cover letter for revised manuscript example

• Publication Process

Writing an Effective Cover Letter for Manuscript Resubmission

• 3 minute read
• 26.7K views

Table of Contents

As a researcher who has invested time and effort perfecting a manuscript after years of research, you might be aware of how disappointing it is to receive a “revise and resubmit” notice from your target journal. The good news, however, is that there is still scope for your manuscript to be accepted subsequently—an outcome which is far more desirable than a complete rejection ! How can you improve the chances of your manuscript getting accepted upon resubmission? A well-written cover letter accompanying your manuscript can definitely help!

So, what is a cover letter?

A cover letter is a brief document that introduces your research, submitted along with the manuscript. Here are a few important points to note about it:

• It is usually written and submitted by the corresponding author.
• It is required by most peer-review journals.
• It should include the name of the editor and the journal, the importance of the manuscript, and other relevant details.
• It should include the date of and a brief statement to note the resubmission

What tips should you follow to write a cover letter for resubmission?

Here are some important tips you can follow to ensure that your cover letter is appreciated by the editors and prompts them to revisit your work:

The cover letter to the editor should be brief, formal, and polite. Even if the remarks on your manuscript are rude, do not get upset. Remember that they are not a criticism of you as an individual, but about your work. They are meant only to improve your work.

Provide accurate details

Include your manuscript details such as the title, the corresponding authors’ names, the manuscript number, and a brief statement to note the resubmission.

Draw attention to the changes made

Highlight all the changes you have made to the manuscript. This will form a positive impression on the editor and encourage him/her to consider that your resubmitted work is fit for publication. For example: “I have made every attempt to fully address these comments in the revised manuscript.”

Be positive in your approach

After mentioning the changes you have made to your work, acknowledge that your reviewer’s comments and feedback have helped you enrich your manuscript. For example: “I believe the additional analyses discussed above have helped to substantially improve my manuscript.”

Respond to specific comments

Make sure that you respond to every comment of the reviewers or the editor separately. In case you were unable to make the changes, explain or state the reasons underlying the same. For example: “This is a good point that has led to a rewrite of this section of the paper. As suggested, I agree that…”

Express gratitude

Include a note of thanks to the editor for the opportunity to improve and resubmit your manuscript. For example: “I would also like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude/thanks to the reviewers for the positive feedback and helpful comments that supported these revisions.”

Add a preview for the content

Do not forget to add an at-a-glance roadmap on how and where to check for revisions in the manuscript. It will make it easier for the editor or reviewers to go through the draft. For example: “Below, I have outlined how I have handled Reviewer 1’s comments. I have reiterated each suggestion in (bold/italics).”

In addition, ensure that you dedicate sufficient time to draft the cover letter. This way, it will not come across as a last-minute, hurried addition, but as an informative, comprehensive, and well-thought-out document. Despite these tips, should you still require help, Elsevier Author Services is here to help you. Our experts can guide you through the entire process and help you produce an excellent paper ready for publication!

• Research Process

The Top 5 Qualities of Every Good Researcher

Scholarly Sources: What are They and Where can You Find Them?

You may also like.

Publishing Biomedical Research: What Rules Should You Follow?

Journal Acceptance Rates: Everything You Need to Know

Research Data Storage and Retention

How to Find and Select Reviewers for Journal Articles

How to Request the Addition of an Extra Author Before Publication

Paper Rejection: Common Reasons

How to Write a Journal Article from a Thesis

Input your search keywords and press Enter.

Writing a Cover Letter for Journal Submission [Free Template]

• Research Process
• Peer Review

Journal cover letters are your chance to lobby on behalf of your manuscript. This AJE Journal Cover Letter Guide offers some useful tips for getting them right. It also includes a free journal cover letter template.

Updated on September 20, 2018

The cover letter accompanying your journal submission is your chance to lobby on behalf of your manuscript. The letter is far from just a formality and should be written with the same care as your manuscript's text (if not more). Ultimately, your cover letter is designed to influence the decision of the editor to send your manuscript out for peer review. The letter will argue that your manuscript is a good fit for the journal you are submitting it to and highlight your most important findings. Let us help you produce the most effective cover letter possible.

Getting ready to submit your manuscript? Download our comprehensive Free Journal Cover Letter Writing Guide with Template .

A cover letter should be written like a standard business letter :

Address the editor formally by name, if known. Include your contact information, as well. This information is probably available through the journal's online submission system, but it is proper to provide it in the cover letter, too.

Begin your cover letter with a paragraph that states the name of the manuscript and the names of the authors. You can also describe what type of manuscript your submission is (research article, review, case report, etc.). In this first paragraph and the next, describe the rationale behind your study and the major findings from your research. You can refer to prior work that you have published if it is directly related.

Next, write a short paragraph that explains why your manuscript would be a good fit for the journal. Do not simply state that your manuscript is “of interest to the field” or “novel.” Address specific aspects of the journal's Aims & Scope statement. If the journal expresses interest in research with a clinical application, be sure to highlight the importance of your work in terms of clinical implications. If the journal mentions that it focuses on nanostructured materials, explain how your work involved such materials. Even if your work is not a perfect fit for the journal, be sure to address some of the Aims & Scope statement, and explain why your manuscript would be of interest to the journal's readers.

Finally, close with a brief paragraph indicating the following:

• The manuscript is original (i.e., you wrote it, not copied it)
• No part of the manuscript has been published before, nor is any part of it under consideration for publication at another journal
• There are no conflicts of interest to disclose
• A list of potential reviewers (only if requested by the journal)
• Any researchers who should NOT review your manuscript

Together, this information provides assurance to the editor that your manuscript merits consideration for publication in their journal and that you are interested specifically in their journal. Sometimes great science will be reviewed regardless of the cover letter, but a well written cover letter is useful for the vast majority of scientists who want to make their research stand out.

Best of luck with your research! If you have any questions about your cover letter, write us anytime.

Ben Mudrak, PhD

See our "Privacy Policy"

Cover Letter for Journal Submission Templates

Download a Microsoft Word template for a standard journal cover letter (also available with instructions in Chinese , Japanese , Korean , Portuguese , and Spanish ).

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 17 October 2022

Dos and don’ts in a cover letter

Nature Computational Science volume  2 ,  page 617 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

5788 Accesses

3 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Peer review

How to write an effective cover letter.

When authors submit their papers to Nature Computational Science , they have the option to upload a cover letter to accompany their submission. Interestingly, while most authors choose to upload one, many of the cover letters that we receive lack the sort of information that we are often looking for. Hence, we would like to use this Editorial to provide guidance to our authors and readers on what to include — and on what not to include — in a cover letter.

The cover letter provides an excellent opportunity to briefly discuss the importance of the submitted manuscript and why it is appropriate for the journal. While our editorial team consists of professional, full-time editors with diverse scientific backgrounds and PhD degrees, and who are fully capable of assessing various types of work, we encourage our authors to provide more information that can help us to further understand the importance of the problem being addressed, the novelty of the method and results, and the practical value of the proposed approach. Of course, it goes without saying that the manuscript itself should be clear on these aspects, but the cover letter provides more space for authors to point out related work and to explain in more detail the scientific advance reported in the paper.

