Response to reviewers: the point-by-point letter
Quote every comment. Answer each one in the first sentence. Show what changed, where. Five publisher sources agree on the format; the template below follows them — nothing here is a trick, it is what the handling editor has to verify.
A response to reviewers has two parts: a short cover note with a summary of the main changes, and a point-by-point section that quotes each reviewer comment verbatim, answers it directly, and gives the page and line of the change with the new text pasted in. Fill the cover note below; copy the point-by-point block or download both as Word.
What publishers ask for — and all five agree
| Rule | Taylor & Francis | PLOS | Frontiers | Elsevier | Noble (2017) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thank the editor and reviewers in a short opening | yes | — | yes | — | rule 2 |
| Overview of major changes before the detail | — | yes | — | — | rule 1 |
| Quote each comment verbatim, grouped by reviewer, numbered | yes | yes | yes | yes | rules 1, 5 |
| Answer every point, including ones recommending rejection | yes | yes | yes | — | rule 5 |
| Start each reply with the direct answer | — | — | — | — | rule 7 |
| State the location of the change: page and line | yes | yes | tracked changes | yes | rule 4 |
| Paste the revised text into the response | yes | — | — | — | rule 4 |
| Disagreement is allowed if argued with evidence | yes | yes | yes | yes | rule 8 |
| Submit response letter + marked copy + clean copy | yes | — | yes | — | — |
| Change the manuscript, not only the letter | — | — | — | yes (tip 3) | rule 9 |
| Typography to separate comment / reply / new text | — | — | — | — | rule 6 |
| Tone: unemotional, assume reviewers read it | yes | yes | yes | yes | rules 2, 3, 10 |
Length is not a problem. Taylor & Francis: “a good response letter can be more than 20 pages, but if properly structured and formatted, it will be quick and easy to follow.”
Fill in the cover note
Subject
Revised manuscript [Manuscript ID] — [Manuscript title]
Cover note
Dear [Editor's name], Thank you for the opportunity to revise "[Manuscript title]" (manuscript [Manuscript ID]) for [Journal]. We are grateful to the editor and the [Number of reviewers] reviewers for their comments, which we have addressed in full in the point-by-point response that follows. Summary of the main changes: 1. [Main change 1] We have uploaded (a) this response, (b) a marked copy with all changes shown, and (c) a clean copy. Page and line numbers in the response refer to the clean copy. Sincerely, [Your name], on behalf of all authors
Point-by-point section — one block per comment
Reviewer 1
Comment 1.1
> [Paste the reviewer's comment verbatim. Do not shorten or paraphrase.]
Response: [Direct answer first: "We agree." / "We agree in part." / "We respectfully disagree."] [One to three sentences on what you did and why.]
Change: Page [n], lines [a–b]. New text:
"[Paste the revised sentence(s) exactly as they now appear.]"
Comment 1.2
> …
The three reply patterns
| Situation | First sentence | What follows |
|---|---|---|
| You agree and changed it | “We agree and have revised accordingly.” | Location + pasted new text. Nothing else. |
| You agree in part | “We agree that [X]; however, [Y] because [evidence].” | What you changed, what you did not, and the reason with a citation or data. |
| You disagree | “We respectfully disagree, for the following reason.” | Evidence, not opinion. If the request is an experiment you cannot run, say what it would take and what you did instead. PLOS: “Even if you have decided not to make a change, your response to the reviewers should explain why.” |
Typography
- Reviewer comment: indented,
>or italic. - Your response: roman, flush left, begins with Response:.
- New manuscript text: indented block, quotation marks, or bold — one convention, kept throughout.
- Never mix reviewer text and your text in one paragraph (Noble, rule 6).
Before you resubmit
- Every numbered comment has a block, including ones you disagree with and ones from the editor's own note.
- Every “Change:” line has a page and line number that exists in the clean copy — add the numbers after editing, not before (Elsevier, tip 3).
- The manuscript actually contains each change the letter claims.
- Reviewers who contradict each other: say so once, state which you followed and why, and note that the editor's view on scope or standards prevails (PLOS).
- If new work pushed you past the revision deadline, write to the editor before the deadline, not after (PLOS).
- Read the letter once more as the reviewer would. Noble, rule 10: write the angry version first, privately, then the real one days later.
Desk rejection is a different situation
A desk rejection comes from the editor before review; there are no reviewer comments to answer. Springer Nature's published list of editorial reasons: out of scope; not enough of an advance for the journal; research ethics ignored; formatting not followed; insufficient methodological detail; outdated or self-heavy references; language quality; poorly presented data; publication-ethics violation. Of these, only scope and “enough of an advance” are about journal choice; the rest are fixable before submitting elsewhere. Appeals exist but are rare and go through the journal's stated process.
Find the next journal · fees of candidate journals · a new submission needs a new cover letter · fee check for the new target
Questions
Do I have to reply to a comment I think is wrong?
Yes. Frontiers: every point, “even if they are recommending rejection.” Reply with evidence and say what you did not change and why (PLOS).
Can the response letter be long?
Yes. Taylor & Francis says more than 20 pages is fine when structured point by point.
Where do I put the new text?
In the response itself, quoted with page and line, so the reviewer does not have to search the manuscript (Taylor & Francis; Noble, rule 4).
What files go with it?
The response letter, a marked copy with tracked changes, and a clean copy (Taylor & Francis, Frontiers).
The reviewers contradict each other — whom do I follow?
Follow the editor's steer on scope and standards; for the rest, pick one with a stated reason (PLOS).
Sources for this page
- Taylor & Francis
- How to respond to reviewer comments, read 6 October 2026
- PLOS
- Responding to peer review, read 6 October 2026
- Frontiers
- How to respond to reviewer comments, read 6 October 2026
- Elsevier
- 3 top tips for responding to reviewer comments, read 6 October 2026
- Noble WS (2017)
- Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers, PLOS Computational Biology 13(10): e1005730, CC BY
- Springer Nature
- Common rejection reasons, read 6 October 2026 (desk-rejection section only)