How to Respond to Peer Reviewer Comments: Examples, Tips, Sample

Key Takeaways:

• A good response letter addresses every reviewer comment point by point, states what you changed, and stays respectful even when a comment is unclear or harsh.
• Rude, sarcastic, or biased comments should be flagged to the editor rather than answered in kind; your job is to fix the science, not settle the tone.
• Conflicting comments, missed deadlines, and comments you cannot address are all common and manageable with clear, direct communication with the editor.
• A phrase bank and a structured cover letter template can make responses faster to write and easier for editors and reviewers to follow.

Glossary of Key Terms

The table below defines terms used throughout this guide.

Term	Definition
Response letter	A document that answers each reviewer comment point by point and explains any changes made to the manuscript.
Point-by-point response	A response format that numbers and answers each comment individually, rather than replying in general terms.
Cover letter	A short letter accompanying a resubmission that summarizes the revision for the editor.
Track changes	A word processor feature that marks edits visibly so reviewers can see exactly what changed.
Rebuttal	A response that respectfully disagrees with a reviewer’s comment and explains why a change was not made.
Editor’s decision letter	The letter from the editor summarizing reviewer feedback and stating the required next step.
Reviewer 2	An informal term for an unusually harsh or demanding reviewer, used widely in academic circles.
Open peer review	A review model in which reviewer and author identities, and sometimes the reviews themselves, are disclosed.
Post-publication review	Public commentary or critique of a paper that occurs after it has already been published.
PubPeer	A public website where readers can post comments and raise concerns about published papers.

What Does It Mean to Respond to Reviewer Comments?

Responding to reviewer comments means preparing a document, usually called a response letter, that addresses every point a reviewer raised about your manuscript. For each comment, you explain what you changed, where in the manuscript you changed it, or why you chose not to make a change. This response goes back to the editor along with your revised manuscript, and it is what the editor and reviewers use to judge whether your revision is adequate.

Why a Good Response Letter Matters

A clear, organized response letter makes it easy for reviewers and editors to see that you took their feedback seriously, even where you disagreed with a point. Sloppy or incomplete responses are a common reason for further revision requests or outright rejection at the resubmission stage, since editors cannot easily tell whether a concern was actually addressed. A strong response letter can also shorten the overall review timeline, since reviewers spend less time hunting for what changed.

Tips for New Authors

If this is your first revision, a few habits will save you time and stress.

• Read every comment fully before responding to any of them, so you understand the full scope of requested changes.
• Respond to comments in the exact order the reviewer or editor listed them, and number each response to match.
• Never argue that a reviewer is simply wrong without offering evidence, data, or a citation to support your position.
• Thank reviewers briefly at the start of your letter, even if some comments were difficult to receive.
• Keep a master copy of the original manuscript so you can clearly track and describe every change you make.
• Ask a co-author or mentor to read your response letter before you submit it, since a second set of eyes often catches gaps.

If English is Not Your First Language

Authors writing in a second language face 2 challenges at once: responding to scientific content and doing so in precise, professional English. These tips help reduce that burden.

• Use short, direct sentences in your response letter; complex sentence structures increase the chance of being misunderstood.
• Keep a running list of English phrases that work well in review responses, and reuse them rather than composing new phrasing each time.
• If a comment’s wording is unclear, do not guess; ask the editor for clarification rather than risk answering the wrong question.
• Have a fluent colleague or professional editing service check your response letter and cover letter before submission, since tone matters as much as grammar.
• Avoid idioms or humor in your response letter; plain, literal language is less likely to be misread by reviewers from different linguistic backgrounds.

How Do You Deal with Rude or Sarcastic Reviewer Comments?

Deal with rude or sarcastic comments by responding to the scientific content only and ignoring the tone. Reviewers occasionally write comments that feel dismissive or sharp, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes not. Reacting emotionally in your response letter can hurt your case, so focus your written reply strictly on the substance: what the reviewer is asking for and how you addressed it.

• Reword the comment neutrally in your own summary before responding, which keeps your reply professional regardless of the original tone.
• Never mirror sarcasm or irritation back at the reviewer in your response letter.
• If a comment is genuinely abusive rather than just blunt, flag it privately to the editor in your cover letter or a separate note.
• Remember that editors read these exchanges too, and a calm, evidence-based response reflects well on you regardless of the reviewer’s tone.

Example

Reviewer comment: “I’m shocked the authors think this qualifies as a rigorous methodology. Did they go to grad school?”