It is important to note that cover letters are visible to the editors but not to referees. Accordingly, authors can (and should!) use cover letters to provide confidential information, such as conflicts of interest and suggestions of referees, and to identify any related manuscripts that are in press or that were submitted elsewhere. Authors can also indicate in the cover letter whether or not they have engaged in discussions about their work with one of our editors; this can be used by the chief editor when assigning a primary editor to the manuscript, for example.

Considerations regarding data and code availability are also useful to include in a cover letter. At Nature Computational Science , we see both data and code as essential aspects of a manuscript, and as a matter of fact, we perform code peer review . On that account, if there are any limitations on sharing data and code that editors should be aware of, this can be brought to our attention in the cover letter.

Of course, cover letters are not only used during the first stage of submission. When working on a revised version of a manuscript, authors can reply to our revision requests in a cover letter; they can also better explain which reviewers’ requests they addressed and which requests were not addressed (and why) in a more confidential manner. If authors decide to appeal against our decision on a manuscript, the cover letter should be used to explain in detail the scientific arguments for reconsideration.

Some words of caution are worth highlighting. While there is no specific word limit for cover letters, authors should be mindful to not overload editors with information. The text should be concise and lay out the main points that complement the submitted manuscript: authors should steer clear of repeating information that is already present in the abstract and introduction. In addition, there are some pieces of information that should be ideally avoided in a cover letter, such as endorsements from other researchers, statements overselling the proposed approach (no paradigm shifts, please!), and blunt comparisons with other papers published by the Nature Portfolio family: the focus should be primarily on the scientific arguments when explaining the significance of the research.

While some may consider cover letters an archaic form of communication, at Nature Computational Science we deem them to be an important asset to the submission process, and we encourage all of our authors to consider writing one when submitting their manuscripts.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dos and don’ts in a cover letter. Nat Comput Sci 2 , 617 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-022-00348-4

Download citation

Published : 17 October 2022

Issue Date : October 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-022-00348-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Office of Undergraduate Research
• Current Students
• Online Only Students
• Faculty & Staff
• Parents & Family
• Alumni & Friends
• Community & Business
• Student Life
• Student Assistants
• Latest News
• What is Research
• Get Started
• First-Year Scholars Program
• Current Research Projects
• Involvement Opportunities
• Undergraduate Research Space
• About to Graduate?
• Find Undergraduate Researchers
• Request a Classroom Visit
• Presenting and Publishing
• Workshops and Training
• Office of Research

Writing a Cover Letter and Response to Reviewers

Explore the possibilities.

The main purpose of your response to reviewers is to tell the editors how you have revised your manuscript since your initial submission.   You should address each suggested revision made by the reviewers and explain how you have chosen to respond.  The document should be formatted in such a way that the editors can easily track changes made to your manuscript.  It should be organized by reviewer (e.g., Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2) and address the reviews point-by-point.  Comments and responses should be clearly distinguishable.

For example:

1.Your manuscript contains grammatical errors.  For example, on page 3, you used “their” when you should  have used “there.”

We have thoroughly proofread the manuscript and corrected all grammatical errors.

2. The second paragraph of your introduction needs more details about findings by Owl and colleagues (2017).  Be sure to explain their operational definition of “school spirit.”

We agree with Reviewer 1’s assessment of this paragraph and have decided to expand upon it.  We have provided a more detailed summary of Owl and colleagues’ findings, including the operational definition they used for “school spirit” for their study.

1. On pages 1 and 6, you did not include the year of publication in an in-text citation.

We have included years of publication as they correspond to the sources listed on the references page.

2. Two of the sources in your references lack a hanging indentation.

This error has been corrected; all sources are correctly formatted with hanging indentations.

Unless otherwise specified in the email your received from the editors, you may choose whether or not to make any suggested changes.  However, even if you do not change something that has been suggested, you must still address the suggestion in your response, and you must provide a compelling argument for your decision.

1. “Theatre” should be spelled “theater” because “theatre” is not the standard American English spelling.  This is a repeating occurrence.

While Reviewer 1 is correct that most Americans do spell the word “theater,” scholars in my field would accept the use of “theatre” in the context in which I use it in this manuscript.  Thus, I have chosen not to change this spelling.

Additionally, you should:

• Use a professional letter format (i.e., address the correct audience, state your purpose, and be signed by the author(s) of the manuscript) for your cover letter.
• Use a professional tone (i.e., use polite wording throughout the cover letter and response to reviewers, including when making your case for choosing not to follow a reviewer’s suggestion).
• Make sure you have made any changes both within the manuscript AND described them within your response.
• Make all changes and resubmit your manuscript, cover letter, and response to reviewers within the time frame allotted by the editors.

Contact Info

Kennesaw Campus 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144

Marietta Campus 1100 South Marietta Pkwy Marietta, GA 30060

Campus Maps

Phone 470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

kennesaw.edu/info

Media Resources

Resources For

Related Links

• Financial Aid
• Degrees, Majors & Programs
• Job Opportunities
• Campus Security
• Global Education
• Sustainability
• Accessibility

470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

© 2024 Kennesaw State University. All Rights Reserved.

• Privacy Statement
• Accreditation
• Emergency Information
• Reporting Hotline
• Open Records
• Human Trafficking Notice

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Endocrinol Metab
• v.20(1); 2022 Jan

Scientific Publishing in Biomedicine: Revising a Peer-reviewed Manuscript

Zahra bahadoran.

1 Nutrition and Endocrine Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Parvin Mirmiran

2 Department of Clinical Nutrition and Human Dietetics, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Khosrow Kashfi

3 Department of Molecular, Cellular and Biomedical Sciences, Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education, City University of New York School of Medicine, New York, USA

Asghar Ghasemi

4 Endocrine Physiology Research Center, Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Getting feedback from the journals’ editorial office upon the peer-review process, revising the manuscript, and responding to reviewers’ comments are the essential parts of scientific publishing. The process of revising seems cumbersome and time-consuming as authors must be engaged probably with many comments and requested changes. Authors are advised to approach the reviewer as a consultant rather than an adversary. They should carefully read and understand comments and then decide how to proceed with each requested change/suggestion. In the case of serious disagreement with reviewer comments or misunderstanding, authors can defer the issue to the editor. Preparing a scientific and well-organized "response to reviews" and the revised version of the manuscript can increase the chance of acceptance. Here, we provide a practical guide on dealing with different types of comments (i.e., minor or major revisions, conflicting comments, or those that authors disagree with or cannot adhere to) and how to craft a response to reviews. We also provide the dos and don'ts for making a successful revision.

1. Introduction

A manuscript submitted to a journal with a robust peer-review system is reviewed by two or more experts in the field. According to the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the editor decides as to whether (i) accept the manuscript as is; (ii) accept pending English revisions; (iii) reject it; (iv) provisionally accept the manuscript, indicating the need for some minor revisions; (v) indicate that the manuscript needs to undergo major revisions; (vi) recommend transfer to another journal from the same publishing house; (vii) reject and resubmit, which means that the authors have an opportunity to totally revise and resubmit the work as a new manuscript ( 1 - 4 ). Therefore, almost all accepted manuscripts undergo some degree of revisions ( 2 ). The word “revision” is defined as “act of revising” or “a change/a set of changes that corrects or improves something.” Revision means to “see again” or “to look at something from a fresh, critical perspective” ( 5 ). Revising also is defined as “to look over again to correct or improve” or “to make a new, amended, or up-to-date version” ( 6 ).

