How to Respond to Peer Reviewer Comments

A well-written response letter can rescue a paper with major revisions; a poorly written one can sink a paper the reviewers were otherwise willing to accept. Editors read your response as closely as your manuscript — here's the structure that works.

Overall structure

• Opening summary — a brief, appreciative paragraph acknowledging the review and summarizing the main changes made.
• Point-by-point response — every single comment from every reviewer, numbered, quoted in full, followed immediately by your response and exactly where the change appears (page/line number) in the revised manuscript.
• Consistent formatting — distinguish reviewer comments from your responses clearly (bold, color, or indentation) so an editor can scan it quickly.

Responding when you agree

Reviewer comment: "The sample size justification is not provided."
Response: "We agree and have added a power analysis justifying our target sample size (see Methods, page 6, lines 12–18). We calculated an a priori sample size of 128 based on a medium effect size (f = 0.25), α = .05, and power = .80."

Responding when you disagree

Disagreeing is legitimate and expected sometimes — but never simply say "we disagree." Explain your reasoning with evidence or citation, and where possible, make a small concession (e.g., adding a limitation note) that shows you took the concern seriously even while holding your position.

Reviewer comment: "The authors should have used a random-effects model instead of fixed-effect."
Response: "We respectfully note that our I² of 12% indicated low heterogeneity, supporting the fixed-effect model per Cochrane Handbook guidance (Higgins et al., 2023). We have added a sentence explicitly justifying this choice in the Methods (page 8, lines 4–7) and noted the alternative approach as a limitation."

Common mistakes

• Responding to comments out of order, or skipping a comment entirely — editors notice, and it reads as evasive.
• A defensive or dismissive tone, even when you disagree — reviewers are (usually) volunteering expert time, and tone matters for how the response is received.
• Making the change in the manuscript but not clearly stating where, forcing the editor or reviewer to hunt for it.