Labeeb reference · publisher guidance cited at source · Last checked 29 September 2026
How to Respond to Reviewer Comments: Response Letter Structure, Template and Examples (2026)
For GCC faculty, doctoral candidates and clinicians with a minor revision, major revision or reject-and-resubmit decision from a journal: what each decision asks, how publishers expect the reply laid out, and a table to copy.
Start here: a revision decision is an invitation to continue
A response to reviewers is a working document for the editor: comment by comment, what you changed, where to find it, and why you handled any point differently from what was asked.
- Read the decision letter twice first. It names the decision, the deadline and how the journal wants changes shown.
- Answer the editor first, then each reviewer in turn. The editor decides; reviewers advise.
- The responses and the revisions are yours. As the author, you write your own replies and make your own changes. A careful revision does not guarantee acceptance.
Research on Saudi nursing faculty (152 respondents, published 2023) found that 68.4% agreed they did not know how to respond to reviewers’ comments, and 62.5% agreed they had stopped publishing after a first rejection (Hakami, 2023).
Decision types: minor revision, major revision, reject and resubmit
Journals label their decisions differently, so the wording in your own letter always takes precedence over this summary.
| Decision | What it usually means | What you send back |
|---|---|---|
| Minor revision | Wiley: publication after small corrections. The editor may check the revision alone or return it to the reviewers. | Response document, marked-up and clean manuscripts, by the stated date. |
| Major revision | Substantial changes, often new analyses or a restructured argument. Taylor & Francis notes the paper can still be rejected if the changes are judged inadequate. | The same files, with an overview of main changes first. |
| Reject and resubmit | Used by some journals only. The paper is formally rejected, but an essentially new version may be considered, often as a fresh submission. | A new submission citing the earlier decision, with responses to the original comments if requested. |
| Reject | Not published. Some publishers offer a transfer to a sister journal. | Nothing to this journal; see after a rejection. |
Sources: Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Springer Nature, JF editor.
The response letter structure
Publisher guidance describes a package: a short cover note to the editor, the response document, a marked-up manuscript and a clean manuscript (Elsevier; Springer Nature). The response document has two parts.
- Overview of main changes. A short list of new data, new analyses or restructured sections, before any individual comment (Noble, 2017).
- Point-by-point table. Every editor and reviewer comment, numbered, with your reply beside it.
Taylor & Francis suggests a two-column grid of comments and alterations. Adding a third column for location lets the editor verify each change in seconds:
| Column | What it holds |
|---|---|
| Comment | A reference such as R1.3 (Reviewer 1, point 3) and the reviewer’s own words, copied in full. Split long comments into separate numbered points. |
| Response | A direct answer first (“We agree”, “We have partly adopted this”, “We have kept the original approach”), then the reasoning. |
| Change and location | The revised wording quoted, or a short description for long changes, with page and line numbers in the version the editor will open. |
Williams (2004) sums up the standard as three rules: respond completely, politely and with evidence. Elsevier warns against bare replies such as “fixed in manuscript”.
Tone: courteous, specific, unemotional
- Let the first reaction pass. Wiley suggests waiting 24 to 72 hours before replying; Taylor & Francis advises not taking criticism personally.
- Thank once, then work. One thank-you at the top is enough; praising every comment adds length, not credibility.
- Own misreadings. If a reviewer missed something, treat it as a clarity problem and fix the text (Noble, 2017).
- Discuss the point, never the reviewer’s motives or expertise. Elsevier puts it plainly: “There is no space for ego in your response.”
How to disagree respectfully, with evidence
Every publisher we checked accepts reasoned disagreement. None accepts silence: a point you do not adopt still needs a reply (Taylor & Francis; Springer Nature).
- Restate the concern fairly so the reviewer can see it was understood.
- Bring evidence, not opinion: a citation, a reporting guideline, your study design, a sensitivity analysis, or the journal’s own scope.
- Meet the concern halfway: a caveat, a limitation, a supplementary analysis or a clarified sentence.
- Stay assertive and persuasive, not defensive, as Taylor & Francis advises; reviewers may read your reply in the next round.
A workable pattern: “We appreciate this suggestion. We have retained [approach] because [reason, with reference]. To address the underlying concern, we have added [change] (page X, lines Y–Z).”
Tracking changes so the editor can verify them
- Follow the letter’s instructions first. Springer Nature notes that decision letters usually say how changes should be highlighted.
- Upload a marked-up and a clean version unless told otherwise. The clean file is usually uploaded as the manuscript itself (Elsevier).
- Freeze the text before adding locations. Line numbers shift with each edit, so add them last and name the file they refer to.
- Separate three things visually: the reviewer’s comment, your reply, and quoted revised text, using typeface, colour or indentation (Noble, 2017).
Deadlines and extensions: check the journal’s letter
Revision windows vary by journal and decision, so the date that counts is the one in your decision letter or submission system. If you cannot meet it, write to the editor before it passes with a realistic date; Springer Nature advises telling the editor immediately.
Handling conflicting reviewers
When Reviewer 1 wants a section expanded and Reviewer 2 wants it cut, the editor’s letter is your tie-breaker; some letters say which comments matter most.
- Choose one route and explain it in both replies, naming the other reviewer’s point, or find a change that serves both, such as moving detail to a supplement.
- Ask the editor when the conflict is fundamental. Taylor & Francis advises contacting the editor about comments you do not know how to answer, and Noble suggests offering a change “if the editor concurs”.
After a rejection: choosing the next journal
- Pause before appealing. Springer Nature notes appeals rarely succeed without strong new evidence.
- Use the reviews. Fix what was valid; the next journal may use the same reviewers.