Appropriate revision of a manuscript is crucial for its eventual acceptance ( 7 ). Revision is a learnable skill that is different from the initial manuscript preparation ( 8 ). Authors should welcome reviewers' suggestions and revise the manuscript with an optimistic point of view ( 4 ) since reviewers are experts who generously spend time evaluating a manuscript and share their expertise to improve a manuscript ( 9 ). In addition, the peer-review process improves the manuscript ( 10 ) and makes it more scientifically sound, coherent, and compatible with the journal’s desired standards ( 7 , 11 ). Different sections of the accepted revised version(s), especially the abstract, results, and discussion, are significantly improved compared to the submitted version. For instance, in a study, the general medical value and overall quality were enhanced by 14% and 22%, respectively ( 10 ).

In this presentation of the “scientific publishing in biomedicine” series, we provide a practical guide on how to address the various types of reviewers’ comments (i.e., minor or major revisions, conflicting comments, or those that authors disagree with or cannot adhere to) and as to how one should craft a response to the reviews. We also provide the principles for making a successful revision.

2. Functions of the Revision

Revising a manuscript has two main functions: (1) to improve the first version as much as possible and (2) to maximize the final chance of its acceptance ( 12 ). Although revising a submitted work may seem frustrating at first, it is notable that the final goal of the reviewers/editors is to improve the overall quality, credibility, and readability of a manuscript ( 2 ). In addition, the revision process is a chance for the authors to prevent later embarrassment for a serious flaw that may be indicated in the form of a letter to the editor ( 13 ).

3. Process of the Revision

A step-by-step process for revising a manuscript is summarized in Figure 1 . Five main steps can be identified and are defined for the revision process: (1) Reading and understanding the comments and marking them as “major” or “minor”, (2) planning a timeline for the revision and assigning the comments to the co-authors to address, (3) conducting revisions and making changes, (4) highlighting the changes in the revised manuscript, and (5) drafting a response to reviewers’ comments.

3.1. Reading and Understanding the Reviewers’/Editors’ Comments

Upon receiving the comments, the authors must try to understand them, let the comments percolate for a couple of days, and not respond or make hasty changes ( 7 ). They should approach the comments from the reader’s point of view ( 12 ). A good idea would be to meet with the co-authors and research group members to brainstorm in order to generate ideas and reach a consensus on the comments.

Authors may receive comments as an organized and numbered report or as long paragraphs including several comments. Authors, therefore, should make sure that they read, understand, and address every comment and split them into several separate points if necessary. A suggestion is to print the review report and start by numbering every comment (e.g., C1, C2, …) ( 7 ). If a comment includes multiple suggestions, the authors can split it into separate subsections (e.g., C1.1, C1.2, …). Reviewers may address their comments by identifying the page and line number in their reports ( 7 ); otherwise, authors must connect each comment to the corresponding section in the manuscript.

Based on the comments and the recommendations, the editor may decide to require changes categorized as “major” or “minor.” Reviewers are advised to differentiate their comments into major and minor in their referee reports ( 14 ); however, they may not indicate whether comments are critical (mandatory to do) or merely somewhat important (optional to do). Therefore, the authors need to decipher and identify the major concerns that the reviewers have and to prioritize the reviewers’ comments, asking themselves, “which comments are critical and will cause the manuscript to be rejected if they are not addressed?”

Adequately addressing a/the major comment(s) is (are) critical and necessary for acceptance of the manuscript ( 13 ); editors, therefore, consider major corrections essential for the final acceptance of the manuscript. Major comments are usually related to the scientific and methodological contents of a manuscript ( 15 ). They typically address inconsistencies among different manuscript sections, faulty deductions, insufficient data to support the conclusions or overreaching conclusions, inadequate description of the methodology or experimental procedures, and insufficient references to provide adequate background to the issue being discussed.

Minor comments are suggestions for improving the manuscript, which the reviewer is likely to leave to the author’s discretion to adhere or not ( 13 ). As defined by Morgan ( 16 ), the editor-in-chief of Canadian Medical Association Journal, a minor revision usually includes one or more of three activities: (1) providing additional information or adding references, (2) deleting unnecessary material, or (3) making minor corrections in the text (e.g., sentence structure errors, misspelled words, etc.). Tightening up the language, deleting tables with similar content in the text, and shortening the introduction and discussion are the most common suggestions provided by reviewers as minor comments ( 16 ). Comments on syntax or grammar/typographical mistakes, quality of tables and figures ( 4 ), and experimental requests that are not crucial to the conclusion but may improve the manuscript are other examples of minor comments. The editor may skip minor comments, and these comments may not result in receiving a rejection.

Some comments from the two or three reviewers may be similar, or there may be opposite or even conflicting views about the same issues. In that case, the authors need to mark and handle them appropriately when conducting the revision and writing a response to the reviews. It may also be helpful if the authors mark the related comments and assign them into a category; e.g., all the comments related to methodology could be grouped, and all that is related to language could be under one category ( 17 ).

3.2. Planning a Timeline and Schedule for the Revision

Following effective reading of the reviews, the second step is to estimate the time needed for an effective revision. Authors should plan to complete the revision within the editor's suggested time frame, and if they think it may exceed the deadline, they should request the editorial office for an extension. For revising a manuscript with multiple authors, a practical strategy is to create a table and add all the comments, and then assign one or more comments to an author to address. This approach can simplify the revision process and ensure that the manuscript is resubmitted within the deadline. In addition, if the editor requests a minor revision, sending the revised version back quickly may result in a more prompt acceptance because the editor’s mind is likely to be fresh ( 18 ).

3.3. Conducting the Revision

The third step in revising a manuscript is conducting the requested changes according to the comments. Dealing with comments may not be straightforward because authors do not find the comments always justified or feasible; in addition, reviewer’s misunderstanding, some kind of ambiguity, or conflicting comments make revising a challenging work. Authors are advised not to take a negative or major comment as a personal attack and instead approach it with a neutral perspective. For conducting the revision, comments are divided into those that authors agree or disagree with ( Table 1 ).

3.3.1. Agreeing with the Reviewers’ Comments

In the case of major comments, if you agree with a comment, provide changes that best address the requested changes ( 12 ). However, if the requested experiment/work is not feasible, but the authors agree with the reviewer’s opinion, they should discuss it as a study limitation; however, this action may result in rejection ( 12 ). Sometimes, reviewers fail to understand or appreciate a point, and authors notice that the point might also not be clear enough for the readers. In that case, they should apologize for the lack of clarity and try to make their point clearer, without any ambiguity, by re-writing the sentences or providing enough background ( 13 , 19 ). In the case of minor comments, the authors are advised to make such requested changes without arguing with the reviewer(s), even if they do not entirely agree ( 18 , 20 ).

3.3.2. Disagreeing with the Reviewers’ Comments

In some cases, authors may decide that the reviewer's suggestion is not correct. Here, there are two possibilities: (1) the suggestion would not make the manuscript any better, and (2) the suggestion would make the manuscript worse, for which they have three options as discussed below ( Table 1 ) ( 12 ).

