Reviewer Response Toolkit

1. Comment tracker (free download)

One row per comment, with dropdowns for category and status, a column for where each change landed in the manuscript, and a summary sheet that shows progress and warns you about responses that are not yet verified.

Using Google Sheets? Open Sheets, choose File → Import, and upload either file. No sign-up needed.

2. The five steps

1. 1

   Number every comment

   Split reviewer paragraphs so each row holds one request. Number them continuously across reviewers so you can refer to them easily.

2. 2

   Sort into four categories

   Quick fixes, clarifications, substantive revisions and disagreements. Start with quick fixes for momentum, and leave disagreements until you can see the whole revised manuscript.

3. 3

   Answer point by point

   Quote the comment, then say what you changed and where, with section or line numbers. Never answer with just "Done" or "Fixed".

4. 4

   Disagree with evidence

   Thank the reviewer, explain your reasoning with a citation or data, and change the manuscript so the point is clearer to readers.

5. 5

   Verify before you submit

   Check the revised manuscript against your letter, one comment at a time. Every promised change should be findable at the line number you gave.

3. Response letter template

Replace everything in square brackets. Check your journal’s instructions first, because some ask for a specific format.

Dear [Editor name],

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, "[Title]" ([Manuscript ID]). We are grateful to the reviewers for their careful reading. We have addressed every comment below. Changes in the revised manuscript are [highlighted in yellow / shown in tracked changes], and line numbers refer to the revised version.

REVIEWER 1

Comment 1.1: "[Paste the reviewer's comment exactly.]"

Response: [Thank them briefly, then say what you did.] We have [added / revised / clarified] [what] in [Section X, lines N-M].

Comment 1.2: "[Paste the next comment.]"

Response: [...]

REVIEWER 2

Comment 2.1: "[...]"

Response: [...]

We hope the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in [Journal]. We are happy to make any further changes.

Sincerely,
[Corresponding author], on behalf of all authors

4. Phrase bank

Copy the structure, then add your specifics. Every line should say what changed and where.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have [added / revised / clarified] [what] in [Section X, lines N-M].

We agree that [part of the concern]. We have addressed this by [change]. We have not [other request] because [specific reason], but we now state this explicitly in [Section X, lines N-M].

We appreciate the reviewer raising this point. We chose [approach] because [reason tied to the study design], consistent with [Author, Year]. To make this clear to readers, we have added a justification in [Section X, lines N-M].

This is an interesting direction. It is beyond the scope of the present study, which was designed to [aim]. We now note this as a limitation and a topic for future work in [Section X, lines N-M].

We were not certain we understood this comment. We interpreted it as [your reading] and have responded accordingly in [Section X]. If we have misread the intent, we would be glad to revise further.

We agree this would strengthen the work. New data collection is not possible within this study because [reason]. We have therefore [added a limitation / reframed the claim] in [Section X, lines N-M].

5. Before you resubmit

• Every reviewer comment has a numbered response
• Each response quotes the original comment
• Each response says what changed and where
• Disagreements are handled with evidence and a respectful tone
• The revised manuscript contains every change the letter promises
• Line numbers in the letter match the clean revised manuscript
• Tracked-changes version is legible, with no stray notes to co-authors
• New references are added to the bibliography
• New text is proofread, and numbers match across abstract, results and tables
• The cover letter to the editor is attached
• Supplementary materials are updated

Go deeper

• How to respond to reviewer comments, step by step
• Rebuttal letter template with worked examples
• How to handle harsh or unreasonable reviewer comments
• Major vs minor revision: what editors expect
• Resubmission checklist after major revisions
• How long peer review takes, and what to do while you wait

Frequently asked questions

How do I respond to reviewer comments?

Number every comment, quote it, and answer it point by point with what you changed and where. Group comments into quick fixes, clarifications, substantive revisions and disagreements, and do the disagreements last. Then check that the revised manuscript contains every change your letter promises.

What is a point-by-point response to reviewers?

It is a letter that lists each reviewer comment in order, quotes it, and gives a specific reply directly beneath it, including the location of any change in the manuscript. Editors use it to confirm that you answered everything.

How do I disagree with a reviewer politely?

Thank them for the point, explain your reasoning with evidence or a citation, and show what you changed in the manuscript to make your reasoning clearer. Avoid wording such as "the reviewer is wrong".

Do I have to make every change a reviewer asks for?

No, but you must respond to every comment. If you decline a request, give a specific, evidence-based reason and usually add a sentence to the manuscript so readers can see your reasoning.

Is the comment tracker free?

Yes. Download it as an Excel file (with dropdowns and a progress summary) or as a plain CSV that works in Google Sheets. No sign-up is needed.