Responding to Reviewer Comments

The actions above draw on Cambridge’s guidance on responding to reviewers and Editage’s advice on reviewer comments.

Here is how to respond to reviewer comments: read the decision letter, sort every comment into implement, partly implement or decline, and answer each one in a point-by-point letter that shows exactly where the manuscript changed.

Revision rules differ between titles, so check the author instructions of your target journal alongside this guide. Our overview of african academic journals is a good place to start when comparing publication routes.

First steps after a revision request

Read the decision letter in the right order

A decision letter normally comes with an introduction by the editor and reports from two or more reviewers, as Cambridge’s guidance describes. Read the editor’s introduction before the reports. The editor decides whether your manuscript moves forward, and any comments the editor adds should shape the direction of your revisions.

Step back before you answer

A first reading of critical comments is rarely a calm one. Paperpal suggests a step-back sequence: Read, Relax, Read again, Reason, then Respond. Put the letter aside after the first read, return to it with a clearer head, and only then decide what each comment is really asking for.

Know what the decision means

The two common labels differ mainly in workload. According to proof-reading-service.com, major issues may require new analyses, rewritten sections or additional literature. A minor revision is the lighter category, so plan your time around the heavier work first. Neither label is an acceptance. The editor still decides, and failing to respond to comments can get a paper rejected.

Once you know what the editor expects, the next job is to sort the comments themselves.

Sorting comments before you write

Number every comment and place each one in a category before drafting any reply. The proof-reading-service.com guide describes the decision as which suggestions you can fully implement, which you can partially implement and which you must respectfully decline.

• Implement fully. Comments that point to a clear error, a missing citation or an unclear passage. Make the change and say where.
• Implement partly. Comments with a valid concern but an unworkable remedy. Fix the concern in your own way and explain the difference.
• Decline. Comments you firmly believe would detract from the purpose of the manuscript. These need a clear, courteous reason.

Group related comments from different reviewers, since one revision can answer several of them. Put the comments that need new analysis or rewritten sections at the top of your work list, because they take longest.

Building the point-by-point response

A point-by-point response answers every comment in a fixed pattern. Paperpal states plainly that you must respond to all of the reviewer’s comments, even those you decide not to follow. A letter that skips awkward points is the quickest way to lose an editor’s confidence.

A sample layout

The proof-reading-service.com sample letter suggests the following structure, which you can adapt as a response template:

• Opening paragraph. Thank the editor and reviewers and state that you have revised the manuscript.
• Overview of changes. Summarise the main revisions so the editor sees the scale of the work at once.
• Reviewer 1, Comment 1. Quote the comment in full, then write your Response beneath it.
• Remaining reviewers. Repeat the same pattern for Reviewer 2, Reviewer 3 and so on.
• Change locations. Name where each change sits in the manuscript.

Quote the full comment, even when it feels repetitive. Some authors use a table with Comment, Response and Location in Manuscript columns, which makes the location of each edit easy to scan. If the journal’s submission system supplies its own response field or template, follow that instead.

Tone and specificity

Open the letter in the courteous register you would use in a cover letter; our guide on how to write a cover letter for journal submission covers that first-contact tone. In each reply, state exactly what changed. Cambridge’s advice identifies vague reporting of changes as a common flaw, so write “we added a limitations paragraph to the discussion” rather than “we have addressed this concern”.

Marking changes in the manuscript

Yes, mark the changes in the manuscript as well as explaining them in the letter. Tracked changes are a word-processor feature that marks edits visibly so reviewers can see exactly what changed. The letter then tells the reviewer why you changed something, and the marked file shows where.

Paperpal adds a checking step: confirm that the modifications are highlighted accurately in the right places, and mention the page and line numbers in your replies. Each response should point to a location that actually matches the marked file. Read the journal’s instructions on whether it also wants a clean copy.

When a reviewer’s request cannot be met

You do not have to make changes you firmly believe would detract from the purpose of the manuscript. The route is to decline openly, with reasons, in the same response document. Editage describes this kind of reply as one that respectfully disagrees with a comment and explains why a change was not made.

Disagreeing politely

Thank the reviewer for the point, state your reasoning in neutral terms and, where you can, offer a partial change that meets the underlying concern. Paperpal recommends politely stating the reason for disapproval, in a cordial tone. Attack the argument in the comment, never the reviewer.

Contradictory or unclear comments

Cambridge’s advice is to email the editor if you think the reports are too contradictory, asking a brief, informative question. Editage adds that ambiguity is worth an editor email when it affects a major revision rather than a minor one. Conflicting comments, missed deadlines and comments you cannot address are all common and manageable.

Rude or sarcastic comments

Do not respond to hostility with hostility. Editage’s advice is to flag such comments to the editor rather than answer in kind, and to respond to the substance of the point underneath the tone.

Journal instructions vary by publisher. For titles hosted on a platform, read what is african journals online to understand how they are presented, then check the individual journal’s own page for revision and response rules.

Frequently asked questions