3.3.2.1. Rebut but Revise

In most cases of disagreement(s), the authors need to revise their manuscript anyway ( 12 ). These include minor disagreement(s), or when adhering to the reviewer’s suggestions is possible and, in general, does not harm the manuscript ( 12 ). In some cases, the authors may disagree with the comment(s) but may satisfy the reviewer by minor modifications to the text. Generally, it is better to appreciate such comments, thank the reviewers for their suggestion(s), so that they are convinced that they are listened to and understood ( 19 ). For example, suppose a comment criticizes the novelty of the work. In that case, the authors may need to enhance the clarity of their study question, highlight the gaps in current knowledge in the introduction, discuss their new observations, or provide more details about the study's implications. Suppose a reviewer suggests further interesting experiments or analysis, but that will not change the conclusion; it is acceptable to rebut but highlight the suggestion as a direction for future research in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer fails to understand something but the authors believe that the text is clear enough or the reviewer may miss the point, they are advised to accept the blame and revise the text as much as possible ( 19 ).

3.3.2.2. Rebut and Make no Change

In case of serious disagreement, where comments are contrary to the authors’ opinions or requested changes seem “unreasonable”, opening the discussion with the reviewer is acceptable. Some requested changes by the reviewers may be too extensive and not possible, e.g., increasing sample size or changing the study protocol ( 3 ). Likewise, if the reviewer(s) request too much work that falls outside the study's aim, it is acceptable to reply that the request goes beyond the scope of the current study ( 19 ). In that case, the authors should discuss scientifically and systematically rationalize their disagreement. Even more preferably, they should back it up by supporting evidence and citing references in the reply ( 13 ). This reasoning helps the editor understand the authors' reason(s) and goes a long way to convince them why they are correct and that the requested change is unnecessary or undesirable ( 21 ). Another case for rebutting and not making changes is the reviewers' conflicting comments. For example, reviewer #1 requested the authors to do X instead of Y, but reviwer #2 emphasized that Y is better; if authors believe that reviewer #2 is correct, the authors should rebut the comment of reviewer #1 and refer to the statement made by reviwer #2 ( Figure 2 ).

3.3.2.3. Defer to Editor

Suppose the authors scientifically discussed their disagreement with a comment, but the response did not (or would not) make the reviewer satisfied. In that case, the issue can be resolved by appealing to the editor ( 13 ). For example, the reviewer requested authors to do X instead of Y, but the authors believe that Y is the best; in that case, the authors should refer the issue to the editor by using these words “If the editor strongly prefers X, please let us know, and we can amend and provide an alternate version.” Another case to request the editor(s) for final judgment is if the reviewer has made conflicting comments, which is the most frequent call to editors ( 22 ).

3.3.3. English Editing

Although some preliminary evidence indicates that there are or could be linguistic bias issues in academic reviewing ( 23 ), native English speakers may criticize the language because it does not sound natural to them. In that case, the manuscript should be carefully revised by the authors. A native English speaker or a professional language editing service should be employed to improve the readability and convince the reviewer(s). Authors may benefit from online writing assistants such as Grammarly to improve the text.

3.3.4. Updating the References

Before finalizing the revision, it is recommended to seek newly published papers that have not been cited in the first submission. Updating the references and citing recent literature may enhance the manuscript by providing a more up-to-date document around the topic and provide more effective support for the hypothesis of the manuscript ( 13 ). This issue should be acknowledged in the cover letter, where the authors highlight further clarifications beyond the reviewers’ requests (see section "cover letter").

3.4. Highlighting the Changes in the Revised Manuscript

After addressing the requested suggestions, all changes within the text/table(s)/figure(s) should be identified by coloring/highlighting or using Microsoft Word’s track changes feature. Some authors prefer to use different colored fonts or highlights to separate corresponding responses to different reviewers. This issue needs to be addressed in the cover letter by a sentence, e.g., "red- and blue-colored text represent changes requested by reviwer #1 and reviwer #2, respectively". The authors need to follow the journal's instructions since some journals indicate how changes should be incorporated. For example, the journal may request you to submit two versions of the revised manuscript, a "revised version with highlighted changes" and a "clean version". Notably, authors should try to address the reviewers’ comments while they adhere to the journal’s requirements; e.g., if presenting more data is requested by the reviewers, but the journal restricts the length, the data may be provided as supplementary material ( 24 ).

3.5. Preparing a Response to Reviews

The final step in completing the revision before its resubmission is crafting a “response to reviews”, or a rebuttal, which has two aims ( 12 ): (1) outlining the changes made in the manuscript and how they address the reviewers’ criticism, and (2) make it easy for the handling editor to accept the paper. Response to the reviews has three sections: (1) “a brief expression of thanks”, (2) “a summary of major changes”, and (3) “detailed point-by-point responses to reviewers’ comments” ( 12 , 25 ). These sections may be merged as one document or accommodated as separate files, including “cover letter” and “response to reviewers” ( 25 ). A well-organized response to the reviews will minimize a potential source of confusion and frustration for both the reviewers and editors, enhancing the chance of acceptance ( 21 ).

3.5.1. Cover Letter

In the first part of the cover letter (also known as the second cover letter ( 26 )), the authors acknowledge the editor and reviewers for their time and for considering the manuscript and providing valuable comments. For example, they can use the following: “we thank the editor and reviewers for their time and careful reading of our manuscript and thoughtful comments” or “we would like to thank the reviewers for their time, thoughtful comments, and efforts towards improving our manuscript”. This introductory section shows that the authors are cooperative, appreciative of the reviewers’ efforts, time, and enthusiasm for improving their work ( 12 ). When a reviewer provides very insightful suggestions, the authors can also appreciate the reviewer in the acknowledgment section of the manuscript by an explicit sentence like "we would like to thank the reviewer for the time and effort devoted to improving the quality of our work" ( 21 ). However, some journals may not allow the acknowledgment of reviewers ( 19 ).

In the second part of the cover letter, the general concerns of reviewers and a concise description of the authors’ efforts to address these concerns should be highlighted ( 12 ). This paragraph addresses the most substantive changes in the revised version (e.g., new experiment or new analysis that change the conclusion). Addressing conflicting or divergent comments or any serious disagreement with a reviewer can be presented here. For example, when the authors adhere to one of the conflicting comments, they need to explain why they did not adhere to the other conflicting comment. Authors should explain how they choose one of the conflicting comments and provide supporting evidence by writing a strong statement ( 27 ). The rebuttal may also say, “the reviewers do not seem to be consistent with their suggestions, and in some cases, are quite divergent”. If the requested changes made by the authors surpass the journal's word count and or reference limitations, they should be highlighted in this section. In that case, the following answer can be sent to the editor: "responding to all the reviewers' suggestions has made it necessary to increase the number of citations and extend the length of the manuscript. We have gone from 35 to 45 citations, and from 4250 to 5210 words”. Any additional changes in the revised version beyond the requested changes by reviewers/editors should be addressed here. In this section, the authors can also indicate if one or several comments were unclear; they should emphasize that they would welcome further clarity if the reviewer/editor believes the change should be made ( 21 ).

The concluding paragraph of the cover letter should be a straightforward but polite ending; for example, “the authors wish this version will satisfy the editor and reviewers and meet all standards of the journal. The authors welcome further constructive comments if any”. Such formal and polite sentences reflect a willingness to make further changes if required ( 17 ). A sample of cover letter is provided in Figure 3 .

3.5.2. Response to the Reviewers

This section should be organized using the headings such as “reviewer 1” then “comment 1”, followed by “response” ( 18 , 21 ). The authors should make sure that each comment is answered and listed consecutively. Authors should reply in the same order as the comments made by the reviewer. One recommendation is to copy and paste all of the reviewers’ and editor’s comments and insert the response to each point immediately below it, using a different color or font to distinguish the comments from the response ( 24 ). An alternative way in organizing the responses to the reviewers is to use a table including the referee’s comments, the author responses, and the changes made with “page and lines” in different columns ( 21 ). A sample of point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments is provided in Figure 2 .

