How to Respond to Peer Review Comments

Receiving peer review comments is a milestone that many researchers dread. After months of work, the manuscript comes back marked with objections, requests for additional analysis, and — occasionally — critiques that seem to misread the paper entirely. Yet the response-to-reviewers document is one of the most consequential pieces of academic writing a researcher produces. A well-constructed response can convert a "major revisions" decision into an acceptance; a poorly constructed one can send a sound paper back for another round or trigger rejection. This article covers the principles, structure, and practical techniques that make revision responses effective.

The Productive Mindset for Revision

Before opening the revision document, it helps to establish the right orientation to the feedback. Peer review comments are a form of expertise, not personal judgment. Reviewers who have spent hours with a manuscript — even reviewers who have misunderstood something — are revealing how a representative specialist reader is experiencing the work. Where they have missed the point, that is often a signal that the manuscript needs to communicate more clearly. Where they have identified genuine gaps, addressing those gaps genuinely strengthens the paper.

The productive response to peer review begins with this premise: every comment deserves a serious, substantive response, regardless of whether it ultimately results in a change to the manuscript. Even comments you disagree with should be addressed with the same care and evidence as those you find compelling. Reviewers and editors are looking for authors who engage with critique intellectually, not defensively.

Separately from the mindset question, there is a practical time consideration. Major revisions typically come with a deadline — commonly sixty to ninety days. Planning the revision process before beginning it, allocating specific time for each substantial comment, and tracking progress against the deadline prevents the common pattern of letting the revision sit and then rushing at the end.

Structure of the Response Letter

The response letter accompanies the revised manuscript and is addressed to the editor. Its function is to demonstrate that you have taken the reviewers' comments seriously, explain every change made to the manuscript, and argue clearly for decisions not to change something a reviewer requested. A response letter that fulfills this function earns the trust of editors and reviewers; one that is vague, dismissive, or incomplete loses it quickly.

Opening paragraph

Begin with a brief, professional statement thanking the editor and reviewers for their time and feedback, and confirming that you have revised the manuscript in response to the comments received. Keep this short — two or three sentences. Editors read many response letters; excessive preamble wastes their time.

Reviewer-by-reviewer organization

The body of the response letter should be organized by reviewer, typically labeled "Reviewer 1," "Reviewer 2," and so on, matching the order in which the editor's decision letter presents them. Within each reviewer's section, address every comment individually, in the order it appears. Do not skip any comment, even if you believe it is minor or already addressed elsewhere. Missing a comment signals carelessness and prompts follow-up questions.

Point-by-point format

The industry-standard format for each individual response is:

1. Quote the reviewer's comment in full, verbatim, in italics or block-quote format.
2. Provide your response, beginning with a brief acknowledgment of the concern and then explaining what you have done (or why you have not made the requested change).
3. Quote the specific revised text from the manuscript, when applicable, so the reviewer can easily locate and verify the change without hunting through the document.

This three-part structure makes the response easy to cross-reference against both the original comments and the revised manuscript. It also forces the author to be specific: vague claims that "the manuscript has been revised" are replaced by quoted evidence of actual changes.

Example Response Table

For manuscripts with a large number of comments, or for authors who prefer a more compact format, a revision table provides an efficient summary of all changes. Many editors find tables easier to scan than long prose responses, and some journals explicitly request them. A response letter can include both a table summary and prose detail for complex comments.

Reviewer comment	Response	Change made
Reviewer 1, Comment 2: "The theoretical framework in Section 2 is underdeveloped. The authors should engage more directly with recent literature on institutional path dependency."	We agree that the theoretical grounding needed strengthening. We have expanded Section 2 to include a substantive engagement with path dependency theory, drawing on Mahoney (2000), Pierson (2004), and two more recent contributions. We explain how our empirical case both draws on and complicates the standard account.	Section 2 expanded from 480 to 720 words. Four new citations added (pp. 4–6 of revised manuscript).
Reviewer 2, Comment 1: "The sample size of 34 interviews is small for the claims being made. Can the authors provide power calculations or otherwise justify the size?"	We appreciate this concern. Our study is qualitative and does not rely on statistical inference, so conventional power calculations do not apply. We have added a paragraph in the Methods section clarifying the epistemological approach and citing established qualitative standards for theoretical saturation as the criterion for sample adequacy.	New paragraph added to Section 3.2 (p. 9 of revised manuscript) explaining qualitative sampling rationale.
Reviewer 2, Comment 3: "Table 3 has unlabeled columns."	Corrected — column headers added to Table 3.	Table 3 column headers added (p. 14 of revised manuscript).
Reviewer 1, Comment 5: "The conclusion oversells the generalizability of findings from a single-country case."	We agree. The conclusion has been revised to acknowledge the single-country scope as a limitation and to reframe the contribution in terms of theoretical development rather than empirical generalization across contexts.	Conclusion revised, final two paragraphs rewritten (pp. 20–21 of revised manuscript).