Sample response:

“We thank the reviewer for raising concerns about our methodology. We have revised Section 3 to provide a more detailed justification for our sampling approach and added a new paragraph addressing potential limitations (page 6, lines 10-24). We have also included additional validation checks, described in the supplementary materials, to strengthen confidence in our results.”

Notice the response strips out the sarcasm entirely and answers only the underlying methodological concern. Nowhere does it acknowledge or react to the reviewer’s tone, defend against the implied insult, or apologize excessively. If the comment felt genuinely abusive rather than just blunt, the author would also send the editor a brief, separate note flagging it, rather than addressing the tone in the public response letter itself.

How Do You Deal with Racist or Biased Comments?

Comments that touch on an author’s nationality, institution, English proficiency, or other personal characteristics rather than the science itself cross an ethical line. Do not simply absorb these comments into your response letter. Instead, address the underlying scientific question if there is one, and separately report the comment to the editor, who has a responsibility to intervene.

• Quote the specific comment in a private note to the editor rather than paraphrasing it, so the record is precise.
• Reference the journal’s code of conduct or the COPE guidelines on reviewer misconduct if you need to escalate.
• Keep your public response letter focused on any legitimate scientific point buried in the comment, separate from the biased language.
• Request that the editor consider reassigning that reviewer for any future rounds if the behavior continues.

What to Do If You Can’t Understand a Reviewer’s Comment

If a comment is genuinely unclear, do not guess at its meaning and hope for the best. Reread it alongside the relevant section of your manuscript, since context sometimes clarifies intent. If it is still unclear, you have 2 reasonable options: ask the editor for clarification before revising, or state your interpretation explicitly in your response letter so the reviewer can correct you if you read it wrong.

• Write out your interpretation directly: for example, state, ‘We understood this comment to mean X, and revised accordingly.’
• Contact the editor if the ambiguity affects a major, not minor, revision, since guessing wrong on a major point wastes a full review cycle.
• Avoid leaving a confusing comment unanswered; an unanswered comment reads as an ignored comment to reviewers and editors.

Example

Reviewer comment: “The framing in Section 2 seems a bit off given what comes later; the authors may want to revisit this.”

Sample response:

“We appreciate this comment but were not entirely certain which aspect of the framing the reviewer felt was inconsistent with later sections. We interpreted this as referring to the theoretical framework introduced in Section 2.1, which did not clearly connect to the hypotheses tested in Section 4. We have revised Section 2.1 to explicitly link each theoretical construct to the corresponding hypothesis (page 5, lines 8-19). If this was not the intended concern, we would welcome further clarification to ensure we have addressed it correctly.”

This shows the editor and reviewer exactly how you read an ambiguous comment, so they can correct your interpretation if needed rather than leaving it unresolved.

Confusing Peer Review Phrases and What They Actually Mean

Certain reviewer phrases are notoriously easy to misread, especially for non-native English speakers, because they use colloquial language or academic understatement. The table below translates common phrases into their practical meaning.

Reviewer Phrase	What It Likely Means
This is interesting.	Neutral or noncommittal; does not necessarily mean the reviewer liked it.
The authors may wish to consider…	This is effectively a required change, phrased politely.
I have some concerns about…	A significant issue that needs a substantive response, not a minor note.
This needs more work.	The current version is not acceptable as submitted; a major revision is expected.
It would be helpful if…	The reviewer wants this added or clarified; treat it as a request, not a suggestion.
I wonder whether…	A polite way of raising doubt about a method, claim, or interpretation.
The manuscript would benefit from…	Something is currently missing or weak and should be improved.
Somewhat unclear.	Genuinely confusing to the reviewer; rewrite the passage rather than lightly editing it.

How to Handle Conflicting Reviewer Comments

Conflicting comments happen often: one reviewer may ask you to expand a section while another asks you to shorten it. Do not silently pick a side without explanation. Note the conflict directly in your response letter, describe the approach you chose, and give your reasoning. Editors expect and understand this situation, and a transparent explanation is far more useful to them than a response that ignores the contradiction.

• Address both comments together in your response letter rather than separating them by reviewer number.
• State clearly which approach you followed and why, referencing journal guidelines or established methods where possible.
• If the conflict is significant, consider asking the editor directly for guidance before finalizing your revision.

Example

• Reviewer 1 comment: “The literature review is too brief and should be expanded to include more recent studies on this topic.”
• Reviewer 2 comment: “The literature review is overly long and could be condensed to keep the focus on the study’s core contribution.”
• Sample response:
• “We thank both reviewers for their feedback on the literature review. As Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 offered differing views on its length, we chose to retain the current scope but reorganized the section for clarity, moving background context to an earlier paragraph and keeping the discussion of recent studies concise and directly tied to our research question (see page 4, lines 12-28).”