3.5.3. Components of a Response to a Comment

A response to a comment, which the authors agree with and have performed essentially, has three main components: (1) a short and definite response (i.e., agreed or yes), (2) a quote indicating the change directly, and (3) an address to the change(s). For replying to minor comments such as grammatical corrections or formatting, a short response like “agreed and done” is satisfactory ( 12 ). When a suggestion improves the manuscript significantly, a brief note of thanks at the start of the reply is welcomed ( 13 ). Quoting the changes made directly in the response is recommended unless the changes are significant; for example, including a new section/table is too long to quote. Such an approach helps the reviewers to understand the changes without back and forth between the text and the response, making the response self-contained ( 19 ). Corresponding changes in the text/tables/figures should be addressed directly in the response by specifying the page and line number of the revised manuscript.

Replying to a comment that the authors disagreed with and refused to adhere to should not be opened with phrases such as “we totally disagree” or “the reviewer obviously does not know this field” ( 18 ). Instead, the authors should try to show their disagreement by choosing words that do not offend the reviewers and show appreciation of the comments/suggestions. Some useful phrases for polite rebutting of comments have been provided ( 18 ). Moreover, authors should not just reply with a simple assertion of disagreement (e.g., We disagree) and then move on ( 21 ). Instead, they should go ahead with their explanations or provide enough background supporting their argument. In case of multiple interpretations of a comment, the authors' response should explain what they have understood and proceed with the argument ( 20 ). If two reviewers raised similar comments, authors should reply to both, but their response to reviwer #2 may be just a simple address, e.g., “see the response to reviwer #1, comment 3”.

3.5.4. General Rules of Replying to a Comment

General rules to effectively reply to a comment are “answering completely”, “answering politely”, and “answering with evidence” ( 18 ). Keeping a neutral and polite tone throughout the responses is essential, especially in case of disagreement(s) with the comments/suggestions. In both agreeing and disagreeing replies, the author should respect the reviewers’ opinions. Overall, the authors' response must sound more like a scientific discussion than a court defense ( 18 , 21 ). Authors may require to support their argument by citing references or including supplementary/unpublished data ( 20 ). Some good examples of “appropriate, strong, clear, and compromising” compared to “inappropriate, weak, vague, and confrontational” responses to referees’ comments are available for interested readers ( 21 ).

4. After Revision

After submission of a revised version of a manuscript, the authors will be informed by the journal’s editorial office about a decision on their manuscript, which may be “accept”, “invite for a second revision”, or “reject.” Upon acceptance for publication, the corresponding author will be contacted to correct the proofs of the manuscript. Box 1 provides the dos and don’ts of galley proof corrections and proofreading of an accepted manuscript.

The revised manuscript might be sent back to the authors, with the editor requesting a second round of revisions if the submitted revisions were not satisfactory. In that case, the authors need to follow and repeat all the steps outlined in revising the manuscript again. In case of a rejection, the author should try to understand why the manuscript was rejected and how they can improve it for submission to another journal.

5. Conclusions

Revising a peer-reviewed manuscript has five main steps, including (1) effectively reading the comments, (2) providing a scheduled framework for the revisions, (3) conducting the revision, (4) highlighting changes in the revised manuscript, and (5) crafting a suitable response to reviews. The principles of making a good revision are provided in Box 2. Revising the manuscript and making a well-organized response to the reviews is a critical component of the scientific publishing process that affects the manuscript’s destiny, being accepted for publication or rejected. One of the most important rules to perform a successful revision is maintaining a positive attitude and be open to criticism. In case of any disagreements, the authors should reply with a well-reasoned justification supported with enough background and details. A self-contained point-by-point response to the comments that clearly addresses the corresponding changes in the manuscript helps the reviewers and editors to quickly appreciate the changes made by the authors.

Authors' Contribution: Study concept and design: Zahra Bahadoran and Asghar Ghasemi. Drafting of the manuscript: Zahra Bahadoran, Parvin Mirmiran, and Asghar Ghasemi. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Khosrow Kashfi and Parvin Mirmiran.

Conflict of Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by the Research Institute for Endocrine Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Iran.

Dan Ariely - Predictably Irrational

Sample Cover Letter for Journal Manuscript Resubmissions

Design Center

Writing a manuscript: cover letter.

• Most journals require a cover letter to be submitted with a manuscript
• Many ask that statements regarding funding, conflicts of interest, or copyright transfer be included in this letter – be sure to comply!
• Some will ask for a brief overview of your paper – this is your opportunity to summarize your entire manuscript in one or two sentences! Leave out all background or introductory information, and simply state what you found and why it’s important.
• If a journal accepts different types of articles (reviews, original articles, images), be sure to state what type of article you are submitting
• Many journals ask authors to suggest reviewers or even editors for their manuscripts: take advantage of this! If you know experts in the field, especially if they are favorable to your hypotheses or studies, suggest them as reviewers for your manuscript. While reviews are still anonymous (the reviewers won’t know whose paper they are reviewing), the journal will appreciate the suggestion(s) as this saves them time and likely helps you with knowing your paper is in the hands of a colleague who knows the subject matter well. This will also likely help speed up the review process.
• Close the letter by thanking the editor or journal for their consideration of your work
• Place the letter on official department, division, or professional letterhead

Sample Cover Letter

Dr. John Smith, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Ophthalmology

Dear Dr. Smith:

We are submitting our manuscript entitled “Taking antioxidants plus zinc reduces the risk of advanced age-related macular degeneration for high-risk patients,” for consideration for publication as an Original Article in Journal of Ophthalmology . This work has not been previously published and is not currently under consideration for publication  elsewhere. All authors have contributed significantly and have read and approved the submitted work.

Results from our randomized, controlled trial of drug X demonstrate significant improvement in patient symptoms. Drug X is a simple, cost-effective treatment that clinicians can implement easily and quickly into routine practice.

[Any required text: disclosures, funding, author participation, IRB/ACUC approval]

Thank you for your consideration of this manuscript. We look forward to hearing from you.

A. Thomas Jones, MD Associate Professor

How to Write a Winning Journal Response Letter (free templates)

The structure, tone, and style of your journal response letter (also known as a rebuttal letter) can all affect whether your research will be accepted for publication. Yet surprisingly, some researchers hurt their chances at this stage when they’re just a step from success.

They get defensive or snippy, use poor English, or don’t explain their reasoning. That can be costly. And they’re so close!

You can seal the deal with superb revisions and a strong response letter that explains your revisions and gives your rebuttal.

What makes a good journal response letter? Manners, diplomacy, logic, explanation, and good English. All of which are well within your reach.

Let’s look at the critical steps for responding to peer review and getting published. On the way, we’ll include insider tips from our published experts.

• 1.1 Responses from journals, and responding to them
• 1.2 Revising your manuscript
• 2.1 Polite, generic header and salutation
• 2.2 Express thanks
• 2.3 Give an overview/executive brief
• 2.4 End the letter on a positive note
• 2.5.1 First-person or third-person structure are both OK
• 2.5.2.1 Example peer reviewer suggestion:
• 2.5.2.2 Here’s another example peer suggestion:
• 2.6.1 Here are the same suggestions from the reviewers above, but this time the author is disagreeing with them:
• 3 A final word on journal response letters

Getting to the response letter stage

After you submit your manuscript to a journal, you’ll typically receive a reply of accept, reject, minor revisions, or major revisions . The first two are obvious; the second two will require a response letter and individual point-by-point responses to the issues the reviewers raised.

