Response to Reviewers Template (With Examples)

A response to reviewers (also called a rebuttal letter or response letter) is the document you submit with a revised manuscript, answering every reviewer comment one by one. The standard format is point-by-point: quote each comment, reply to it, and say exactly what you changed and where. A copyable template is below.

A good response letter makes the editor's job easy. The editor should be able to check, without opening two versions of your manuscript side by side, that every concern was addressed.

The structure that editors expect

Almost every journal accepts the same basic structure:

1. A short opening letter to the editor. Thank the editor and reviewers, give the manuscript ID and title, and summarize the main changes in three to five bullet points.
2. Responses to each reviewer, in order. Reviewer 1 first, then Reviewer 2, and so on. If the editor added their own comments, answer those first.
3. Each comment quoted in full, followed by your response. Number them (R1.1, R1.2, R2.1...) so you and the editor can refer back.
4. For every change, the location. Page and line numbers in the revised manuscript, plus the new or changed text quoted.
5. A closing line. Brief, and no new arguments.

Format the comments and responses so they are visually distinct. Common choices are bold for the reviewer comment and plain text for the response, or a different color for the response. Check the journal's instructions; some ask for a specific format or a table.

The full template (copy and edit)

[Date]

Dear Dr. [Editor's surname],

Re: Manuscript ID [XXXX-2026-0000], "[Full manuscript title]"

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We are grateful to
you and the reviewers for the careful reading and constructive comments,
which have improved the paper. We have addressed every comment below.
Reviewer comments are shown in bold, followed by our response. Page and
line numbers refer to the revised manuscript with tracked changes.

Summary of main changes:
1. [e.g., Added a sensitivity analysis excluding participants with
   missing baseline data (Methods, p. 8, lines 150-162; Results, Table 3).]
2. [e.g., Rewrote the Discussion to address alternative explanations
   (p. 15, lines 301-327).]
3. [e.g., Added 6 references on X, as suggested by Reviewer 2.]
4. [e.g., Shortened the Introduction by about 300 words.]

------------------------------------------------------------
EDITOR'S COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------

E.1  **[Quote the editor's comment in full.]**

Response: [Your reply. State what you did.]
Change: [Location. Quote the new text if short.]

------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWER 1
------------------------------------------------------------

R1.1  **[Quote the comment in full.]**

Response: Thank you for this comment. We agree that [restate the concern
in one sentence]. We have [describe the change].
Change: Methods, p. 7, lines 132-140: "[new text]"

R1.2  **[Quote the comment in full.]**

Response: [Reply.]
Change: [Location / quoted text.]

------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEWER 2
------------------------------------------------------------

R2.1  **[Quote the comment in full.]**

Response: [Reply.]
Change: [Location / quoted text.]

------------------------------------------------------------

We hope the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in
[Journal name]. We would be glad to address any further questions.

Sincerely,

[Corresponding author name], on behalf of all authors
[Affiliation]
[Email]

How to write each response

Every response should do three things:

1. Acknowledge the point in one sentence. Not flattery, just evidence you understood it.
2. Act or explain. Either describe the change, or explain clearly why you did not make it.
3. Point to the change. Location and, for short changes, the quoted new text.

Example: a comment you agree with

Example: a request you can only partly meet

Example: a comment that reflects a misunderstanding

If a reviewer misread something, the honest response is that your writing was unclear, then fix the writing.

How to disagree politely

You do not have to make every change a reviewer suggests. Editors expect some disagreement, provided it is reasoned and respectful. The pattern that works:

1. Thank the reviewer and show you took the point seriously.
2. Give your reason, with evidence: data, a citation, a design constraint, or the journal's scope.
3. Offer something: a clarification in the text, a sensitivity analysis, or a sentence in the limitations.

Useful phrases:

• "We appreciate this suggestion and considered it carefully. However, ..."
• "We respectfully disagree, for the following reason: ..."
• "We have chosen to retain the original approach because ... To address the concern, we have added ..."
• "This is a fair point. To our knowledge, the evidence on this is mixed (Author, Year; Author, Year), so we have softened our wording from 'demonstrates' to 'suggests'."
• "We ran the suggested analysis; the results were consistent with our main findings (see Supplementary Table S4). We have kept the original model in the main text and reported the alternative in the supplement."

Example: disagreeing about a statistical method

Notice what this does: it explains the reasoning, shows the evidence, and still runs the requested analysis. Running the alternative analysis is often the fastest way to resolve a methods disagreement, because it moves the discussion from opinion to results.

When two reviewers contradict each other

Say so openly, explain which direction you chose and why, and address the editor:

Tone: what to avoid

• Defensive or sarcastic language. "As clearly stated in the Methods..." reads as hostile. Write "We have clarified this in the Methods" instead.
• Over-apologizing. One "thank you" per comment is plenty. Long apologies take space without adding information.
• Vague answers. "We have revised the manuscript accordingly" without a location forces the editor to search.
• Ignoring a comment. Every comment gets a response, even "Thank you; corrected" for typos.
• Arguing in the letter but not changing the paper. If your explanation convinced you a sentence was confusing, the next reader will be confused too. Change the text.

A checklist before you submit the revision

• Every comment numbered and answered, including minor ones.
• Every response gives a page and line number in the revised manuscript.
• Page and line numbers re-checked after final edits (they shift).
• Tracked-changes version and clean version both uploaded, if requested.
• New references added to the reference list and formatted.
• Numbers in the response letter match the revised manuscript exactly.
• Word count still within the journal limit.
• All co-authors have read and approved the response.
• Submitted before the revision deadline, or an extension requested in advance.

Before the next submission

Many of the comments in a typical first round are predictable: missing effect sizes, unclear inclusion criteria, unreported assumption checks, overclaimed conclusions, missing limitations. Catching these before you submit saves a full review cycle. You can run a simulated peer review before you submit: Data2Paper Paper Review uploads your manuscript PDF and returns reports from several simulated reviewers, an editorial decision, a prioritized revision roadmap, and a reference check, in a few minutes. You can preview the first half free; unlocking the full review is $9.90 one-time. It is an AI simulation, not a substitute for real peer review, but it is useful practice for exactly the kind of comments you will be answering in a letter like the one above.

If your paper was returned without review, that is a different situation. See our guide to desk rejection for what it means and what to do next.

FAQ

How long should a response to reviewers be?

As long as it needs to be to answer every comment clearly. Major revisions commonly produce letters of several pages. Keep each response short and specific; length should come from the number of comments, not from long explanations.

Should I quote the reviewer's comment in full?

Yes. Quoting in full shows you are not paraphrasing a criticism into something easier to answer, and it lets the editor read your response without switching documents. For very long comments, split them into numbered parts and answer each.

Can I refuse to make a change a reviewer asked for?

Yes, if you give a reasoned explanation. Editors make the final decision and often accept well-argued disagreement, especially when you offer an alternative such as a sensitivity analysis or a limitation statement.

Do I address the response to the editor or the reviewers?

Address the letter to the editor, who forwards it to the reviewers. Within the letter, the responses are directed at each reviewer's comments. Write as if both will read every word.

What if I think a reviewer is wrong about a basic fact?

Respond politely with evidence: a citation, your data, or a quote from your own Methods. Assume the misunderstanding came from unclear writing and clarify the text. If the issue is serious, you can also note it in a confidential comment to the editor if the submission system allows it.