Receiving reviewer comments is one of the most important stages in the academic publishing process. A request for minor or major revision generally means that the journal is willing to consider the manuscript further, provided the authors address the concerns raised by the reviewers and editor.
For many researchers, especially early-career authors, responding to reviewer comments can feel difficult. Some comments may be highly technical, some may require substantial rewriting, and others may appear unclear or even contradictory. However, a well-prepared revision can significantly strengthen a manuscript and improve its chances of acceptance.
The key is to respond systematically, respectfully, and with clear evidence of what has been changed.
Understand the Editorial Decision First
Before revising the manuscript, read the editor’s decision letter carefully.
The decision may be:
minor revision,
major revision,
revise and resubmit,
conditional acceptance,
or rejection with an invitation to submit a substantially revised version.
The editor may also provide additional instructions beyond the reviewer comments.
These instructions are especially important because the editor makes the final decision.
Authors should therefore address both:
editor comments,
and reviewer comments.
Do not begin revising immediately after reading the first few remarks. Read the complete decision letter and all reviewer reports carefully.
Create a Structured Revision Plan
A useful first step is to classify the comments.
For example, comments may relate to:
research objectives,
literature review,
methodology,
sample size,
statistical analysis,
tables and figures,
interpretation,
limitations,
references,
language,
formatting,
or journal requirements.
This helps authors estimate which revisions are simple and which require deeper work.
Major methodological or analytical comments should usually be addressed before minor language edits.
A structured approach prevents important comments from being overlooked.
Respond to Every Comment
One of the most important rules is simple:
Do not ignore reviewer comments.
Even if a comment appears minor or unnecessary, it should receive a response.
A revision letter should normally contain:
Reviewer Comment:
The original comment or a concise reproduction of it.
Author Response:
A clear explanation of how the comment was addressed.
Change Made:
The location of the revision, such as page number, section, paragraph, table, or line number.
This format makes the editor’s work easier.
Begin the Revision Letter Professionally
The revision letter should start with a brief note thanking the editor and reviewers.
For example:
“We thank the Editor and Reviewers for their careful evaluation of our manuscript and constructive comments. We have revised the manuscript thoroughly and believe that the changes have significantly improved its clarity and quality.”
The tone should remain professional throughout the response.
There is no need for excessive praise. A short and respectful acknowledgement is sufficient.
Use a Point-by-Point Response
The most effective revision letters are organised comment by comment.
For example:
Reviewer 1, Comment 1:
“The research gap is not clearly presented in the Introduction.”
Response:
Thank you for this observation. We have revised the final part of the Introduction to clarify the research gap and explicitly distinguish the present study from previous work.
Revision:
The revised text appears in the Introduction, Page 4, Lines 112–128.
This format is clear, traceable, and easy to review.
Do Not Simply Write “Done”
A weak response might say:
“Corrected.”
“Done.”
“Changed as suggested.”
These responses are too vague.
Editors and reviewers need to understand what was actually changed.
A stronger response explains:
what was revised,
why it was revised,
and where the revision appears.
For example:
“We agree with the reviewer that the explanation of the sampling procedure was insufficient. We have expanded the Methodology section to describe the inclusion criteria, recruitment procedure, and final sample size calculation.”
This demonstrates that the authors understood the concern.
Quote the Revised Text When Helpful
For important comments, authors can include the revised wording directly in the response letter.
For example:
Reviewer Comment:
“Please clarify the study objective.”
Response:
We have revised the objective as follows:
“The study aims to evaluate the relationship between transit-oriented development characteristics and travel behaviour across selected metro station areas.”
This can save the reviewer time.
However, authors do not need to reproduce every minor correction.
Be Respectful When You Disagree
Authors are not required to accept every reviewer suggestion.
Sometimes a reviewer may recommend an analysis that is not methodologically appropriate.
In such cases, authors should disagree politely and provide a clear academic explanation.
Avoid statements such as:
“The reviewer is wrong.”
“The reviewer misunderstood the study.”
Instead write:
“We appreciate this suggestion. However, we respectfully did not apply the proposed test because the dependent variable is categorical and does not satisfy the assumptions required for that method. We have clarified the analytical rationale in the revised Methodology section.”
The goal is not to win an argument.
The goal is to demonstrate that the decision is scientifically justified.
If the Reviewer Misunderstood Something, Improve the Manuscript
A reviewer misunderstanding may indicate that the manuscript itself was unclear.
Instead of blaming the reviewer, ask:
Why was this section difficult to understand?
Can the explanation be improved?
For example, if a reviewer asks a question that the authors believe is already answered, a useful response is:
“Thank you for highlighting this point. Although this information was mentioned previously, we recognise that the explanation may not have been sufficiently clear. We have therefore revised the section to make the distinction explicit.”
This approach improves both the response letter and the manuscript.
Address Methodological Comments Carefully
Methodological concerns often carry significant weight.
