How to Respond to Peer Reviewers
Getting reviewer comments is good news. Here's how to write a professional, thorough response that maximizes your chances of acceptance.
Receiving peer review comments means your paper made it through desk review and is being seriously considered. A strong response to reviewers demonstrates scientific rigor, intellectual honesty, and professional communication. Editors read both your responses and your revised manuscript, and a poorly structured or dismissive response can lead to rejection even when revisions are otherwise adequate.
Understanding the types of reviewer comments
Reviewer comments generally fall into four categories: major revisions requiring new experiments or substantial rewriting; minor revisions involving clarification or additional references; editorial suggestions for style or structure; and optional suggestions the reviewer does not require but recommends. Identifying which category each comment falls into helps you prioritize your response.
- Major revisions
- require genuine scientific engagement and often new data or analysis
- Minor revisions
- clarifications, additional citations, or rewording
- Scope comments
- reviewers questioning the novelty or fit of the paper
- Optional suggestions
- addressed as 'we thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have...'
How to structure a response letter
Your response letter should begin with a brief summary of the major revisions made, followed by a numbered, point-by-point response to every reviewer comment without exception. Each response should quote the original comment, state what action you took, and include the revised text where applicable.
- Start with a brief summary paragraph of major changes
- Number your responses to match reviewer comment numbers
- Quote each reviewer comment verbatim before your response
- For each change, cite the page and line number in the revised manuscript
- If you disagree with a comment, explain your scientific reasoning respectfully
Responding to comments you disagree with
It is acceptable to respectfully disagree with a reviewer comment if you have strong scientific grounds. However, your response must be evidence-based, polite, and acknowledge the reviewer's perspective. Simply stating 'we disagree' is insufficient. Provide data, literature support, or methodological justification.
Before submitting your revision: run a fresh compliance check
During revision, it is common to inadvertently introduce new formatting issues: added references that are not in the bibliography, new tables without captions, changed abstract text that no longer meets word limits. Run CheckMyManuscript on your revised manuscript before resubmission to catch any new compliance issues introduced during revision.
Frequently asked questions
There is no fixed length. The response should be as long as necessary to fully address every comment. For a paper with three reviewers and 30 combined comments, a 10-15 page response document is not unusual. Thoroughness signals professionalism.