Responding to reviewers
“The reviewers came back and I don’t know what they want.”
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 not a rejection. It is a to-do list in disguise, and this page turns it into one.
“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; the comments are the conditions. The work is to separate the feeling from the tasks, and then to handle the tasks in a way an editor can follow.
Why it mattersHow 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 editor’s job easy — and an easy editor decision is usually a yes. A defensive or scattershot reply can sink a revision that 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, use the polite-disagreement move.
Thank, restate their concern accurately, give your reasoned position with evidence, and offer a middle option. “We thank the reviewer… we understand the concern that… however, [reason]… 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 is the one who actually decides. “Reviewer 1 asked us to expand X; Reviewer 2 to cut it. We have kept X but tightened it to [half a page], because [reason].”
Worked exampleA contradiction, handled
Two reviewers, opposite requests
Reviewer 1: “The limitations section is too thin; expand it.”
Reviewer 2: “The limitations are overstated and undermine the contribution; cut them back.”
Response: “We thank both reviewers. These comments point in opposite directions, so we have taken a middle path: we retained the two limitations most likely to affect interpretation (sample and design), stated each in one precise sentence, and removed the more speculative caveats Reviewer 2 flagged. We hope this addresses Reviewer 1’s call for candour while meeting Reviewer 2’s concern about proportion. See page 14, paragraph 2.”
The reply does three things editors reward: it acknowledges the conflict, makes a defensible choice, and points to the exact location of the change.
Checklist & templateThe response letter
Downloadable · response-letter template
The point-by-point response skeleton
- Open with genuine thanks and a one-line summary of the main changes.
- Reproduce each comment in the reviewer’s own numbering.
- Under each: your stance, what you changed, and where (page/line).
- For disagreements: thank, restate, reason, offer a middle option.
- For contradictions: name them, choose, explain the trade-off.
- Confirm every comment has a response — none left silent.
- Read the whole letter for tone before you send.
The honest limit. A good response letter cannot promise acceptance — the science still has to hold. What it does is make your revision easy to assess and hard to dismiss, which is the part actually within your control.
Related guidesRead next
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 →Further readingSources worth your time
- Noble (2017), Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers — PLOS Computational Biology.
- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), Peer review resources — publicationethics.org.