Agreeing and Disagreeing Professionally

Most revision responses require a mixture of genuine agreement (changes made as requested), partial agreement (changes made in modified form with explanation), and principled disagreement (no change made, with reasoned justification). Each requires a distinct rhetorical approach.

When you agree

Agreement is straightforward but should not be lazy. Saying "we agree with the reviewer and have revised accordingly" without quoting the change leaves the reviewer and editor unable to verify what changed. The effective approach is:

We agree that [state the reviewer's concern accurately]. We have [describe the specific change] on [page/section reference]. The revised text reads: "[exact quote of new or revised text]."

When you partially agree

Partial agreement requires explaining what you found valid in the comment, what change you have made in response to that valid concern, and why you have not made the full change requested. This is often the most intellectually honest response and, when well executed, demonstrates that you have engaged seriously with the feedback:

We appreciate the reviewer's concern about [X]. The reviewer is right that [valid aspect of the concern], and we have addressed this by [specific change]. However, we have not [the other part of the request] because [reasoned explanation]. We hope the revised text addresses the underlying concern while preserving [aspect of original argument].

When you disagree

Principled disagreement with a reviewer is entirely legitimate — and editors expect it on occasion. What matters is that the disagreement is argued, not asserted. Phrases like "we respectfully disagree" or "with respect, we do not believe this change is warranted" should be followed immediately by a reasoned explanation, citing evidence, methodology, or scholarly consensus as appropriate:

We respectfully disagree with this recommendation. [Explain why the requested change would alter the argument, misrepresent the data, or conflict with established methodology in the field — with citations if available.] We have, however, revised the text at [location] to make clear that [what you want to clarify], which we hope addresses the concern underlying this comment.

Note the pivot at the end: even in disagreement, offering some response — clarified text, additional context, a note on limitations — signals good faith and gives the editor something positive to work with.

Common Mistakes in Revision Responses

• Skipping comments. Every comment, including those marked "minor" by the reviewer, requires a response. An editor tracking responses against a list of reviewer comments will notice omissions immediately.
• Vague responses. "We have revised the manuscript" tells the reviewer nothing about what changed. Always quote the specific revised text for any substantive change.
• Defensive tone. Responses that argue with the reviewer's interpretation of their own comment, or that imply the reviewer failed to read carefully, create friction that makes subsequent rounds more difficult. Address the concern behind the comment, not the characterization.
• Agreeing without changing anything. Claiming to have addressed a comment while leaving the relevant section unchanged is easily detected and damages credibility with editors.
• Adding unrequested changes without noting them. If you have made additional revisions beyond those prompted by reviewer comments — correcting errors, updating citations, clarifying other sections — note these explicitly in the response letter. "We have also [describe change] in Section X, which we believe improves the clarity of the argument."

Resubmission Checklist

Before sending the revised manuscript, work through the following:

• Every comment from every reviewer is addressed in the response letter, in the correct order.
• Every textual change referenced in the response letter is actually present in the revised manuscript, at the location cited.
• Page and section numbers referenced in the response letter correspond to the revised manuscript, not the original.
• Track changes is enabled (or a clean version without tracked changes is provided, per the journal's instructions — check both requirements).
• A cover letter to the editor summarizes the major revisions and states that all reviewer comments have been addressed.
• Any required files — data, supplementary materials, ethics statements — are included and complete.
• The manuscript complies with the journal's formatting requirements, which may have changed since the original submission or which the original did not fully satisfy.

For questions about the review process after you have resubmitted, the author guidelines describe what to expect, and the peer review timeline guide explains typical turnaround times for subsequent rounds. A full description of the review stages is available on the BRJ peer review process page.

Publish with Boston Research Journals

Navigating peer review requires patience and craft, and a well-constructed response letter is a skill that improves with practice. When you are ready to submit your manuscript — whether for the first time or after a revision round — submit to BRJ to work with an editorial team committed to rigorous, constructive peer review.