An email that says “major revision” or “minor revision” is good news. It means the editor sees value in your paper and is willing to publish it if you address the reviewers’ concerns. How you handle this stage often decides whether the paper is finally accepted.
This guide explains how to read reviewer comments, revise effectively, and write a response letter that makes the editor’s job easy.
Step 1: Read, then wait
Reviewer comments can feel critical, especially on a paper you have worked hard on. Read them once, then step away for a day. When you come back, you will be able to separate useful suggestions from your first emotional reaction.
Step 2: Make a list of every comment
Copy all the comments into a table with three columns:
- The reviewer’s comment (numbered, e.g., R1.1, R1.2, R2.1)
- What you will do about it
- Where the change is in the revised manuscript (page and line number)
This becomes the basis of your response letter and ensures you do not miss anything.
Step 3: Sort the comments
Comments usually fall into a few types:
- Simple fixes: typing errors, missing references, unclear labels. Just make the change.
- Requests for clarification: the reviewer did not understand something. Rewrite that part more clearly.
- Requests for more analysis or data: these take time. Decide what is possible and reasonable.
- Comments you disagree with: these need a polite, evidence-based explanation.
Step 4: Revise the manuscript
Make your changes and keep track of them. Many journals ask for a version with changes highlighted (using a colour or “track changes”) along with a clean version. Check the instructions.
When a reviewer misunderstood something, do not simply explain it in the letter. Change the manuscript so that future readers will not have the same confusion.
Step 5: Write the response letter
Begin with a short thank-you note to the editor and reviewers. Then respond to each comment in order. A simple format works well:
Reviewer 1, Comment 3: The sample size of the survey is not mentioned in the methodology.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the sample size (n = 240 households) and the sampling method in the Methodology section (page 5, lines 12–18).
Keep each response specific. Say exactly what you changed and where.
How to disagree politely
You do not have to accept every suggestion. If a reviewer asks for something outside the scope of your study, or makes a point you believe is incorrect, you can respectfully explain why. For example:
Response: We appreciate this suggestion. Extending the analysis to the whole state would be valuable, but it falls outside the objectives of the present study, which focuses on taluka-level change within one district. We have added this as a direction for future research in the Conclusion (page 14).
Support your position with evidence or references where possible, and avoid sounding defensive.
When reviewers disagree with each other
Sometimes two reviewers ask for opposite changes. Choose the approach you think is best, explain your reasoning in the response to both, and mention it in your note to the editor.
Common mistakes
- Ignoring some comments or answering them vaguely (“Done”, “Corrected”)
- Arguing with reviewers instead of explaining
- Making changes in the response letter but not in the manuscript
- Missing the resubmission deadline without asking for an extension
- Introducing new errors while revising
After resubmission
The editor may accept the paper, or send it back to the reviewers for another round. A second round is normal and does not mean the paper is in trouble. Respond with the same care.
A thoughtful revision shows editors that you take feedback seriously. That reputation helps you not only with this paper, but with every paper you submit in future.
— Editorial Team, Imaginative Ink Publications