- Revisit your shortlist. Taylor & Francis suggests re-reading each journal’s aims and scope and reformatting to the new author guidelines, or considering a transfer offer. If you decline a revision, withdraw formally before submitting elsewhere.
- Check legitimacy and indexing of any new target, especially one that contacted you first. See our journal publication support for help with journal selection.
Copyable template with illustrative examples
Illustrative only. Invented rows for a hypothetical survey of hospital nurses. No real review, person, journal or institution is involved.
Opening paragraph: “Dear Dr [Editor], thank you for the opportunity to revise manuscript [ID], ‘[Title]’. We have addressed every comment below. Changes are shown in the marked-up file; page and line numbers refer to that file.”
| Comment | Response | Change and location |
|---|---|---|
| E.1 “Please reduce the abstract to the journal’s 250-word limit.” | Done. The abstract now has 248 words and keeps all primary outcomes. | Abstract, p. 1, lines 3–21. |
| R1.1 “The recruitment period and response rate are not reported.” | We agree this was missing. We now report both, with the number of questionnaires distributed and returned. | Methods, p. 6, lines 112–118: “Data were collected between [month] and [month]…” |
| R1.2 “How were incomplete questionnaires handled?” | We added a sensitivity analysis excluding incomplete responses. The direction of every main result is unchanged. | Methods, p. 8, lines 160–166; new Supplementary Table S2. |
| R2.1 “A qualitative strand would strengthen the study.” | We appreciate the suggestion. Interviews fall outside the approved ethics protocol and the survey design, so we have not added them. We now name this as a limitation and a direction for future work. | Discussion, p. 15, lines 301–307. |
| R1.3 / R2.2 R1: “Table 3 is too detailed.” R2: “Table 3 should show item-level scores.” | Following the editor’s guidance, we kept a summary Table 3 in the paper and moved item-level scores to the supplement, which answers both points. | Table 3, p. 11; Supplementary Table S3. |
| [ID] “[Comment, copied in full]” | [Direct answer, then reasoning and evidence] | [Section, page, lines; quoted revised text] |
| [ID] “[Comment, copied in full]” | [Direct answer, then reasoning and evidence] | [Section, page, lines; quoted revised text] |
Copy the table into your word processor and fill the bracketed rows.
Checklist before you press resubmit
- Every editor and reviewer comment has its own numbered row.
- Each reply opens with a direct answer.
- Every declined request has a reason backed by evidence and, where possible, a partial change.
- Page and line numbers match the file the editor will open.
- Marked-up and clean files are both uploaded, as the letter instructs.
- Changed results are updated in the abstract, tables and discussion too.
- All co-authors have read and approved the revision and the response.
- The revision is submitted before the deadline, or an extension has been agreed in writing.
Where Labeeb fits, and its limits
You remain the author: you write the responses and make the changes. Labeeb can review your draft response for completeness, tone and consistency with the revised paper, coach you through difficult comments, and edit the language of text you wrote. We never contact editors or reviewers on your behalf and cannot promise acceptance.
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between minor revision, major revision and reject and resubmit?
A minor revision asks for small corrections before the journal expects to publish. A major revision asks for substantial changes, and the paper can still be rejected afterwards. Reject and resubmit, used by some journals only, formally rejects the paper but invites an essentially new version, often treated as a new submission.
Can I disagree with a reviewer?
Yes. Publishers accept reasoned disagreement, but you must still reply to the comment. Restate the concern, give evidence for your approach, meet the concern halfway if possible, and keep the tone assertive rather than defensive.
What should I do when two reviewers ask for opposite changes?
Check the editor’s letter for priorities, choose one route, and explain it in both replies. Look for a change that serves both, such as moving detail to a supplement. If the conflict is fundamental, ask the editor before revising.
How long do I have to submit my revision?
Check the journal’s letter or submission system; revision windows vary by journal and decision. If you need more time, write to the editor before the deadline and propose a realistic date.
Can Labeeb write my response to reviewers?
No. You write your own responses and make your own changes. Labeeb can review your draft, coach you on difficult comments and edit the language of what you have written. We never contact editors or reviewers for you and cannot promise acceptance.
How to cite this page (APA 7)
Labeeb Writing & Designs. (2026, September 29). How to respond to reviewer comments: Response letter structure, template and examples (2026). https://labeeb.ae/respond-to-reviewer-comments-template/
Sources
Last checked: 29 September 2026. Publisher pages are the publishers’ own author guidance; papers were verified through Crossref.
- Wiley. Peer review process (Author Services). https://authors.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/submission-peer-review/peer-review.html
- Taylor & Francis. Understanding peer review (Author Services). https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/; Pallas, C. L. How to respond to reviewer comments: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/blog/peer-review/how-to-respond-to-reviewer-comments/
- Carnovale, C. (2019, April 3). How to respond to reviewer comments: the CALM way. Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/how-to-respond-to-reviewer-comments-the-calm-way
- Springer Nature. How to submit a journal article manuscript: revising, responding and common rejection reasons. https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/campaigns/how-to-submit-a-journal-article-manuscript/common-rejection-reasons
- Nagel, S. (2018, March 21). “Reject-and-resubmits”: why we discontinued them at the JF. Journal of Finance editor blog. https://voices.uchicago.edu/jfeditor/?p=88
- Noble, W. S. (2017). Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(10), e1005730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730
- Williams, H. C. (2004). How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 51(1), 79–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2004.01.049
- Hakami, M. S. A. (2023). Barriers to conducting and publishing scientific research among nursing faculty members in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 16, 2733–2743. https://doi.org/10.2147/JMDH.S429478
Planning your response to a revise-and-resubmit? Chat with Labeeb.