24 Peer Review Response Letter Examples for Journal Authors

A good response letter makes the editor’s job boring: every reviewer comment is numbered, answered directly, tied to a specific manuscript change, and easy to verify. The safest formula is comment → author response → revision made → exact location.

Use the examples below as adaptable wording, not as claims to paste blindly. Your letter must match the journal’s instructions, the editor’s decision letter, the reviewer comments, and the changes actually made in the manuscript.

How to use these peer review response letter examples

A peer review response letter is not a rebuttal brief. It is an audit trail.

For every comment, quote or clearly identify the reviewer’s point, answer it respectfully, explain what changed, and give the exact place where the editor can check the revision. PLOS frames this as staying organized and keeping revisions from “falling through the cracks,” which is the practical goal of the whole document (PLOS).

The basic structure:

Respectful disagreement follows the same structure. The difference is that the “action taken” may be a clarification, limitation, or explanation rather than the requested change.

Use this wording pattern when you disagree:

• Acknowledge: “We appreciate the reviewer’s concern…”

• Reason: “The proposed analysis would require data not collected in this study…”

• Clarify: “We have revised the limitations section to state this explicitly…”

• Locate: “Discussion, p. 18, lines 412–420.”

Never say you performed an analysis, added a citation, collected data, or changed an interpretation unless the manuscript actually reflects that change. If you use a research workspace such as Otio’s AI PDF reader, the useful part is not generating prose; it is keeping reviewer letters, manuscript versions, PDFs, and notes searchable in one place while you check each answer against the source text.

Examples for opening and organizing a response letter

Example 1: Concise opening for a standard revision

Use when: You have a revise-and-resubmit or minor revision and want a clean opening.

Sample wording:

Dear Dr. [Editor Last Name],

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, “[Title]” ([Manuscript ID]). We appreciate the editor’s and reviewers’ careful evaluation of the work.

We have addressed each comment in the point-by-point response below. Reviewer comments are reproduced in italics, followed by our responses and the corresponding manuscript locations.

Why it works: It is polite, brief, and procedural. It does not overpraise the reviewers or imply acceptance is assured.

Example 2: Opening that summarizes major changes

Use when: The revision includes substantial manuscript changes.

Sample wording:

Dear Dr. [Editor Last Name],

Thank you for considering our revised manuscript, “[Title]” ([Manuscript ID]). In response to the reviewers’ comments, we made four principal changes: expanded the literature review to clarify the research gap, revised the methods section to describe participant eligibility and recruitment, added a sensitivity analysis, and moderated the interpretation of the main finding.

A point-by-point response follows. For each comment, we identify the change made and provide the relevant page and line numbers.

Why it works: The editor gets a fast map of the revision without the risky phrase “the reviewers agreed” or “all concerns have been resolved.”

Example 3: Response format by reviewer and comment number

Use when: You need a navigable document.

Sample format:

Editor comment 1
[Comment text]

Response: [Your answer]
Revision made: [What changed]
Location: [Page, line, section, figure, table, or supplement]

Reviewer 1, comment 1
[Comment text]

Response: [Your answer]
Revision made: [What changed]
Location: [Exact location]

Reviewer 2, comment 1
[Comment text]

Response: [Your answer]
Revision made: [What changed]
Location: [Exact location]

Why it works: Editors often scan response letters quickly. Consistent labels reduce friction.

Example 4: Opening for marked-up and clean manuscripts

Use when: The editor asks for tracked changes and a clean copy.

Sample wording:

As requested, we are submitting both a marked-up manuscript and a clean manuscript. The marked-up version shows all changes made during revision. The clean version incorporates the same changes without markup.

The response letter below lists each editor and reviewer comment, our response, and the exact manuscript location where the revision can be verified.

Why it works: It tells the editorial office exactly what each file contains. MD Anderson’s Research Medical Library gives a similar cover-letter framing for revised manuscripts: identify the manuscript, thank the editor for the revision opportunity, and refer to the response to reviewers (MD Anderson Research Medical Library).

Examples for major revision requests

Example 5: Stronger literature review

Reviewer comment: The literature review does not adequately situate the study within recent work on [topic].

Author response: We agree that the prior version did not sufficiently connect our research question to recent scholarship. We revised the literature review to include work on [specific area A], [specific area B], and [specific area C], and we clarified how the present study differs from prior studies.

