Send the editor a reply letter that copies each reviewer comment, answers it, and gives the page and line where the manuscript changed.
Many times the editor opens this letter before the revised paper itself. When the letter is clear, in about ten minutes the editor can see that you took every comment seriously. When it is vague, the editor will return back the paper to the reviewers and ask them to check everything again. You lose two or three months more.
Read the decision letter twice, a day apart
The first time you read the comments, it will hurt. On top the editor has written “major revision”, but 23 points written in short, dry words will look like a rejection to you. Read it once, close it, and open it again the next day.
In the second reading, look first at what the editor has written above the reviewer comments. Mostly the editor points out the main issues there itself. You may see a line such as “Please pay particular attention to Reviewer 2’s concerns about the measurement model.” Give those points most of your time.
Then see the deadline in the same letter. Mostly it is given as number of days, and each journal keeps its own period. In case you need some extra time, send the editor a mail before the deadline is over and not after. Two or three polite lines are usually enough for this.
Sort the comments before you write anything
Before writing any reply, copy all the comments into a table with four columns. The first column is the comment number, then the comment itself, then what you plan to do, and last, where in the paper you will do it. Give a code to each comment, like R1.3 for the third point of Reviewer 1, even if the reviewers did not number them.
Once the table is ready, go through it again and put a type against every comment. Some are small fixes, like a typo, a missing reference or a wrong figure label. Some need proper work, for example a new analysis, a section written again, or more literature. A few you may not agree with. Do the proper work first, since it mostly changes the same text the small fixes touch.
When a comment is not clear, don’t guess. Read it next to the part of the paper it refers to. The reviewer comment explainer on our site can help you understand a confusing comment. What to change is still for you and your co-authors to decide.
Lay out the reply letter
Start the letter with a short note to the editor. One line of thanks is enough. Below that line give three or four bullet points with the main changes you made. Avoid a full page of thanks, because editors only skim it.
After the note, take one reviewer at a time. Copy each comment word for word and put it in italics or bold. Write your reply under it in normal text. Every reply should end with where the change is, for example “Revised: page 9, lines 210–224.” Some scholars paste whole new paragraph in the letter. Two or three lines of the new text is plenty.
The line numbers must come from the revised manuscript and not from the old one. Many journals ask you to switch on line numbering in Word. Our reviewer response builder builds this layout with you, one comment after another.
When you agree, show the change
Many scholars write only “Done” or “We have addressed this comment” under a point. From that the editor cannot know what you did without searching the paper.
In a proper reply, write in one line what you understood from the comment. After that tell what you changed and where the reader can see it in the paper. If you ran a new analysis, put the main numbers in the letter also, so the reviewer need not search the results section for them.
Sometimes the comment catches a real mistake. Then just accept it in the letter. You can write “Thank you. The figure for Table 4 was wrong, and we have corrected it.” Reviewers respect this much more than a defensive answer.
| Reviewer comment | Weak reply | Reply the editor can check |
|---|---|---|
| “The sample size is not justified.” | “We have justified the sample size.” | “We have now added the sample size calculation from G*Power (effect size 0.15, power 0.80, five predictors). It gives a minimum of 92, and our sample is 312. Please see Method, page 7, lines 140–146.” |
| “The literature is outdated.” | “We have updated the literature.” | “We have added nine studies published from 2022 to 2025, and the list is given below. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Introduction are written again (page 2, lines 31–58).” |
| “Why was PLS-SEM used instead of CB-SEM?” | “PLS-SEM is widely used.” | “The aim of our study is prediction, and the model has a formative construct, so we used PLS-SEM. This reason is now given in Method, page 8, lines 160–166, with two supporting references.” |
| “Please add a qualitative phase.” | “This is not possible.” | “A qualitative phase does not fit the design and data of this study. We have mentioned it as a direction for future work (Discussion, page 15, lines 402–405) and also listed it as a limitation.” |
When you disagree, give a reason
Accepting every comment is not compulsory. Sometimes the reviewer has misread the paper. Some other time the reviewer is asking for a study you never did, or for a method which is not suiting your data. In such cases you can say no, but the way you say it is very important.
First thank the reviewer for raising the point. Then give your reason in two or three sentences, with a reference if you have one. If you can, do some small change in the direction the reviewer asked. Maybe one sentence in the limitations, or a footnote, or you explain the point more clearly. Then the reviewer knows you did think about the comment.
Keep away from arguing in the letter. Writing that the reviewer does not know the subject is the worst thing you can do. The final decision is with the editor, and editors notice the tone. If your reply sounds angry, the editor may go with the reviewer even on a point where you were right.
When two reviewers want opposite things
This happens very commonly. For example, the literature review is too long for Reviewer 1, but Reviewer 2 wants six more studies in it. Or Reviewer 1 wants less tables and Reviewer 2 is asking for a new table.
Choose the change that makes the paper stronger, and explain this choice in the reply to both reviewers. For example, “Reviewer 1 asked for a shorter introduction, while Reviewer 2 asked for more recent studies. We have added four recent studies and removed two older paragraphs, so the introduction is now 120 words shorter.” Sometimes there is really no way to do both. Then mention it to the editor in the opening note itself and ask which way to go.
Prepare the revised manuscript and the files
Most journals ask for two copies of the revised paper, one with the changes marked and one clean copy. For the marked copy use Track Changes in Word, or coloured text if the journal asks for that. In a few journals the system takes one file only, so read what your journal has written in its instructions.
Before uploading, keep the reply letter open next to the marked copy and check each page and line number. A paragraph added near the start moves all the numbers after it. When the reviewer goes to a line twice and finds some other text there, after that the reviewer will not trust the rest of your letter.
Also check that the title, abstract and conclusions still agree with the revised results. Many scholars update a table and then forget to change abstract.
Help with a response letter
We do reviewer comments response work remotely from Nagercoil. We go through the comments together with you, sort them, plan each change, and keep editing the reply letter with you till every point has an answer and a location. If a reviewer wants a new analysis, we can run it with you and explain the output, so you can defend it yourself.
We cannot promise that the editor will accept the revision. That decision is with the journal only. If your paper came from a thesis chapter, please read our guide on turning a thesis chapter into a paper. Reviewers many times complain that a paper from a thesis is too long or loose, and that guide talks about exactly this.
Questions scholars ask
Is there a page limit for the reply letter?
Most journals don’t give any limit. For twenty comments the letter can easily go to eight or ten pages, and that is quite normal. Length is not the problem for editors. They get irritated only when they cannot follow an answer.
Can I ignore a minor comment?
No, you have to reply even the minor ones. For a typo we just write “Corrected, page 4, line 88.” and move on. Leave one comment blank and the editor will take it that you skipped it.
What if the reviewer asks me to cite their papers?
Look at their papers first. If one really fits your work, cite it. If it is not relevant, you can politely explain why you have not added it. Editors know that this happens sometimes.
Should I thank the reviewer in every reply?
Under most replies a short “Thank you for this point” is enough. Writing long thanks again and again only adds pages to the letter.
What if the second round brings new comments?
New comments in round two are normal. Reply to them in the same way as you did in the first round. Keep the old numbers going. If round one ended at R1.11, start the new ones from R1.12, and then the editor can follow both rounds together.