What If You Can’t Address a Comment?

Not every comment can or should be implemented. Perhaps the requested experiment is outside your resources, or the suggested change would contradict your data. In these cases, do not ignore the comment. Explain clearly why the change is not feasible or not appropriate, and offer an alternative if one exists, such as an added limitation statement or a note in the discussion section.

• Never leave a comment unanswered simply because you disagree with it or find it unreasonable.
• Support your explanation with evidence: cite prior literature, explain resource or scope limits, or point to existing data already in the manuscript.
• Offer a partial solution where a full one is not possible, such as acknowledging the limitation explicitly in the text.

Example

Reviewer comment: “The authors should repeat the analysis using a larger, multi-site sample to confirm these findings generalize beyond a single institution.”

Sample response:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. Unfortunately, expanding to a multi-site sample was not feasible within our current study timeline and funding, as it would require new ethical approvals and data-sharing agreements with external institutions. To address this limitation, we have added a statement in the Discussion section acknowledging the single-site design and its implications for generalizability (page 9, lines 15-22), and we have proposed multi-site replication as a direction for future research.”

What to Do If You Can’t Meet the Revision Deadline

Most journals allow 4 to 8 weeks for a standard revision, occasionally longer for major changes. If you cannot meet that deadline, contact the editorial office before the deadline passes, not after. Most editors will grant a reasonable extension, especially for major revisions requiring new experiments, but silence or a late submission with no explanation can result in the manuscript being treated as withdrawn.

• Email the handling editor directly, state a specific new date, and briefly explain the reason for the delay.
• Request the extension as early as possible, ideally 1 to 2 weeks before the original deadline.
• If you need significantly more time, ask whether resubmitting as a new submission might be more appropriate than an extension.

Do Co-Authors Need to Sign Off on the Revised Manuscript?

Yes, in most cases. Journals and institutional authorship policies generally expect all listed co-authors to review and approve the revised manuscript and the response letter before resubmission, since revisions can change results, conclusions, or interpretations that every author is accountable for. Skipping this step risks authorship disputes later and can violate journal or funder authorship policies.

• Inform all co-authors as soon as you receive the peer review, with a copy of the comments, journal deadline, and a brief explanation of how you will be addressing them and by when. Ask them to make time on their schedules to view and approve the revised version.
• Circulate the revised manuscript, tracked-changes version, and response letter to all co-authors before resubmission.
• Build sign-off time into your revision schedule, especially with international co-authors across time zones.
• Document approval in writing, such as email confirmation, in case authorship questions arise later.

How to Write a Resubmission Cover Letter

A resubmission cover letter is shorter than your response letter and sits at the front of your submission package. It briefly summarizes the revision, confirms that all reviewer and editor comments were addressed, and highlights any major changes. The annotated example below shows the structure editors expect.

Component	Purpose	Sample Text
Salutation	Address the handling editor by name and reference the manuscript number.	Dear Dr. Lee, Re: Manuscript ID JXX-2026-0142.
Opening statement	State that you are resubmitting a revised manuscript.	We thank you and the reviewers for the constructive feedback and are pleased to resubmit our revised manuscript.
Summary of changes	List the 2 or 3 most significant revisions in plain language.	We have added a new statistical analysis (Section 3.2), clarified our sampling method, and expanded the discussion of study limitations.
Confirmation statement	Confirm every comment was addressed in the attached response letter.	A detailed, point-by-point response to each reviewer comment is included in the attached response letter.
Closing	Thank the editor and reviewers again and offer to provide further information.	We appreciate your time and consideration and are happy to provide any further information required.

Phrase Bank for Responding to Reviewer Comments

Having a set of ready phrases speeds up writing your response letter and keeps the tone consistent and professional. Use the examples below as a starting point and adapt them to your specific comment.

Situation	Useful Phrase
Agreeing fully	We agree with the reviewer and have revised the text accordingly (see page X, line Y).
Partially agreeing	We agree with part of this comment and have addressed it as follows, while noting that…
Respectfully disagreeing	We respectfully disagree with this point for the following reasons, supported by…
Requesting clarification	We were not entirely certain what change was intended here; we interpreted the comment as…
Explaining a limitation	While we were unable to conduct this analysis due to X, we have added a note acknowledging this limitation.
Thanking the reviewer	We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation, which has strengthened the manuscript.
Confirming a correction	This has been corrected; please see the tracked-changes version, page X.
Addressing conflicting comments	As Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 offered differing views on this point, we have chosen to…

Getting the tone and structure of a response letter right matters as much as the science itself, and it is easy to miss small wording issues after weeks spent on revisions. Editage’s Premium Editing plan includes a response letter check alongside manuscript editing, so a subject-matter editor reviews your point-by-point replies for clarity, tone, and completeness before you resubmit, catching gaps that are easy to miss after staring at the same document for weeks.

