Responding to reviewers
“I received major revisions. Where do I start?”
Process the hit, triage the comments, handle contradictions, keep it polite.
The decision letter lands, your heart sinks, and the comments feel like one undifferentiated wall of criticism: some fair, some you disagree with, two that contradict each other. Major revisions is a to-do list in disguise, not a rejection.
“I agree with only one of those comments. Not even sure what to do of the remaining comments… how to navigate the murky waters of receiving conflicting feedback.” — an author facing a revise-and-resubmit
The problemThe letter feels like a verdict. It is a task list.
The first reading of a revisions letter is emotional, not analytical, which is why nothing on it seems doable. Everything registers as “the paper is bad.” But a revisions decision means the editor thinks the paper is worth saving, and the comments are the conditions. The work is to separate the feeling from the tasks, then handle the tasks in a way an editor can follow.
How you reply is half the decision. Editors re-accept papers on the strength of the response, not just the revised manuscript. A reply that answers every point, shows the change, and disagrees gracefully where needed makes the decision easy, and an easy decision is usually a yes. A defensive or scattershot reply can sink a revision the manuscript itself had earned.
Common mistakesFour ways good revisions go wrong
- Replying while still stung. The first-day letter and the third-day letter are different documents. Give it a day.
- Answering in prose, not point by point. If the editor cannot map your reply to each comment, they cannot check that you addressed it.
- Silently ignoring a comment you disagree with. An unanswered point reads as an unmet condition. Answer it; you are allowed to disagree.
- Caving to both sides of a contradiction. When two reviewers conflict, doing both is often impossible. Pick a defensible path and say why.
The methodTriage, then respond
- Give it a day.
Read the letter once, then put it down. Revising while your heart is still sinking produces defensive prose. Come back when the comments read as requests, not attacks.
- Sort every comment into three piles.
Quick (a citation, a clarification, a typo), substantive (a new analysis, a restructured section), and disagree (a point you think is mistaken). Numbering them against the reviewers’ own numbering keeps nothing lost.
- Do the quick ones first.
They build momentum and shrink the wall fast. Each one you close is one fewer condition between you and acceptance.
- For a disagreement, thank then reason.
Thank the reviewer, restate their concern accurately, give your reasoned position with evidence, and offer a middle option. “We understand the concern that… however, [reason], and we have added [clarification] to make this explicit.”
- When two reviewers contradict, name it and choose.
Say so openly, pick the more defensible option, and explain the trade-off to the editor, who makes the call. “Reviewer 1 asked us to expand X; Reviewer 2 to cut it. We kept X but tightened it to half a page, because [reason].”
Worked exampleA contradiction, handled
Two reviewers, opposite requests
Two reviewers ask for opposite things. Reviewer 1 says the limitations section is too thin and wants it expanded; Reviewer 2 says the limitations are overstated and wants them cut. Neither is wrong, and you cannot do both.
The reply names the conflict and chooses: “We thank both reviewers. These comments point in opposite directions, so we took a middle path. We kept the two limitations most likely to affect interpretation, sample and design, and removed the more speculative caveats. See page 14, paragraph 2.” It acknowledges the conflict, makes a choice, and shows exactly where.
ChecklistThe response letter
Four moves for the letter
- Open with genuine thanks and a one-line summary of the main changes.
- Reproduce each comment in the reviewer’s numbering, with your stance, the change, and where it is.
- For a disagreement, thank, restate, reason, and offer a middle option; for a contradiction, name it and choose.
- Confirm every comment has a response, then read the whole letter for tone before sending.
Related guidesRead next
Further readingOld sources worth your time
- Noble (2017), Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers. PLOS Computational Biology (open access).
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Peer review resources. publicationethics.org.
Recommended tool · the next step
Reviewer Response Builder
Answer each comment point by point without losing the thread. The Reviewer Response Builder keeps your replies mapped to the reviewer’s numbering, and links every comment to a response, a manuscript change, and its location before you resubmit.
See the Reviewer Response Builder · €39 →