How to Respond to Reviewer Comments (With Template)

To respond to reviewer comments, read every comment carefully, revise the manuscript, and send a point-by-point response letter that quotes each comment, says exactly what you changed and where, and politely explains any point you disagree with. A clear, respectful response letter often decides whether a “major revisions” paper is accepted. This guide gives you a step-by-step method, a ready response letter template, and advice on handling rejection.

First, read the decision properly

Editorial decisions usually fall into one of these categories: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, revise and resubmit, or reject. Read the editor’s letter before you read the reviews, because the editor tells you which comments matter most. If the editor says “please pay particular attention to Reviewer 2’s concerns about methodology”, that is your priority.

If you are unsure what a decision category means, our guide on peer review explained covers each one.

Step 1: Let it settle for a day

Critical comments sting, especially on a paper you worked on for months. Read the reviews once, then put them away for a day. On second reading, most comments look more reasonable and more useful. Never reply to an editor while you are annoyed.

Step 2: Build a comment table

Copy every comment into a table and number it, for example R1.1, R1.2, R2.1. Split long comments that contain several separate points. Then sort them:

Step 3: Revise the manuscript

Make the changes in the manuscript first, then write the response. As you revise:

• Use tracked changes or highlighting if the journal asks for a marked-up version.
• Note the page, section or paragraph of every change for your letter.
• Check that changes do not break other parts of the paper, such as cross-references, footnote numbering or the abstract.
• Stay within the word limit. If you add material, look for something to cut.
• Keep the manuscript anonymised if the journal uses blind review.

Step 4: Write the response letter

The golden rules

1. Respond to every comment, even the small ones. Skipping a comment looks like ignoring it.
2. Quote the comment, then answer it. The editor should not need to search the reviews.
3. Be specific. “Revised as suggested” is weak. “Added a new paragraph in Part III (page 12) discussing the judgment” is strong.
4. Thank, but briefly. One line of thanks at the start is enough. Do not thank reviewers in every reply.
5. Disagree with evidence, never with attitude.

Response letter template

Adapt the following to your paper:

Dear Editor,

Re: Response to reviewers, Manuscript No. [number], “[Title]”

Thank you for the opportunity to revise this manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their careful reading and helpful comments. We have addressed each comment below. Reviewer comments are reproduced in italics, followed by our response and the location of the change in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1

Comment R1.1: [Reproduce the comment.]
Response: We agree. We have rewritten the final paragraph of the Introduction to state the research question explicitly (page 2, paragraph 3).

Comment R1.2: [Reproduce the comment.]
Response: We have added an analysis of [authority] in Part III, which strengthens the argument on [point] (pages 11 to 12).

Reviewer 2

Comment R2.1: [Reproduce the comment.]
Response: We have considered this suggestion carefully. We have not adopted it in full because [reason, supported by authority or logic]. However, we have added a footnote acknowledging this alternative view and explaining why the paper takes a different approach (footnote 34).

We believe these revisions have strengthened the manuscript and hope it is now suitable for publication.

Yours sincerely,
[Name, or “The Author(s)” if the journal requires anonymity in this document]

How to disagree with a reviewer

You do not have to accept every suggestion. Reviewers sometimes misread a point or ask for a different paper from the one you wrote. When you disagree:

• Start by acknowledging the concern behind the comment.
• Give a clear reason, ideally supported by a source, a statutory provision or the paper’s stated scope.
• Offer a partial change where you can, such as a clarifying sentence or a footnote.
• Keep the tone neutral. Avoid words like “wrong”, “obviously” or “misunderstood”.

Weak: “The reviewer has misunderstood the argument.”
Better: “We realise the argument in Part II was not stated clearly enough. We have revised the opening of Part II to make clear that the paper addresses only the pre-trial stage.”

When two reviewers contradict each other

If Reviewer 1 wants a section expanded and Reviewer 2 wants it cut, choose the option that best serves your argument, explain your choice to both, and mention the conflict to the editor. Editors expect this and will usually support a reasoned decision.

Handling rejection

Rejection is normal. Experienced scholars receive rejections regularly. What matters is what you do next:

1. Do not argue with the decision unless there is a clear factual error, such as a reviewer commenting on the wrong manuscript. Appeals on matters of opinion rarely succeed.
2. Use the reviews. Even a rejection usually contains free expert feedback. Fix the problems before sending the paper elsewhere.
3. Reconsider the fit. A desk rejection often means scope mismatch. See how to choose a law journal.
4. Reformat for the next journal, including word limit, citation style and anonymisation.
5. Move on quickly. A paper on a current legal issue can date fast.

Timing and etiquette

• Meet the revision deadline. If you need more time, ask the editor before it passes.
• Send the revised manuscript, a clean copy if requested, and the response letter together.
• Do not try to contact reviewers or identify them.
• Write a new cover note to the editor summarising the main changes in three or four lines. Our guide on cover letters for journal submission has tips.

At the Lexfolio Journal of Law, Policy and Social Sciences (LJLPS), reviewers are asked to give specific, constructive comments under double-blind review, so authors receive feedback they can actually use, as set out in the peer review policy.

Frequently asked questions

How long should a response to reviewers be?

As long as needed to answer every comment clearly, and no longer. Most response letters run between two and six pages, depending on the number of comments.

Do I have to make every change a reviewer suggests?

No. You should respond to every comment, but you may decline a suggestion if you give a clear, respectful reason. The editor makes the final decision.

Can I submit a rejected paper to another journal?

Yes. Once a journal rejects your paper, you are free to submit it elsewhere. Revise it using the feedback and adapt it to the new journal’s guidelines first.

Should I put my name on the response letter?

Follow the journal’s instructions. In double-blind review, some journals ask for an anonymised response letter so it can be shared with reviewers.