How to respond to reviewer comments point by point

What a good response does

Answer every comment, say exactly what you changed, and show where the change appears. That is the core of a point-by-point response, which journals also call a response letter, a response to reviewers, or a rebuttal letter. It lets the editor, and often the original reviewers, check your revision quickly without comparing the old and new manuscripts line by line.

Remember who decides. Reviewers advise; the editor makes the decision. A good response is written for an editor who wants to see that each concern has been taken seriously, that changes are real and easy to find, and that any disagreement rests on evidence rather than frustration. Taylor & Francis’s guidance on responding to reviewer comments (external link) makes the same points from a publisher’s perspective.

Read the decision letter first

Before you look at individual comments, read the editor’s letter carefully. It often signals which concerns matter most, whether new analyses are expected, and whether the revised paper will go back to the same reviewers. It also sets the practical terms of the revision.

• The decision itself. Minor revision, major revision, and revise and resubmit mean different things at different journals. Our explainer on what a revise-and-resubmit decision really means covers the common labels.
• The editor’s priorities. If the editor singles out particular reviewer points as essential, treat them as essential.
• Required files. Many journals ask for a clean revised manuscript, a version with changes marked, and a separate response document.
• The deadline. Note it immediately, and ask for an extension early if you need one.

Allow a cooling-off period

Critical comments on work you have spent months or years on can feel personal, even when they are not meant that way. Read the reviews once, then set them aside for a day or two before drafting anything. Comments that seem unfair on a first reading often turn out to be reasonable requests for clarification, or signs that a passage did not say what you meant. COPE’s ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (external link) ask reviewers to be objective and constructive, so it is usually fair to read even a blunt comment as an attempt to improve the paper.

Sort the comments before you respond

Copy every comment into a working document and label it. Categorizing comments shows you how much work the revision involves, exposes conflicts between reviewers, and makes it easier to divide tasks among co-authors.

Build a response matrix

A response matrix is a working table with one row per comment. It is not the document you submit, but it makes the letter much easier to write and keeps an author team coordinated.

1. Number each comment by reviewer and order, for example R1.1, R1.2, and R2.1, so every comment has a stable reference.
2. Quote the comment in full or summarize it faithfully. Never shorten it in a way that changes its meaning.
3. Record the planned action: a change, an added clarification, or a reasoned disagreement.
4. Assign an owner among the co-authors and set a date.
5. Once the change is made, record its exact location in the revised manuscript.
6. Draft the response text last, when you know precisely what changed.

The example below shows what one finished entry might look like in the submitted response.

Get the tone right, including when you disagree

Courtesy helps the editor focus on substance. Thank the reviewers once, near the start, rather than at length in every reply. Be direct: open each response with what you did, then explain. Avoid sarcasm, defensiveness, and remarks about a reviewer’s expertise.

Disagreeing respectfully

You do not have to accept every suggestion. When you disagree, say so plainly and give reasons the editor can weigh: data from your study, a methodological source, published evidence, or a constraint of the design. Where possible, make a partial change that addresses the underlying concern, such as clarifying a passage that caused a misunderstanding. A reviewer who misread your methods has usually shown you a place where the text can be clearer.

When reviewers disagree with each other

If two reviewers ask for incompatible changes, choose the option that best serves the paper, explain your reasoning in both replies, and refer to the other reviewer’s comment so the editor can see the conflict. If the disagreement goes to the heart of the paper, it is reasonable to ask the editor for guidance before you resubmit.

Mark every change and keep the documents consistent

Editors and reviewers should be able to find each change within seconds. Give a precise location for every change, and state which version your page and line numbers refer to, since numbering usually differs between clean and marked-up files. Where a change is short, quote the revised text in the response. Follow the journal’s instructions on marking changes, whether that means tracked changes, highlighting, or colored text.

Before you submit, check the letter and the manuscript against each other. Late edits often shift page numbers, alter a figure number, or remove text that the letter still describes. Confirm that figure, table, reference, and supplementary file numbers match across the manuscript, the response, and the cover letter.

Who is responsible for the response

The response letter is part of the record of your revision, and it belongs to the authors. Every co-author should see the final response and the revised manuscript before resubmission, and the corresponding author should confirm that the two match. Colleagues, mentors, and professional editors can help make a response clearer and more concise, but the scientific judgments, the data, and the decisions about which changes to make remain with the authors.

If the decision was a rejection rather than an invitation to revise, a different plan applies; see how to assess a rejection and plan your next step. For help organizing a complex revision, Revise and Resubmit offers reviewer response and resubmission support that works within these same principles.