In this article
What a response-to-reviewers letter actually is
It is tempting to treat reviewer comments as an attack and your reply as a defense. Reframe it. A response-to-reviewers letter is a navigation document: its job is to make the editor's decision easy by showing, comment by comment, exactly what you changed and where. Editors care less about eloquence than about being able to verify your revisions quickly.
For non-native researchers, the hard part is rarely the English itself — it is the register. You need to land on courteous but confident, neither over-apologizing nor pushing back too bluntly. This guide gives you the structure publishers expect and ready-to-use phrases for every situation, so you can respond like a published author.
Before you write: cool off
Reviewer comments can feel personal, especially when one misread your work. Wiley's advice is sound: wait a day or two, then write. A short pause turns a defensive reaction into a factual one.
The structure publishers expect
Across Elsevier, Springer, and others, the resubmission package has four parts: a short cover letter to the editor; a point-by-point list of responses; a tracked-changes version of the manuscript; and a clean version. The point-by-point list is the heart of it.
The point-by-point format, line by line
Each entry follows the same micro-structure, echoing the "ten simple rules" for responding to reviewers:
- Quote the comment verbatim.
- Begin with a direct answer — yes or no, then context.
- State the specific change and quote the revised text.
- Give the location — page and line number.
Tone: courteous, non-defensive, confident
The sweet spot is polite and professional without being weak. Accept blame for clarity, never for being wrong: if a reviewer misread something, the framing is "we were not clear enough", not "you misunderstood". Lead with the answer instead of burying it in throat-clearing. And remember that politeness here is professionalism, not submission.
Template phrases for every scenario
Opening: "We thank the reviewers and the editor for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us strengthen the manuscript."
Agreeing and changing: "We agree with the reviewer and have revised this accordingly. The updated text now reads: '...' (p. X, lines Y-Z)."
Partially agreeing: "We agree that [the valid part] and have revised it. However, regarding [the other part], we [explain your reasoning]."
Disagreeing respectfully: "We appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful suggestion. After careful consideration, we believe [our approach is appropriate], because [evidence]. To address the underlying concern, we have [narrowed the claim / added a caveat] on p. X."
Out of scope: "We agree this is an interesting direction; however, it falls outside the scope of the present study and would require [new data]. We have noted it as a direction for future research (p. X)."
When the reviewer missed existing content: "We apologize that this was not clear. The point was addressed in Section X but has now been stated more explicitly (p. X)."
Closing: "We believe the manuscript is substantially improved as a result of these revisions and thank the reviewers again for their time and expertise."
How to push back without losing the editor
Sometimes a reviewer is wrong, or asks for something that would weaken the paper. You can disagree — but narrowly, with evidence, and after acknowledging the valid part of their concern. The aim is not to win the argument. It is to show the editor that you understood the point, answered what was answerable, and limited your claim where the evidence required it.
Common ESL pitfalls
- Too apologetic. Chains of "I am very sorry, please forgive me" weaken your authority. One clean "we apologize for the lack of clarity" is enough.
- Too blunt. Short, clipped replies can read like a court defense. Soften with the courteous frames above.
- Ambiguous "we have changed X". Always pair the claim with the revised wording and a page and line number, so the editor can verify it.
- Register slips. Avoid both stiff over-formality and over-casual phrasing like "thanks a lot guys".
A worked example
An illustrative point-by-point entry:
Reviewer 1, Comment 2: "The sample size (n = 24) seems small. The authors should justify it or acknowledge the limitation."
Response: "We thank the reviewer for this point. We agree the sample size warrants justification. We have added an a-priori power calculation to the Methods (p. 6, lines 112-118) and acknowledged the limited generalizability in the Discussion (p. 14, lines 320-324). The new text reads: '...'."
Get the register right (how Diglot helps)
The English in a response letter has to be both precise and diplomatic — exactly the register non-native writers find hardest. Most authors get a second read before sending, and Diglot is built to be that read.
- Rewrite blunt or over-apologetic lines into the courteous-confident register with the paraphrasing tool.
- Draft from your meaning with the AI writing assistant, which keeps your argument intact while smoothing the English.
- Nail the cover letter using the patterns in how to write professional emails in English and email templates for non-native professionals.
- One workspace for the revision. Explore the ESL writing tool.
A good response letter is mostly structure and tone. Quote the comment, answer directly, show the change, point to the line, and stay gracious throughout — and you turn a stressful revision into a clean, persuasive document.
Share