Revision made: Added two paragraphs explaining the research gap and revised the final paragraph of the literature review to state the study’s contribution more precisely.

Location: Introduction, pp. 3–5, lines 72–128.

Evidence to include: New citations, revised gap statement, and exact line references.

Example 6: Expanded methods

Reviewer comment: The methods section lacks detail about participant selection and exclusion criteria.

Author response: We agree that additional detail was needed. We revised the methods section to specify the recruitment setting, eligibility criteria, exclusion criteria, recruitment dates, and final analytic sample.

Revision made: Added a new subsection titled “Participants and eligibility criteria.”

Location: Methods, p. 6, lines 134–165; participant flow diagram, Figure 1.

Evidence to include: Sample size, inclusion and exclusion criteria, recruitment period, and any flow diagram or supplementary table.

Example 7: Additional analysis performed

Reviewer comment: Please test whether the main result is robust to [alternative model/specification].

Author response: Thank you for this suggestion. We conducted the requested robustness check using [model/specification]. The direction of the estimate remained consistent with the primary analysis, although the confidence interval widened. We report this analysis as exploratory because it was not part of the prespecified primary analysis.

Revision made: Added the robustness check to the Results and included model details in the supplementary materials.

Location: Results, p. 12, lines 276–292; Supplementary Table S2.

Evidence to include: Result, model specification, table or figure, and whether the analysis is primary, secondary, or exploratory.

Example 8: Requested experiment or dataset cannot be added

Reviewer comment: The authors should add a second dataset from [source/population] to validate the findings.

Author response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We agree that validation in an additional dataset would strengthen the evidence. Unfortunately, the requested dataset is not available to us under the current data-use agreement, and collecting a comparable dataset would require a separate ethics approval and recruitment process.

To address this limitation, we revised the Discussion to state that external validation is needed before generalizing the findings to [population/context].

Revision made: Added a limitation about the absence of external validation and clarified the scope of the findings.

Location: Discussion, p. 19, lines 431–445.

Evidence to include: Feasibility reason, ethical or access constraint, and the added limitation.

Examples for minor comments and presentation changes

Example 9: Terminology, grammar, abbreviations, and typos

Reviewer comment: Several abbreviations are used inconsistently.

Author response: Thank you for noting this. We reviewed the manuscript and standardized the abbreviations throughout.

Revision made: Standardized “[Term]” as “[Abbreviation]” after first use and corrected inconsistent usage in the Abstract, Methods, and Results.

Location: Abstract, lines 24–27; Methods, p. 7, lines 151–160; Results, p. 11, lines 244–249.

Good for: Small edits that still need traceability.

Example 10: Abstract or title contribution unclear

Reviewer comment: The abstract does not clearly state the manuscript’s contribution.

Author response: We agree. We revised the abstract to state the study objective, design, main finding, and contribution more directly while keeping the conclusion consistent with the evidence.

Revision made: Rewrote the final two sentences of the abstract to clarify that the study shows an association between [X] and [Y], not a causal effect.

Location: Abstract, lines 31–38.

Good for: Avoiding inflated abstract language after reviewer pressure.

Example 11: Figure, table, caption, or axis label revised

Reviewer comment: Figure 2 is difficult to interpret because the axis labels are unclear.

Author response: Thank you for identifying this issue. We revised Figure 2 to include clearer axis labels, units of measurement, and a more descriptive caption.

Revision made: Updated the y-axis label from “[old label]” to “[new label with units]” and revised the caption to define the plotted values.

Location: Figure 2 and caption, p. 14, lines 318–325.

Good for: Presentation changes where the response can be short but specific.

Example 12: Added definition, citation, or methodological detail

Reviewer comment: Please define [technical term] when it first appears.

Author response: We agree that the term should be defined for readers outside the subfield. We added a brief definition at first use and cited a relevant source.

Revision made: Added the definition of [term] and inserted a citation to [source].

Location: Introduction, p. 4, lines 89–94.

Good for: Minor additions that improve readability without expanding the argument beyond the evidence.

For minor comments, avoid long explanations. The editor needs to know that the issue was handled and where to check it.

Examples for conflicting or difficult reviewer comments

Example 13: One reviewer wants more theory; another wants a shorter manuscript

Reviewer 1 comment: The manuscript needs a deeper theoretical discussion.

