Learn · Peer review
A revise-and-resubmit is won by covering everything, not by writing more. Here is how to map every comment to a stance, a response, a real change, and a place a reviewer can find it, and the two failure modes that sink revisions.
After this guide you will be able to:
The letter itself is easy. The hard part is showing that every comment has been dealt with, especially the small ones tucked inside 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, nothing merged and nothing skipped. Then give each comment four things: a stance, a response, the exact change you made, and where in the manuscript that change lives. Miss one buried sub-point, and it is the one the reviewer notices.
Every comment gets one of four stances. A mix of them reads as more honest to an editor than a wall of 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. |
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.
Three come up often. Contradictory reviewers: name the tension openly, 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 drop the tone; the editor is reading. A limit you cannot meet: a re-analysis you have no data for, say so honestly, 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 honesty, and both are things you can check 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. It does not write your science, and it cannot make a reviewer agree. That part stays yours.
See the Reviewer Response Builder · €39See also how to write a scientific paper and how to write an AI-use disclosure statement. More guides are on the Learn page.