Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments: Revision Letter and Manuscript Revision

Professional, respectful, objective. Imagine the response is being read by a committee evaluating your professionalism; maintain that standard. Use formal language ('We appreciate the suggestion' not 'Thanks for the note'). Acknowledge the reviewer's effort ('We thank Reviewer 2 for their thorough evaluation'). Explain changes without justifying or defending ('We clarified this in the Methods' rather than 'We did clarify this; Reviewer 2 must have missed it'). Even if you disagree, frame it positively ('We considered this suggestion. However, [explain why you made a different choice]').

Yes, all comments should be addressed, including those you disagree with. For disagreement, explain your reasoning with evidence (citations, prior studies, logic). Option 1: 'We respectfully disagree because [explanation with evidence]. However, we have [made a change to improve clarity] even if not strictly necessary.' Option 2: 'We understand Reviewer 1's concern. However, [explain why your approach is appropriate based on literature or methodology].' Always be respectful; never imply the reviewer is wrong or foolish. End with a positive frame: 'We believe the current approach is appropriate, and we have clarified this in the manuscript.''

Typically 1–3 pages for minor revisions, 3–5 pages for major revisions. Length depends on the number and complexity of comments. Each comment deserves a complete (but concise) response. Avoid excessive elaboration; editors prefer clear, focused responses. A rule of thumb: if a response to a single comment exceeds 3–4 sentences, you may be over-explaining. Trim to the essentials.

Explain clearly and respectfully why the request cannot be fulfilled ('The recruitment phase has closed; we cannot enroll additional participants'). Offer an alternative if possible ('However, we have [conducted a sensitivity analysis / consulted unpublished data / explained the limitation in the Discussion]'). Editors understand that some requests are impractical; transparency about constraints builds credibility. Do not ignore the request or submit without addressing it.

Yes, for every change that you have made in response to feedback. Format: 'See page 3, lines 12–18' or 'Page 4, paragraph 2.' This makes it easy for the editor and reviewers to verify that your claim is accurate. Without specific citations, reviewers may not trust that you actually made the change they requested.

Technically yes, but explain why. If a requested change contradicts your findings, methodology, or interpretation, state this clearly with evidence. Example: 'Reviewer 1 suggests we analyze the data with [method]. However, [method] is not appropriate for [reason, e.g., our data violate the assumption of normality]. We have instead used [your method], which is standard for [context].' The editor will weigh your reasoning against the reviewer's concern. Most editors side with authors if the reasoning is sound and supported by citations.