Reviewer 2 comment: The manuscript is too long and should be shortened.

Author response: We appreciate both comments. To address them together, we revised the manuscript to focus the theoretical discussion on the concepts most directly tied to the research question. We moved background material that was useful but not essential to the supplementary materials.

Revision made: Condensed the general background section, expanded the discussion of [central theory], and moved extended contextual material to Supplementary Appendix A.

Location: Introduction, pp. 4–6, lines 92–150; Supplementary Appendix A.

Decision rule: If comments are compatible only with a tradeoff, explain the tradeoff instead of pretending both were fully satisfied.

Example 14: Reviewers disagree about importance of a result

Reviewer 1 comment: The finding appears important and should be emphasized.

Reviewer 2 comment: The manuscript overstates the importance of this finding.

Author response: Thank you for these perspectives. We revised the Results to present the empirical finding plainly and revised the Discussion to moderate the interpretation. The manuscript now distinguishes the observed association from its possible implications.

Revision made: Removed stronger interpretive language and added a sentence noting that the practical significance requires further study.

Location: Results, p. 13, lines 302–310; Discussion, p. 17, lines 389–398.

Why it works: It separates the result from the claim made about the result.

Example 15: Reviewer requests citation of a specific author

Reviewer comment: The authors should cite [Author]’s work.

Author response: Thank you for the suggestion. We reviewed [Author]’s work and agree that [specific paper] is relevant to the manuscript’s discussion of [specific issue]. We have added this citation and clarified how it relates to our argument.

Revision made: Added the citation and revised the paragraph to distinguish our study from [Author]’s focus on [different but related issue].

Location: Introduction, p. 5, lines 118–126.

Alternative when not relevant: “After reviewing the suggested work, we did not add the citation because it addresses [different population/method/question], which falls outside the scope of the present manuscript. To avoid ambiguity, we clarified the scope of our review…”

Example 16: Reviewer appears to misunderstand the manuscript

Reviewer comment: The authors claim that [X] causes [Y], but the design does not support causal inference.

Author response: We appreciate this comment. The reviewer’s interpretation indicates that our wording was not sufficiently clear. Our intent was to describe an association, not a causal effect. We revised the relevant passages to remove causal wording and clarify the study design.

Revision made: Replaced “leads to” and “affects” with “is associated with” and added a sentence describing the limits of inference.

Location: Abstract, lines 34–37; Discussion, p. 16, lines 365–374.

Why it works: It fixes the unclear manuscript language without blaming the reviewer.

When reviewer comments are mutually incompatible and the tradeoff affects the paper’s direction, ask the editor for guidance. Do not silently satisfy one reviewer while ignoring the other.

[[OTIO_INLINE_PROMO:%7B%22title%22%3A%22Need%20to%20reconcile%20conflicting%20reviewer%20requests%3F%22%2C%22description%22%3A%22Save%20reviewer%20letters%2C%20manuscript%20versions%2C%20PDFs%2C%20and%20notes%20in%20one%20searchable%20library%20so%20you%20can%20compare%20requests%20before%20drafting%20your%20response.%22%7D]]

Examples for disagreement, limitations, and sensitive issues

Example 17: Disagreeing with a study-design change

Reviewer comment: The authors should redesign the study as a randomized trial.

Author response: We agree that a randomized trial would answer an important causal question. The present study, though, was designed to examine [association/pattern/experience] in [setting/population]. Redesigning it as a randomized trial would address a different research question and is beyond the scope of the current manuscript.

To clarify this boundary, we revised the Discussion to state that causal effects cannot be inferred from this design and that experimental work would be needed to test causality.

Revision made: Added a limitation and future research statement.

Location: Discussion, p. 18, lines 410–422.

Example 18: Reviewer asks for causal language

Reviewer comment: The conclusion should state that [X] improves [Y].

Author response: We appreciate the suggestion, but we have not made this change because the study design supports an association rather than a causal conclusion. To avoid overstatement, we revised the conclusion to use non-causal language.

Revision made: Replaced “improves” with “was associated with higher [outcome]” and added a sentence noting that causal inference requires a different design.

Location: Conclusion, p. 20, lines 462–468.

Why it matters: A response letter should protect the manuscript from overclaiming, even when the requested wording sounds stronger.