Reviewers may ask authors to explain:
sampling strategy,
sample size,
inclusion criteria,
data collection,
validity,
reliability,
model assumptions,
statistical tests,
or ethical procedures.
These comments should receive detailed responses.
If additional analysis is performed, clearly report:
what was done,
why it was done,
what changed,
and whether the conclusions were affected.
If the requested analysis cannot be performed because data are unavailable, explain this honestly and acknowledge it as a limitation where appropriate.
Respond Clearly to Statistical Comments
When reviewers request statistical clarification, vague responses should be avoided.
If a new test was performed, provide relevant results.
For example:
“In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we examined multicollinearity using variance inflation factors. All VIF values were below the predefined threshold, and this information has now been added to the Results section.”
If a reviewer identifies an actual analytical error, correct it transparently.
Do not attempt to hide changes simply because they alter some findings.
Research integrity is more important than preserving the original interpretation.
Update the Literature Review Properly
Reviewers frequently request additional references.
Authors should determine whether the suggested literature is genuinely relevant.
If it is relevant, incorporate it into the argument rather than simply adding citations.
For example:
“We have added recent studies on AI-assisted systematic reviewing and expanded the discussion to show how our work differs from existing approaches.”
Authors should avoid adding irrelevant references merely to satisfy a comment.
Revise Tables and Figures Carefully
Reviewers may request:
clearer captions,
higher resolution,
additional variables,
revised legends,
corrected units,
or simplified tables.
When a table or figure is modified, check the entire manuscript for consistency.
If Table 3 becomes Table 4 after adding a new table, all references in the text must be updated.
Similarly, changes in numerical results should be reflected in the abstract, discussion, and conclusion where necessary.
Maintain a Clean and a Marked Version
Many journals ask for:
a clean revised manuscript,
and a version showing changes.
The marked version may use tracked changes, highlighting, or coloured text depending on journal instructions.
Authors should follow the exact submission requirements.
If page and line numbers are used in the response letter, ensure that they correspond to the version uploaded.
Keep the Response Letter Easy to Navigate
A long revision letter can become difficult to read.
Use consistent formatting.
A practical structure is:
Editor Comments
Reviewer 1
Reviewer 2
Reviewer 3
Under each heading, respond to comments sequentially.
Numbering comments can also help.
For example:
R1.1
R1.2
R1.3
R2.1
R2.2
This is especially useful when there are many reviewer comments.
Do Not Rush the Revision
A major revision often requires significant work.
Before resubmission, review the entire manuscript again.
Check whether:
the abstract reflects revised results,
the objectives still match the analysis,
new references are included correctly,
tables agree with the text,
conclusions are supported,
declarations remain accurate,
and line numbering is correct.
Changes in one section often affect several other sections.
Check the Tone of the Response Letter
The revision letter should be:
respectful,
factual,
concise,
evidence-based,
and non-defensive.
Avoid emotional language.
Even if a comment seems harsh, respond only to its academic substance.
Editors notice professionalism.
A constructive revision letter can create confidence that the authors have taken peer review seriously.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Authors should avoid several common errors.
These include:
skipping reviewer comments,
responding only to easy points,
making changes without identifying them,
disagreeing without evidence,
blaming reviewers,
submitting inconsistent manuscript versions,
failing to update tables after analysis changes,
adding references without integrating them,
and making exaggerated claims after revision.
Another mistake is changing the manuscript but forgetting to explain the change in the response letter.
The response and manuscript should always correspond.
A Simple Response Template
A useful format is:
Reviewer Comment:
[Insert comment]
Response:
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that the previous explanation was insufficient. We have revised the section to provide additional clarification regarding [issue].
Change in Manuscript:
The revised text has been added to Section 3.2, Page 8, Lines 220–238.
If disagreeing:
Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. However, we respectfully retained the current analytical approach because [methodological reason]. To avoid ambiguity, we have added an explanation of this rationale in the revised manuscript.
This structure can be used throughout the revision letter.
Final Checklist Before Resubmission
Before submitting the revised manuscript, confirm that:
every reviewer comment has a response,
every promised revision has actually been made,
page and line references are accurate,
statistical values are consistent,
tables and figures are updated,
references are complete,
tracked changes follow journal instructions,
language has been proofread,
and the response letter is respectful and clear.
A final independent read by a co-author is highly recommended.
Conclusion
Responding to reviewer comments is not simply an administrative requirement. It is an opportunity to strengthen the research paper.
A good revision letter demonstrates that the authors understand the concerns, have made thoughtful changes, and can justify decisions that were not changed.
The most effective responses are point-by-point, transparent, professional, and easy to verify.
Authors should never view reviewers as opponents. Their role is to evaluate the manuscript critically, and their comments can often reveal weaknesses that were not obvious during writing.
For researchers and academic support organisations such as EduPub, careful revision management can significantly improve manuscript quality and increase the likelihood of successful publication.
The central principle is straightforward: respond to every comment, revise carefully, justify scientifically, and make it easy for the editor and reviewers to see exactly what has changed.
