We covered how to write a response-to-reviewers letter at the level of principles; this post gives you a ready-to-use template and example sentences. A good response letter doesn't defend the comments — it meets each one with a concrete change and makes it easy for the editor to verify. Adapt the skeleton below to your own manuscript.
The three parts of a response letter
| Part | Content | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Opening | Address the editor + thank them for the revision + short summary | Positive, collaborative tone |
| Body | Each comment: quote → reply → change made (line/page) | Traceable, point-by-point response |
| Closing | General thanks + readiness to discuss | Polite ending |
Copy-paste template
Opening:
Dear Editor, Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript. The reviewers' constructive comments have clearly strengthened the paper. We have responded to all comments point by point below; the relevant changes are marked in the resubmitted file.
For each comment (repeat):
Reviewer 1, Comment 1: [Quote the reviewer's comment verbatim.] Our response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. [Explain what you did.] The relevant change has been made on [page X, line Y]: "[Quote the revised/added text.]"
Closing:
We have taken all comments into account and believe the manuscript has improved. Thank you for your time and input.
Example sentences (by situation)
- Accept + change: "You are right; to clarify this point we added the following to the methods section…"
- Partial agreement: "We understand your suggestion. We did not fully implement it because of X, but to address the concern we added Y / noted it as a limitation."
- Polite pushback: "Thank you for this comment. Based on [source], we believe the current approach is more appropriate; we have added the rationale to the discussion."
- Extra data/analysis: "We ran the analysis you suggested; the results are in Table Z and support the main finding."
Tip: in every reply, show concrete evidence (a line number, a table, an added sentence). Saying "we fixed it" isn't enough; make what you changed visible.
Common mistakes
- Brushing off comments in one general paragraph (each comment needs its own reply).
- A defensive or hurt tone (a reviewer is a reviewer, not an argument to win).
- Saying "done" in the letter without marking the change in the text.
- Leaving a comment unanswered — the editor notices a missing reply immediately.
A revision request is usually a sign the paper is close to acceptance. Understanding why the paper reached this stage and replying with discipline makes the difference. To make the process easier from the start, Peerfect's free pre-review engine shows the questions a reviewer will ask before you submit — so you enter the revision round with fewer objections.