Example 19: Requested subgroup analysis not justified

Reviewer comment: Please provide subgroup analyses by [category].

Author response: Thank you for the suggestion. We considered this analysis, but the subgroup sizes are too small to support reliable estimates. Reporting these results could be misleading because several cells contain very few observations.

We added a limitation noting that the study was not powered to examine subgroup differences and that future research should test whether the findings vary across [category].

Revision made: Added a limitation rather than an underpowered subgroup analysis.

Location: Discussion, p. 19, lines 436–444.

Example 20: Correcting a factual misunderstanding

Reviewer comment: The manuscript does not report the measurement period.

Author response: Thank you for raising this. The measurement period was reported in the Methods, but we agree that it was not prominent enough. The original text stated: “Data were collected between [month/year] and [month/year].” We revised the paragraph to make this information easier to locate.

Revision made: Moved the measurement-period sentence earlier in the Methods subsection and added it to the study overview.

Location: Methods, p. 6, lines 131–139.

Tone rule: Do not write “as stated in the manuscript” in a way that sounds like a rebuke. If the reviewer missed it, the text was probably not easy enough to find.

The best disagreement letters are calm and verifiable. Taylor & Francis’s author guidance similarly emphasizes responding to reviewer comments carefully rather than defensively (Taylor & Francis Author Services).

Examples for rejection, resubmission, and second-round review

Example 21: Resubmitting after rejection elsewhere

Editor comment: Please explain how the manuscript has been revised for this journal.

Author response: Thank you for considering this submission. Since the previous review process, we have revised the manuscript to better fit this journal’s scope by strengthening the discussion of [journal-relevant issue], clarifying the study’s contribution to [field], and shortening background material less central to the journal’s readership.

Revision made: Revised the Introduction and Discussion to align the framing with [journal scope/topic].

Location: Introduction, pp. 3–5, lines 70–125; Discussion, pp. 16–18, lines 370–420.

Caution: Do not include another journal’s confidential reviewer comments unless the new journal asks for them and the prior journal’s policies permit it.

Example 22: Second-round response distinguishing new and resolved comments

Reviewer comment: The revised manuscript is improved, but the authors should clarify [remaining issue].

Author response: Thank you for reviewing the revised manuscript. We have addressed this new comment by adding a clarification to the Methods. Comments from the prior round that were already resolved are retained in the response history below for reference, with the new second-round response marked as “Round 2.”

Revision made: Added one sentence explaining [issue].

Location: Methods, p. 8, lines 178–184.

Version-control tip: Label responses by round. Do not let old line numbers survive after pagination changes.

Example 23: Reviewer repeats a concern already addressed

Reviewer comment: The manuscript still does not explain why [method] was used.

Author response: We appreciate the reviewer’s continued concern. In the previous revision, we added a rationale for [method] in the Methods section. Because the concern remains, we have further revised the paragraph to make the rationale more explicit.

Revision made: Expanded the method-rationale paragraph by adding the criteria used to select [method] over [alternative method].

Location: Methods, p. 9, lines 190–205.

Why it works: It does not say “we already did this.” It points to the prior change and improves clarity.

Example 24: Final narrow editor request

Editor comment: Please correct the formatting of Table 1 and ensure all references follow journal style.

Author response: Thank you. We have made the requested final changes.

Revision made: Reformatted Table 1 according to journal style and checked the reference list for punctuation, journal-title abbreviations, and ordering.

Location: Table 1, p. 10; References, pp. 24–31.

Good for: Final technical revisions where a short confirmation is better than reopening substantive issues.

For second-round and final responses, file control matters as much as wording. Keep a simple version log:

If your sources, prior drafts, reviewer PDFs, and supplementary tables are scattered across folders, a project space in Otio can help keep the revision package together. The same rule still applies: the response letter must be checked by the author, not delegated to a tool.

A point-by-point response letter template and final check

Use this template when you need a clean starting structure.

Response to reviewers

Manuscript ID: [ID]
Article title: [Title]
Journal: [Journal name]
Corresponding author: [Name]
Revision round: [Round 1 / Round 2 / Final revision]

Dear Dr. [Editor Last Name],

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, “[Title]” ([Manuscript ID]). We appreciate the editor’s and reviewers’ careful comments. We have revised the manuscript in response to the comments and provide a point-by-point response below.

