a harsh review. Reviewer comments can read as blunt or dismissive; a defensive or sarcastic response rarely helps and can prejudice an editor against the authors regardless of the science.
- Don’t introduce unrequested changes without flagging them. If a reviewer comment prompted you to fix something adjacent that wasn’t explicitly raised, say so — an editor doing a diff between manuscript versions should never be surprised by an unexplained change.
Worked example 1 — a methodological concern
Illustrative composite.
Reviewer comment: “The authors report a significant effect with n=24 per group, but no power analysis is provided. It is not clear the study was adequately powered to detect the effect size claimed, and the risk of a false positive given the small sample should be discussed.”
Author response: “We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. We have added a post-hoc power analysis (new Supplementary Table S2) confirming the study was powered at 0.82 to detect the observed effect size (d = 0.71) at α = 0.05. We have also added a paragraph to the Limitations section (p. 9, lines 203-211) explicitly discussing the modest sample size, the risk of an inflated effect estimate in small-sample studies, and the need for replication in a larger, independent cohort before the finding is generalized.”
What makes this response work: it does not simply assert the study was fine — it adds a concrete analysis, points to exactly where it now lives in the manuscript, and volunteers an honest limitation rather than minimizing the concern.
Worked example 2 — a clarity and writing concern
Illustrative composite.
Reviewer comment: “The description of the exclusion criteria in Section 2.3 is difficult to follow. It is unclear whether the criteria were applied before or after randomization, and how many participants were excluded at each stage.”
Author response: “We agree the original text conflated the pre- and post-randomization exclusion steps. We have rewritten Section 2.3 (p. 5, lines 128-146) to separate the two stages explicitly, and added a CONSORT-style flow diagram (new Figure 1) showing the number of participants excluded at each stage and the reason for exclusion. We hope this resolves the ambiguity the reviewer identified.”
This response treats a clarity comment as an instruction to revise the text and add a visual aid, not just to explain verbally in the letter what the manuscript should have said — the manuscript itself has to change, and the letter reports that change with a location.
Worked example 3 — respectfully disagreeing with a reviewer
Illustrative composite.
Reviewer comment: “The authors should remove the claim in the Discussion that this mechanism is ‘the primary driver’ of the observed outcome. This is a controlled cell-culture experiment, and I don’t think it supports a claim about the primary driver of the outcome in vivo.”
Author response: “We appreciate the reviewer’s caution here and agree that a single in vitro experiment cannot, on its own, establish which mechanism is primary in vivo. However, we would like to clarify that the claim in question (p. 7, lines 168-171) is explicitly scoped to the cell-culture model described in this study, not to the in vivo condition, and we have added the qualifying phrase ‘within this cell-culture model’ to remove any ambiguity (p. 7, line 168). We believe this addresses the reviewer’s underlying concern about overgeneralization while preserving the finding as demonstrated within the reported experimental system. We would be happy to soften the language further if the reviewer feels this revision does not fully resolve the concern.”
Good practice for a disagreement: acknowledge what’s valid in the reviewer’s underlying concern (overgeneralization), make a real textual concession that addresses that concern, explain precisely why the authors are not making the larger change requested, and leave the door open for further discussion rather than treating the exchange as settled unilaterally.
Common mistakes in response letters
- Vague responses. “We have revised the manuscript accordingly” with no page reference or description of what changed forces the reviewer to re-read the whole paper to find it.
- Arguing instead of fixing. If a comment can be resolved with a small textual change, making that change is almost always faster and more persuasive than a long argument for why the original text was already fine.
- Silently ignoring a comment. Every comment needs a visible response, even if the response is a respectful explanation for why no change was made.
- Defensive or dismissive tone. Reviewer comments can be blunt, occasionally mistaken, or based on a misreading — responding in kind rarely helps and can read poorly to the handling editor, who is often the actual audience for the letter’s tone as much as the reviewer is.
- Mismatched numbering. If a journal’s system numbers reviewers and comments (e.g., “Reviewer 2, Comment 4”), keep that exact numbering in the response letter — a renumbered or reordered response is harder for reviewers to cross-check against their own report.
How response letters are typically formatted
Journals rarely mandate a single format, but two conventions are common:
- Sequential quote-and-respond — each reviewer’s comments reproduced in order (often numbered), with the author response placed immediately after each one, and the reviewer’s original text visually distinguished (italics, indentation, or a different color).
- Two-column or tabular format — some journals or editorial systems prefer a table with “Reviewer comment” and “Author response” as columns, which some editors find easier to scan for completeness.
Either way, a cover letter to the editor (see CASRAI’s guide on cover letters for journal submission) typically accompanies the detailed response letter, briefly summarizing the nature of the revisions at a higher level.
Frequently asked questions
How long should a response to reviewers be?
There is no fixed length requirement — the letter should be as long as it takes to address every comment specifically and concretely. A response addressing a handful of minor points might run a page; a major revision with substantive methodological changes across two reviewers can reasonably run several pages. Length is a byproduct of thoroughness, not a target in itself.
What if I disagree with a reviewer’s comment?
Explain the disagreement with evidence — data already in the manuscript, a citation, or a clear methodological rationale — while staying collegial in tone. Editors expect some pushback on judgment calls; what they don’t expect is a comment left unaddressed or dismissed without reasoning. See Worked Example 3 above for one way to structure this.
Do I need to respond to every reviewer, or just the ones the editor highlighted?
Respond to every comment from every reviewer whose report you received, not only the points the editor flagged in the decision letter. Editors typically expect a complete response letter as part of the resubmission package, and an editor’s decision letter is usually a summary or emphasis, not a replacement for the full reviewer reports.
Should I thank the reviewers in the response letter?
A brief, genuine note of thanks at the start of the letter is common practice and generally welcomed, but it should not substitute for substantive point-by-point responses — a perfunctory “thank you for your valuable comments” followed by vague answers reads worse than no preamble at all.
What is the difference between a response letter and a rebuttal letter?
The terms are used inconsistently across journals and are often synonymous in practice. Some editors and authors reserve “rebuttal” specifically for the parts of the letter where the authors push back on a comment, while “response letter” refers to the full document addressing all comments, agreed and disagreed with alike — but this distinction is not standardized, so check the specific journal’s author guidelines for its preferred terminology and required format.