How to Respond to Comments in a Post-Publication Peer Review Model

Post-publication review comments appear after your paper is already public, often through journal comment sections, dedicated platforms, or preprint server discussions. Unlike traditional review, these comments are visible to the wider public as you respond, so tone and accuracy matter even more. Respond promptly, since an unanswered public comment can look like you have no rebuttal, even if you simply have not seen it yet.

• Acknowledge the comment publicly within a reasonable time, even if a full response will take longer to prepare.
• Keep your public reply factual and courteous; public disputes reflect on your professionalism as much as your science.
• If the comment reveals a genuine error, correct the record openly, including through a formal correction or erratum if warranted.
• If you believe the comment is mistaken, respond with evidence and citations rather than assertions alone.

What Is PubPeer and How Do You Respond on It?

PubPeer is a public website where readers can post comments, questions, or concerns about published papers, often anonymously. Authors can also register and respond directly on the platform. Because PubPeer threads are public, searchable, and permanent, a calm, well-documented response protects your reputation far more effectively than silence or a defensive reaction.

• Register as an author on PubPeer so you receive notifications when your papers are discussed.
• Respond with data, methods details, or citations rather than general reassurances.
• If a comment reveals a genuine data or figure error, say so plainly and describe the correction process you are pursuing.
• Avoid arguing with anonymous commenters; address the substance of the concern and let the evidence speak for itself.

Special Tips for Open Peer Review Models

In open peer review, reviewers know your identity, and you often know theirs; some journals also publish the reviews and your responses alongside the final article. This transparency raises the stakes on tone, since your reply becomes a permanent, publicly attached part of the record.

• Write every response as though it will be published, because in many open review journals, it will be.
• Address reviewers by name where the platform allows it, which tends to keep the exchange collegial.
• Avoid overly informal language, even though you may be corresponding with a named, known colleague.
• Use the transparency to your advantage: a thoughtful, well-reasoned public response can enhance your professional reputation.

Because open review responses are often published verbatim, many authors ask an editing service to check tone before submission. Editage’s Premium Editing plan reviews both your manuscript and your response letter, which is particularly useful in open review, where a defensive or unclear reply becomes part of the public scholarly record rather than a private exchange with the editor.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do you write a point-by-point response to reviewer comments?

Number each reviewer comment, quote or paraphrase it briefly, then state your response directly beneath it, describing exactly what you changed and where. Keep the same numbering the reviewer used, and address every comment, even minor ones, since an unanswered comment often triggers a follow-up query.

What is a good response letter format for journal resubmission?

A standard format lists each reviewer separately, numbers their comments, and follows each with your direct response in a different font color or indentation. Many authors also include the exact tracked-changes location, such as a page and line number, so reviewers can verify the change quickly.

How long should a response letter to reviewers be?

There is no fixed length; a response letter should be as long as needed to address every comment clearly, often 3 to 10 pages depending on the number and complexity of comments. Brevity is good, but never at the cost of leaving a comment only partially addressed.

Is it okay to disagree with a peer reviewer?

Yes, disagreeing is acceptable and common, as long as your response is respectful and backed by evidence, data, or citations. Editors expect some pushback on comments and generally respect a well-argued rebuttal far more than silent, unexplained noncompliance.

What should you do if a reviewer asks for a new experiment you cannot run?

Explain clearly why the experiment is not feasible, whether due to resources, time, ethical approval, or scope, and propose an alternative such as a limitation statement, existing supporting data, or a smaller-scale version of the analysis.

Can you appeal a rejection based on unfair reviewer comments?

Yes, most journals allow a formal appeal. Write a professional, evidence-based letter to the editor explaining specifically which comments you believe were mistaken or unfair, and provide data or literature to support your case rather than general objections.

How do you respond to a reviewer comment you don’t understand?

State your interpretation of the comment directly in your response letter and explain the change you made based on that interpretation, or contact the editor beforehand for clarification if the comment concerns a major, not minor, revision.

What happens if you miss the deadline to revise and resubmit?

Policies vary by journal, but a missed deadline without communication often results in the manuscript being treated as withdrawn or as a new submission. Contacting the editorial office before the deadline to request an extension is the safest course of action.