Keep in mind that you’ve already done well to make it this far! Science rejects about 80% on first submission and ultimately only published about 7%. Biomaterials ? 14.7% acceptance.

Even broad-reaching open-access journals are quite selective: PLOS ONE takes about 45% of submissions and BMJ Open about 40%.

Responses from journals, and responding to them

In general, journals give you about 1 month for “minor” issues like revising how you present your data or getting a professional English-language edit . They’ll give around 3 months for “major” revisions such as re-analysis or new studies.

As you work through your revisions, it’s best to work on your point-by-point response at the same time, like a journal of your revisions. Then it’ll be nearly done by the time you’re done revising. You’ll just have to brush it up and add the intro.

Regarding formatting of your revisions, check the journal’s guidelines or contact the journal directly to confirm what they prefer. Most likely they’ll be done with:

• amendments manually highlighted
• deletions marked with strikethrough
• changes made using a certain color (usually red)
• the Track Changes function in Word
• …or if it’s in LaTeX, you may need to use the Changes package

Revising your manuscript

When you choose to resubmit to the same journal, do whatever the peer reviewers recommend, if you agree.

This can include:

• performing and documenting additional requested experiments or analyses
• adding key references/citations
• adding or removing tables and figures
• improving your scientific English

You also may not agree with all the peer reviewers’ requests and suggestions. They’re human and they’re busy. They may be wrong or a bit off.

In this case, you have to consider if you can justify your choice to reject the suggestions.

You’ll need to provide a well-reasoned argument. For example, if the suggested experiments fell outside the scope of your study, make a strong case for why they’re not suitable.

Peer reviewers aren’t perfect, but they are standing between you and publication. And they must be dealt with calmly and respectfully.

Your manuscript will need to be revised to incorporate any changes you make such as new data. This may be a relatively painless text rework, or you may need to consult with a statistician and prepare new figures and tables. And this all leads to the response letter.

Structure and style of a journal rebuttal letter

The response/rebuttal letter to a journal is like a short version of the cover letter you initially sent when you submitted your work. This time, you don’t need to fully “sell” your entire study again, but the sale’s not done yet. You need keep the prospective “buyer” (the journal) interested. You need to close the deal.

The corresponding author should write the response letter on behalf of the authors.

“ A journal response letter is another opportunity for you to emphasize the importance and impact of your work to the journal, demonstrate your knowledge and authority on the research, and fully address the issues the peer reviewers have identified. “ — Geraldine Echue , PhD, CMPP Edanz Managing Editor

Stay professional, confident, and respectful. And use error-free English. The overall tone should be polite, business-like, and clear.

Regarding format, you’ll likely be submitting this as document, so structure it as you would structure a business letter. Don’t cut corners or treat it like a casual email.

Polite, generic header and salutation

Put the date, journal name, and either the name of the editor-in-chief or the editor who is handling the correspondence. Call them “Dr.” or “Professor” as appropriate.

If you’re not sure, check the journal’s Editorial Board information. If that still doesn’t give a title, Google them , check their latest studies, and/or look them up on ResearchGate or LinkedIn. As a default, use Professor + their last name. Do not use “Mr.” or “Ms.” (and never use “Mrs.”) unless they themselves used it in their letter to you.

Then address the first part of your response letter to that journal editor.

State the manuscript reference number and title so that the editor can refer to previous correspondence about your submission.

Dear Professor Smith,

Re: manuscript reference no. BH0914325J Please find attached a revised version of our manuscript… ”

Express thanks

No matter how much you agreed with the reviewers, or thought they were way off-target, thank them and the editor formally.

For example: “ We wish to thank you and the reviewers for your insightful comments. These have greatly helped us to improve the quality of our manuscript. “

Give an overview/executive brief

Provide an overview of the main changes you made to your study and explain how you indicated these revisions in the manuscript.

For example: “ In accordance with Reviewer 1’s comments, we deleted the table and prepared a new summary figure (Fig. 6). Our revisions to the text are recorded using Track Changes in MS Word. Our point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments are shown below. “

“ Editors are busy people and may only skim through response letters. But they want to get the impression that the authors are being comprehensive and taking the process seriously. The executive brief sentence saves them time and trouble. “ — Gareth Dyke , PhD Edanz Author Education Manager

End the letter on a positive note

Complete this part of the response letter by signing off as you did for your cover letter. For example:

“ We hope that these revisions are sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in the British Journal of Haematology and look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. “

Then provide the full contact details of the corresponding author and list your point-by-point responses below it.

Here’s an example of a full letter.

You can also download a cover letter template and peer response letter template from our learning resource library. They’re free.

And if you want to dig deeper, we offer simple, expert-designed courses to walk you through the entire research publication process, at the Edanz My Learning Lab .

Give your point-by-point responses

You should put a number by each reviewer’s comment (if they’re not already numbered), and go in sequence starting with Reviewer 1.

General rules on tone and style

• Be polite, always. This means using formal sentences, expressing thanks, and avoiding passive–aggressive or flat-out rude remarks.
• Be grateful. Peer review is a free service and it’s an essential and valuable part of the scientific publication process.
• Ignore the reviewer’s grammar or spelling mistakes, if any. Don’t correct them. Many reviewers are not native speakers or use curt, even rude, comments. That’s beyond your control; it’s not personal.
• Make sure YOUR spelling and grammar are perfect. Get a professional edit if there’s any chance your English is not perfect.
• Err on the side of over-explaining vs. being short or dismissive.

It’s also a positive gesture to give a general note of thanks before addressing each peer review comment.

First-person or third-person structure are both OK

There’s no specific rule of whether to use a first-person or third-person voice in your responses. You can feel confident using either. Just be consistent.

Also, unless you know the reviewer’s identity, refer to them in the gender-neutral “they”/”their”. Do NOT use “he” as a default.

First person: “ Thank you very much for your detailed and useful comments. We have addressed each of them as follows. ”

Third person: “ We thank Reviewer 1 for their detailed and useful comments. We have addressed each of them as follows. ”

If you agree with the suggestion and revised accordingly

If you agree with the reviewer’s suggestion, say that you agree, and explain how you have modified your manuscript following that suggestion.

Example peer reviewer suggestion:

1. Standard deviation is large in Fig. 3 data . ANOVA should be used after confirming normal distribution.

Response: We thank Reviewer 1 for this valuable suggestion and we agree. Accordingly, we modified our statistical analyses. We performed ANOVA after first performing a logarithmic transformation of all variables. We have described this change in Statistical Analysis in the Methods section (p.4, lines 15–20). We also modified our Results (p. 7, lines 2–6) and Discussion sections (p. 9, lines 11–13) in line with this change, and modified Figure 3 based on the revised data.

Note the use of bold and italics to distinguish the authors’ response from the reviewer’s comment. There is a clear explanation of what was done in the revised manuscript.

Page and line numbers were also used to indicate where the changes were made. These numbers are helpful for the reviewers, but it’s best to add them when you’re fully done with your revisions, but they will change as your manuscript changes. Double-check all page and line numbers before re-submission, to be sure they’re accurate.

