Architects of academic excellence. A legacy of scholarly publishing spanning 24 years. Uncompromising editorial standards for scholars who accept nothing less than perfection
Published Papers
Login
Published Papers
Login
logo
logo meta verified

Response to reviewers’ template + example language

A response to reviewers is not a checklist; it will demonstrate to editors where and how each issue was considered, and why some suggestions resulted in different solutions. A well-answered, clear reply can transform a revise and resubmit decision into acceptance with just one more round.

Most researchers do not take into account the extent to which editors go through such documents. Any ambiguous reply or failure to respond to a specific comment is an indication of negligence. Follow-up, step-by-step response creates credibility and progress in your manuscript. 

This guide provides you with a pragmatic outline and sample language to provide Reviewer Comment Support, and it is a step towards acceptance.

What do Editors and Reviewers want to see?

Traceability: Each Comment Will Be Answered

Editors desire an easy audit trail. Assign a number to every comment and reply with a number. Copy or paraphrase the words the reviewer is using to make the editor know precisely what you are reporting. General remarks such as We fixed this do not help enable the reviewer to find the change.

Professional Tone Under Pressure

As much as criticism may be personal, do not make it personal to avoid ruining the tone. Appreciate criticism, accept constructive ideas, and discuss conflicts in a polite manner. A large number of authors combine their answers to ensure the same style.

Before You Start Writing: A Research-based Checklist

  • Re-read the decision letter and Classify Remarks: Comments by type, methodology, presentation, missing analysis, or example of request. Addressing these problems collectively means that nothing is left behind.
  • Check Analysis Requests and Reporting Standards: Verify that you are familiar with all the statistical or reporting requirements. Guidelines and checklists such as PRISMA, CONSORT or STROBE that apply to your research.
  • Create a Change Log During Revision: Where the change takes place in the records, line and section. This log will be the foundation of your response letter and version control in Fast Publications workflow.

Response-to-Reviewers Template You Can Use

General Paragraph and Overview Paragraph

Manuscript ID: BMJ-2025-123456

Title: [Your Title] Randomised Trial.

Journal: [Journal Name]

Decision: Revise

We are grateful to the editors, reviewers and their consideration. Also, we have responded to every comment carefully and feel that the revisions have made the paper stronger. We offer point-by-point responses below.

Point‑by‑Point Format

Sort into comments and reviewer numbers to enable editors to confirm every point.

  • Reviewer 1, Comment 1: The authors need to explain how they came to their sample size better. Response: We added the sample-size justification in the Methods section that describes the effect size, alpha, power and attrition with references to pilot data. See page 6, lines 145–162.
  • Reviewer 1, Comment 2: There is a problem with the interpretation of Table 2. Discuss presenting confidence intervals and p-values. Correction: Table 2 has been updated to provide 95% CI of all estimates and a footnote correcting the tests. See page 12, Table 2, as well as text on page 13, lines 278-285.

How to Cite Edits Clearly?

Specify the location of every change. Use page and line numbers where possible; otherwise, use section headings and paragraph descriptors. Consistency correlates every response with a perceptible revision.

Example Language Library

When You Agree 

  • We concur with this observation and made some revisions to the text. See page 4, lines 98–105.”  
  • “Thank you for the suggestion. The reference suggested was added in the discussion on page 15, lines 342-348.  

This is one of the points, and we explained our logic in the introduction and provided citations.

When You Partially Agree

  • “We agree with the intent. So that we can avoid over-interpreting it, we included a limitations paragraph. See page 17, lines 389–402.”  
  • We have conducted the sensitivity analysis requested and presented both the primary and sensitivity results.

When You Are in Disagreement but Respectfully

  • We respectfully disagree due to the fact that our study was not designed to test this relationship. 
  • We have included the description with the literature support and referred to the restrictions section. See page 18, lines 410–418.”  

Modifying the initial result would modify our pre-specified trial registration. Rather, we did a second analysis and indicated it clearly in the results.

Rapid Solutions and Traps to Hardly Avoid

  • Overly Emotional Tone: Substitute defensive expressions, such as The reviewer misunderstood with expressions that are neutral, such as We clarify this point by.
  • Vague Replies: Substitute Done with Revised the Methods section (set the sampling strategy) (page 5, lines 120-130).
  • Ignoring a Comment: Respond to all the comments, regardless of whether the change is implemented or not. Give a short explanation of your reasoning; consultants will pick up when an argument has been thrown out, regardless of the reasons.

Conclusion 

Sort out all remarks, have a running change list, and reply point-by-point using correct paraphrases/quotes. Do a final consistency check afterwards to make sure that all the responses correspond to manuscript changes. This workflow shortens the revision cycles and increases the confidence of the editors. The quickest way out of revision to acceptance is clear, identifiable revisions.

Table of Contents

More Helpful Articles