Reviewer 2 hid three requests inside one paragraph.
A response letter can sound polished and still miss the point that was buried after “however”. The Builder separates the comments before you start drafting.
You can see what is answered, what changed, where it changed, and what is still open before the portal gets the final file.
Coverage before confidence
One path from decision letter to response letter
Split the reviews
Paste the decision text and confirm one reviewer request per row.
Choose a stance
Accept, partly accept, disagree, or clarify. The stance is visible before the prose starts.
Record the answer and change
Write what you say back, what you changed, and the page and running lines.
Clear the guardrails
Missing reasons, locations, changes, confirmations, and AI-use disclosures remain visible.
Assemble both outputs
Export the point-by-point letter and a shorter editor summary from the same rows.
Done means more than “I wrote something”
A row counts as complete only when the response is there and the required change, location, and confirmation are present. A disagreement needs a reason.
“Revised accordingly” is not enough. Say what changed and where.
Accept the concern, narrow the claim, and record the part you retained.
Use the evidence, design constraint, or preregistered choice that supports your stance.
A question from a reviewer often points to a sentence the next reader will also miss.
Open stays open
The fabricated example is intentionally at 80%. The fifth row is visible, unanswered, and not quietly counted as complete.
Inside the download
Use the browser tool, Word, Excel, or paper. They all follow the same comment-to-location record.
response-letter-builder.htmlThe local browser tool: split reviews, track coverage, clear guardrails, and export the full letter and editor summary.
reviewer-response-workbook.docxA compact four-page Word path for teams that prefer a document.
response-tracker.xlsxThe coverage tracker with worked rows, status formulas, and guardrails.
quickstart.pdfThe five-step workflow, four stances, and hard cases in three pages.
worked-example.pdfAn invented revise-and-resubmit from raw reviewer comments to the editor note.
phrasebank.mdStarting language for agreement, partial agreement, disagreement, contradictions, and hostile comments, plus AI-use guardrails.
LICENSE.txtPersonal use. Group, writing-centre, teaching, and facilitation licences are available on request.
Local files. Human confirmation.
What the kit can check
Every logged comment has a visible status and stance.
The builder flags absent reasons, changes, locations, confirmations, and required disclosure.
The response and editor summary are built from the same working rows.
What remains yours
The kit does not decide whether the reviewer is right or whether your reason is adequate.
You verify the revised file, citations, numbers, and running lines.
It cannot promise acceptance or replace the journal's instructions.
Peer review has two desks
Writing the review instead?
The Reviewer's Notebook is the reviewer's side: distinguish real flaws from reporting gaps, disagreements, and preferences before they become demands.
Get the Reviewer Response Builder
Seven files, instant download, personal licence, and every v1.x update. EUR 39 launch price; regular price EUR 59. A 14-day refund applies if it does not give you a clearer, more complete response letter.
Practical questions
Does it write my responses for me?
No. It structures your comments and gives you editable starting phrases. You provide the scientific answer, real change, evidence, and location.
Do I have to use Excel?
No. The local HTML builder is the fastest path, and the Word workbook provides a document-based path. Excel is included for people who want the coverage table.
Will it work offline?
Yes. The builder is one local HTML file and makes no network requests. Word, Excel, PDF, and Markdown files remain ordinary files on your computer.
Is it tied to medicine?
No. The worked example is clinical and entirely invented. The stance, coverage, and location workflow is field-neutral.