Where relevant, reviewer comments are reproduced in italics, followed by our response, a summary of the revision made, and the manuscript location where the change can be verified.

Editor comment 1:
[Paste or summarize comment.]

Response:
[Answer directly.]

Revision made:
[State the change, or explain why no manuscript change was made.]

Location:
[Page, line, section, figure, table, or supplementary file.]

Reviewer 1, comment 1:
[Paste or summarize comment.]

Response:
[Answer directly.]

Revision made:
[State the change.]

Location:
[Exact location.]

Reviewer 2, comment 1:
[Paste or summarize comment.]

Response:
[Answer directly.]

Revision made:
[State the change.]

Location:
[Exact location.]

When to mention a change in the response letter

Mention the change when it responds to a reviewer or editor comment, affects interpretation, adds an analysis, changes a result, modifies methods, adds a limitation, or changes figures, tables, citations, or supplementary files.

For tiny copyedits, a grouped response is enough: “We corrected typographical errors and standardized abbreviations throughout the manuscript.” If the reviewer named a specific typo, still answer that comment.

When to make the change directly in the manuscript

Make the change directly when the reviewer is right and the change improves accuracy, clarity, completeness, or journal fit. Then record it in the response letter with a location.

Do not bury important responses only in the letter. If the issue matters for future readers, it belongs in the manuscript too.

When to ask the editor for clarification

Ask the editor when:

• Reviewer requests are mutually incompatible.

• A requested analysis would violate the study design, ethics approval, or data-use agreement.

• A requested citation or framing change creates a conflict of interest concern.

• The journal instructions conflict with a reviewer’s formatting request.

• The requested revision would change the paper into a different article.

Keep the note short: “We would appreciate the editor’s guidance on how to prioritize these two requests, since satisfying both would require contradictory changes to the manuscript structure.”

Final response-letter check

Before submitting, read the response package like an editor trying to verify it quickly.

Check that:

• Every editor and reviewer comment is included.

• Comment numbers match the original review.

• Each response says what changed or why no change was made.

• Every claimed change exists in the manuscript.

• Page, line, figure, table, and supplement references are accurate.

• Terminology is consistent across the letter and manuscript.

• New analyses are labeled correctly as primary, secondary, exploratory, or sensitivity analyses.

• Limitations are added where the evidence cannot support the requested claim.

• The response tone is professional and not defensive.

• The clean manuscript, tracked manuscript, supplementary files, and response letter agree with each other.

• File names make the submission package easy to audit.

Elsevier’s Researcher Academy notes that authors often receive less instruction on responding to reviewer comments than on peer review itself; that gap is why a disciplined format matters (Elsevier Researcher Academy). The response letter is not where you win by sounding clever. You win by making the revision clear, honest, and easy to check.

If the article is still in the journal-selection stage, it is also worth checking fit before submission. Otio’s guides to journal metrics beyond impact factor and journal selection criteria cover that earlier decision point. If you are preparing to review someone else’s manuscript, see the companion guide on how to peer review a paper efficiently.

FAQ

Q: How should authors format a response to reviewers?
A: Use a numbered, point-by-point format. Present each reviewer comment, follow it with the author response, state the revision made, and give the exact manuscript location.

Q: What should you say when you disagree with a reviewer?
A: Acknowledge the concern, explain your reasoning with reference to the study design or evidence, and state whether you clarified the manuscript or added a limitation. Avoid personal or dismissive language.

Q: Should a response letter include every reviewer comment?
A: Yes. Address every numbered comment, including comments that require no manuscript change, and briefly explain why no change was made when appropriate.

Q: How long should a peer review response letter be?
A: It should be as long as necessary to answer every point clearly, but no longer. Major revisions may require substantial detail; minor comments should usually receive concise, verifiable responses.

[[OTIO_FOOTER_PROMO:%7B%22title%22%3A%22Ready%20to%20audit%20your%20response%20package%3F%22%2C%22description%22%3A%22Add%20your%20reviewer%20letters%2C%20clean%20and%20tracked%20manuscripts%2C%20supplementary%20files%2C%20and%20notes%20to%20Otio%2C%20then%20check%20each%20claimed%20change%20against%20the%20source%20text.%22%7D]]