Here’s another example peer suggestion:

2. Subjective well-being needs more background in the lit review. Include mention of how it intersects with happiness studies, health psychology, I/O psychology, and overall QOL.

Response: We thank Reviewer 1 for this suggestion. We regret that our literature review was somewhat inadequate. Accordingly, we have added relevant studies in the Introduction (p. 3, lines 5–6 and 19–21). We hope there is now a more accurate portrait of the significance of subjective well-being).

This was a shorter comment. As the authors agreed, the response shows sufficient thanks and gives sufficient details. The added text will speak for itself.

“ Clearly and concisely summarize the changes you made in response to the peer review comments, especially if there are ones you don’t agree with. “ — Gareth Dyke , PhD Edanz Author Education Manager

If you disagree with the peer reviewer’s suggestion

You do have the right to disagree.

But unless the reviewer’s request was completely off-base or misinformed, try to incorporate it at least partially. For example, if they suggest adding reference to three studies, but you find those studies mostly irrelevant, try to accommodate at least one. It also shows you’re open to criticism, which is essential in scientific studies.

If you completely disagree with a reviewer’s suggestion, you need to give a convincing counterargument. This is called a rebuttal. It’s where you diplomatically and rationally explain why you disagree.

Try to understand the reviewer’s perspective. Perhaps they are not familiar with your methodology. Or maybe their strength is in a slightly different niche.

Use citations to back your argument, where possible, and present a solid case.

Here are the same suggestions from the reviewers above, but this time the author is disagreeing with them:

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Although we acknowledge that the use of ANOVA would enable us to better compare our findings with those of other studies, our data did not follow a normal distribution; thus, we could not perform this analysis. We therefore re-analyzed our data based on the Leverhaus model (Leverhaus et al., 1978) and modified the Methods section to describe this analysis (p. 4, line 8). We also revised Figure 3 and added two sentences to the Discussion to explain this model (p. 10, lines 1–3).

This accomplishes all the goals of expressing thanks, being polite and diplomatic, showing disagreement, compromising by making a related change, and giving thorough explanation throughout.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We acknowledge the significance of subjective well-being and we felt our literature review put it in adequate context by mentioning its growing association with a number of fields since the seminal work by Diener (1984). We must note that subjective well-being is not a central theme in our study. Additionally, the journal’s word limitations only permit us to add a small number of words to the manuscript. For these reasons, we felt it was not feasible to accommodate the suggestion in full. Accordingly, however, we see the importance of the relation with happiness studies and have added reference to that (p. 3, lines 5–6). We hope this satisfies your request. Again, we do sincerely appreciate your guidance.

The authors had a good reason (study scope and the journal’s word limits) for not extending their literature review. They explained it diplomatically and compromised by adding a reference. They also erred on the side of over-explaining. In a response letter, there’s no harm in that.

“Through effective communication with peer reviewers, the response letter is a mechanism by which you can improve your manuscript and your research ability.” — Geraldine Echue , PhD, CMPP Edanz Managing Editor

A final word on journal response letters

Though a response letter to a journal, and your point-by-point responses to reviewers take a bit of time, they’re part of the process. They’re also, potentially, the last step before you get published. Keep your eye on that final, glorious goal. You want to get published, maintain or increase your publication rate , and get cited.

Being overly defensive or refusing to make any concessions to the peer reviewers could lead to your rejection. Then you’re off to another journal and have to go through all the same steps. Do you really want that?

For more details on how to effectively submit your manuscript and deal with peer review, we offer the Journal Submission and Peer Review among the many courses in Edanz Learning Lab. Try a free lesson now. Of course, we’re also happy to edit your re-submission and edit or even write your point-by-point response letter .

• Researcher Services
• English Editing
• EXCITED by the SCIENCE
• Smart Tools
• Journal Selector
• About Edanz
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Services & Pricing
• 特定商取引法に基づく表記

• SpringerLink shop

Revising and responding

Once you manuscript has come back from reviewers you may be given the opportunity to revise it in accordance with the reviewer comments. You will usually receive a letter from the editor who handled your manuscript outlining the changes they would like you to make and links to the reviewer reports. This letter usually contains information on how to return your revised manuscript including instructions on how to highlight the changes made and when you need to return the revised version.

TIP: journals have different revision deadlines which vary from as little as a few weeks to three months depending on the revisions that need to be made. If you do not think you will be able to return a revised manuscript in the allotted time tell the editor immediately. They should be able to offer you an extension but it is best to discuss this with them as early as possible.

When revising your manuscript and responding to peer review comments you must:

• Thank the reviewers and editors for their time and comments.
• Address all points raised by the editor and reviewers.
• Describe the major revisions to your manuscript in your response letter followed by point-by-point responses to the comments raised.
• Perform any additional experiments or analyses the reviewers recommend (unless you feel that they would not make your paper better; if so, please provide sufficient explanation as to why you believe this to be the case in your response letter).
• Provide a polite and scientific rebuttal to any points or comments you disagree with. Remember if your manuscript is sent for a second round of peer review the reviewers will see this letter too.
• Differentiate between reviewer comments and your responses in your letter.
• Clearly show the major revisions in the text, either with a different color text, by highlighting the changes, or with Microsoft Word’s Track Changes feature. This is in addition to describing the changes in your point by point cover letter.
• Return the revised manuscript and response letter within the time period allotted by the editor.

The following is an example as to how to respond to a reviewer comment:

Reviewer comment:  “In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response in agreement with the reviewer:  “We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function does make it impossible to fully interpret the data in terms of the prevailing theories. In addition, in its current form, we agree it would be difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We have therefore re-analyzed the data using a Gaussian fitting function.”

Response disagreeing with the reviewer:  “We agree with the reviewer that a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies. However, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al, 1998]. We have added two sentences to the paper (page 3, paragraph 2) to explain the use of this function and Smith’s model.

Note that in both comments (agreeing and disagreeing) the author is polite and shows respect for the reviewer’s opinion. Also, in both circumstances the author makes a change to the manuscript that addresses the reviewer’s question.

Back │ Next

• Discoveries
• Right Journal
• Journal Metrics
• Journal Fit
• Abbreviation
• In-Text Citations
• Bibliographies
• Writing an Article
• Peer Review Types
• Acknowledgements
• Withdrawing a Paper
• Form Letter
• ISO, ANSI, CFR
• Google Scholar
• Journal Manuscript Editing
• Research Manuscript Editing

Book Editing

• Manuscript Editing Services

Medical Editing

• Bioscience Editing
• Physical Science Editing
• PhD Thesis Editing Services
• PhD Editing
• Master’s Proofreading
• Bachelor’s Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading Services
• Best Dissertation Proofreaders
• Masters Dissertation Proofreading
• PhD Proofreaders
• Proofreading PhD Thesis Price
• Journal Article Editing
• Book Editing Service
• Editing and Proofreading Services
• Research Paper Editing
• Medical Manuscript Editing
• Academic Editing
• Social Sciences Editing
• Academic Proofreading
• PhD Theses Editing
• Dissertation Proofreading
• Proofreading Rates UK
• Medical Proofreading
• PhD Proofreading Services UK
• Academic Proofreading Services UK

