Learn · Peer review
Respond to reviewers without losing a comment
A reviewer has put three requests inside one sentence and labelled the section “minor comments”. The job is not to write more. It is to show that every point has a response, a real change, and a place the editor can find it.
After this guide you will be able to:
- Answer every comment, including the buried sub-points.
- Pick a defensible stance for each one.
- Avoid the two faults that get a revision rejected.
Minor comments.Three requests and a citation query.
Coverage is the hard part, not the letter
The letter itself is manageable. Coverage is the hard part, especially when a small request is tucked after a semicolon halfway through a paragraph. Editors expect a point-to-point response: each comment answered on its own, in order, not folded into a summary. So do not write prose first. Split the reviews into single comments, one per row. Then give each comment four things: a stance, a response, the exact change, and where that change lives. The sub-point you miss is remarkably likely to be the reviewer’s favourite.
The four stances
Every comment gets one of four stances. A reasoned mix is more credible to an editor than a wall of automatic agreement.
| Stance | Use it when |
|---|---|
| Accept | the reviewer is right; you made the change. |
| Partly | you agree with part of it and made a smaller or different change. |
| Disagree | you have a reason, grounded in evidence, not just a preference. |
| Clarify | the comment rests on a misreading; you explain, and often improve the text so the misreading cannot recur. |
The two failure modes
Most revisions fail on one of two faults. Check for both before you submit.
A disagreement with no reason. "We disagree" with nothing after it is what a reviewer digs into. If you disagree, state the reason and cite it. If you cannot, that is a sign you should concede.
A claim with no change. Saying you addressed a comment without a real, findable change in the manuscript. An editor cross-checks. Every "we have revised" needs a location.
The hard cases
Three come up often. Contradictory reviewers: name the tension, pick the change your study can support, and explain the choice to the editor rather than trying to satisfy both. A hostile comment: answer the substance plainly and leave the tone where you found it; the editor is reading. A limit you cannot meet — a re-analysis you have no data for: say so plainly, do what you can, and state the residual limitation. Conceding a real limit is stronger than pretending.
The discipline underneath. Disagree with evidence, concede without gutting the paper, and answer a hostile comment without escalating. Never fake a change, invent a citation, or over-concede to appease. A response letter is judged on coverage and reasons, and both can be checked before you submit.
Show the editor you covered everything.
You have thirteen comments across two reviewers, some buried three lines into a paragraph, and you need to show you answered all of them. Writing the letter from memory is how the buried one gets missed. The Reviewer Response Builder logs each comment on its own row, tags a stance, and holds your response, your change, and its location together, with a live coverage readout that flags a disagreement with no reason and a claim with no change. It assembles your words and checks coverage — the science in the answers stays yours, and none of it goes unanswered.
See the Reviewer Response Builder · €39Related guides
See also how to write a scientific paper and how to write an AI-use disclosure statement. More guides are on the Learn page.