Medical Editing Services

• Life Science Editing
• Biomedical Editing
• Environmental Science Editing
• Pharmaceutical Science Editing
• Economics Editing
• Psychology Editing
• Sociology Editing
• Archaeology Editing
• History Paper Editing
• Anthropology Editing
• Law Paper Editing
• Engineering Paper Editing
• Technical Paper Editing
• Philosophy Editing
• PhD Dissertation Proofreading
• Lektorat Englisch
• Akademisches Lektorat
• Lektorat Englisch Preise
• Wissenschaftliches Lektorat
• Lektorat Doktorarbeit

PhD Thesis Editing

• Thesis Proofreading Services
• PhD Thesis Proofreading
• Proofreading Thesis Cost
• Proofreading Thesis
• Thesis Editing Services
• Professional Thesis Editing
• Thesis Editing Cost
• Proofreading Dissertation
• Dissertation Proofreading Cost
• Dissertation Proofreader
• Correção de Artigos Científicos
• Correção de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Correção de Inglês
• Correção de Dissertação
• Correção de Textos Precos
• 定額 ネイティブチェック
• Copy Editing
• FREE Courses
• Revision en Ingles
• Revision de Textos en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis
• Revision Medica en Ingles
• Revision de Tesis Precio
• Revisão de Artigos Científicos
• Revisão de Trabalhos Academicos
• Serviços de Revisão de Inglês
• Revisão de Dissertação
• Revisão de Textos Precos
• Corrección de Textos en Ingles
• Corrección de Tesis
• Corrección de Tesis Precio
• Corrección Medica en Ingles
• Corrector ingles

Select Page

Sample Responses to Letters from Journal Editors

Table of Contents (Guide To Publication)

Appendix: sample responses to letters from academic and scientific editors.

Each letter to an editor is unique, so the following letters are only examples, but they will provide you with ideas about how to format and word your own replies to academic and scientific editors. The letters are completely fictional, with invented names and situations. The complete addresses may not be necessary if you’re communicating with an editor via email, as is so often the case these days, but I’ve included them to show the layout of a formal letter. For your own mailing address, it would be best to use university or department letterhead if available and provide your personal name, phone number and email address beneath the letterhead.

The first letter (A.1) posits that the editor is interested in the article and thinks it appropriate for the journal, but has pointed out a number of problems with the formatting, structure and referencing style of the paper as the reason for not accepting it. Whether or not the paper will be reconsidered or accepted if the necessary revisions are done remains uncertain, so the letter aims to confirm that the paper will be seriously reconsidered and ideally accepted if the necessary changes are made. It does this by thanking the editor for his helpful advice, indicating that the author understands the problems and is in the process of correcting them, and asking whether the editor would like to reconsider the paper for publication.

Assuming that the first letter received a positive response, the second letter (A.2) is designed to accompany the revised paper once all the necessary changes to formatting, structure and referencing have been made. It explains exactly what’s been done to correct the problems, addressing all of the concerns about the format, structure and references raised by the editor. It also explains one change that may prove problematic and offers an alternative solution. Finally, it verifies that a professional proofreader has checked the article and indicates a willingness on the part of the author to make any further changes that may be necessary to facilitate successful publication.

Download Word Version of Letter A1

Letter a.1: earning or confirming serious reconsideration or conditional acceptance.

Dr Sandra Jones Department of Social Sciences University of the Pacific Coast P.O. Box 101 Salmon Cove, British Columbia V2K 3L4 Canada (609) 741-8955 [email protected]

Mr Reginald Smith, Editor Journal of Changing Weather P.O. Box 707 River Rapids, Oregon 76545 USA (972) 861-9805 [email protected]

March 3, 2020

Dear Mr Smith,

Thank you for your letter regarding my manuscript entitled “Effect of Changing Weather Patterns on Home Insurance Policies: Clients Left Out in the Cold?” I’m delighted that you’re interested in the paper and think it might be appropriate for the Journal of Changing Weather .

I very much appreciate the time and effort you’ve put into your comments. Your advice about the formatting, structure and referencing style of my paper is most helpful. I’ve looked over the Journal of Changing Weather author guidelines again and see exactly where I’ve gone wrong and what changes need to be made. Once I’ve made the necessary revisions, I plan to have the paper professionally proofread to ensure that I’ve met all the requirements consistently.

However, I remain unsure about whether you’re willing to reconsider the article once the necessary changes have been made, so I’m hoping you can confirm that you’d like me to send you the revised paper for reconsideration or publication. I’ve begun working on the revisions already and will be able to return the article to you within a couple of weeks.

With thanks for your time and assistance,

[sign here for a formal letter]

Sandra Jones

Download Word Version of Letter A2

Letter a.2: resubmitting a paper after necessary revisions have been made.

March 15, 2020

Further to our correspondence a couple of weeks ago, I’m attaching the revised version of my article entitled “Effect of Changing Weather Patterns on Home Insurance Policies: Clients Left Out in the Cold?” I have now completed all of the changes you requested:

• The numerical style of in-text referencing has been changed to author-date referencing in APA style.
• The list of references has been arranged alphabetically by the last names of authors instead of numerically, and other changes to conform to APA style have been made to the references.
• The article has been restructured to include separate Limitations and Conclusions sections.
• All headings and subheadings have been adjusted to conform to the requirements indicated in the Journal of Changing Weather author guidelines, including the removal of numbers.
• All nonstandard abbreviations and acronyms used in the paper have been defined on first use and used consistently thereafter.
• Abbreviations used in each table have been defined in a note at the bottom of the table.
• The vertical rules/lines have been removed from all three tables.
• The tables are now attached as a separate file instead of embedded in the paper.

I should mention, however, that Table 3 seems a little crowded without the vertical lines separating the information in the columns, and I’m concerned that the presentation may not be as clear as it was with the lines. I see that the guidelines indicate that tables should be on a vertical/portrait page, but I also notice that a few articles in the printed version of the Journal of Changing Weather feature tables on a horizontal/landscape page, so perhaps that would be a good layout for increasing the clarity of Table 3. I’m certainly open to any suggestions you have for this table.

I’m also attaching a certificate from Proof-Reading-Service.com verifying that the article has been professionally proofread with special attention to meeting the Journal of Changing Weather author guidelines for formatting, structure and referencing.

I hope that the changes I’ve made resolve all your concerns about the article. I’m more than happy to make any further changes that will improve the paper and/or facilitate successful publication.

Thank you once again for your time and interest. I look forward to hearing from you.

This article is part of a book called Guide to Academic and Scientific Publication: How To Get Your Writing Published in Scholarly Journals . It provides practical advice on planning, preparing and submitting articles for publication in scholarly journals.

Whether you are looking for information on designing an academic or scientific article, constructing a scholarly argument, targeting the right journal, following journal guidelines with precision, providing accurate and complete references, writing correct and elegant scholarly English, communicating with journal editors or revising your paper in light of that communication, you will find guidance, tips and examples in this manual.

This book is focusing on sound scholarly principles and practices as well as the expectations and requirements of academic and scientific journals, this guide is suitable for use in a wide variety of disciplines, including Economics, Engineering, the Humanities, Law, Management, Mathematics, Medicine and the Social, Physical and Biological Sciences .

You might be interested in Services offered by Proof-Reading-Service.com

Journal editing.

Journal article editing services

PhD thesis editing services

Scientific Editing

Manuscript editing.

Manuscript editing services

Expert Editing

Expert editing for all papers

Research Editing

Research paper editing services

Professional book editing services