Responding to Reviewer Comments
What each reviewer is really asking, and feedback on your response letter before you send it.
A major revisions letter mostly feels like a rejection, but responding to reviewer comments properly can still get the paper published. It is usually not a rejection. The editor means, answer the reviewers and the paper can still move ahead. Most papers in indexed journals go through at least one such round. Scholars struggle because many times there are twenty or thirty comments. A few contradict each other, a few are unclear, and one may ask for an experiment you cannot run. And the deadline is a few weeks away.
With this service you take the reviewer reports and turn them into two documents the editor can check fast. One is the revised manuscript with changes tracked. The other is a point-by-point reply to the reviewers. It answers every comment and says what changed and where. Disagreeing with a reviewer at places is fine, with evidence.
How to respond to each point is your decision. We help you see what the reviewer actually wants and plan the changes. You draft the replies, and we give feedback on them. At the end we check that every promise in the letter is really done in the manuscript.
Quick answers
- What will I have when the revision is done?
You get a numbered triage of all comments with an action plan. You end with your revised manuscript in tracked and clean versions, and your point-by-point response letter that gives page and line for each change, both read by us before you send. We can add feedback on a second round, or on shifting to a new journal after a rejection.
- How quickly can you give feedback on a revision?
The triage needs 2–3 working days. For a minor revision our feedback is usually done in 4–7 working days. A major one takes 2–4 weeks. We plan backwards from the journal’s deadline.
- Can you help me disagree with a reviewer?
Yes. We help you judge which comments you can reasonably decline, and we read your reply only for tone, so it is polite and gives reasons. Whether to push back is your decision.
- Is new text checked for similarity?
Yes. Passages added in the revision come back with a similarity report, so you know the figure before the journal does. We also check that each new reference really supports the point it is cited for.
- How do I start when the deadline is close?
Send the decision letter, the reviewer reports and the manuscript. We tell you if the deadline is realistic, then send the triage with a fixed quote, normally within one working day. Work starts only after you agree. The scope also mentions whether second-round support is part of it.
Scope
What’s included
You can take the full package, or only the part you need. A few scholars want the triage alone. Others ask for support till the second round is over.
Comment triage
Every comment gets a number and goes into a group. Some are changes you must make, and some only need a clarification. Others are points to discuss, and a few you can reasonably decline. You see the action plan before any rewriting starts.
Additional analysis planning
Reviewers many times ask for new tests, robustness checks or comparisons. We help you decide which of these are feasible and which ones you should explain instead. Statistical reruns can be scoped separately.
Review of your revised manuscript
You revise the text, figures and tables with changes tracked, and keep a clean copy also. Most journals ask for both these files at resubmission. We read the revision against the plan and mark what is still missing.
Response letter feedback
You draft the point-by-point letter and we give feedback on it. For each comment the letter quotes it first, then gives your reply, then the exact page and line where the change is.
Second-round feedback
Feedback when reviewers come back with more comments. Many papers go through two rounds. The later comments are mostly narrower, but the reviewer is firmer about them.
After a rejection
Sometimes a rejection still comes with useful reviews. Then we help you plan the revision for another journal, so the reviewers’ effort is not wasted.
Quality
How quality is verified
These are the checks every piece of work goes through before it reaches you.
Every comment answered
Some comments are hidden mid-paragraph in a reviewer’s report. We number those also, and check that each one has a reply. Missing even one comment is a common reason for one more round.
Every stated change verified
Each “we have revised…” in the letter is checked against the manuscript at the page and line given, before you resubmit. Line numbers keeps shifting with edits, so after the final edits we check them one more time.
Tone read separately
The finished letter gets one more read, only for tone. Replies should be polite and direct, without sounding defensive. This matters most in the replies where you are disagreeing.
Re-analysis reconciled
New analysis can change the results. Then every affected number has to be updated in the abstract, text, tables and figures, and we check that all of them match.
New text and references checked
You get a similarity report on the added passages. We also confirm each new reference actually exists and supports the point it is cited for.
Deadline tracked from day one
We write the journal’s revision deadline into the scope itself. We plan backwards from that date and keep time for your co-authors to approve.
Time
Realistic timelines
The decision letter gives the revision deadline. Mostly minor revisions get less time and major ones more, but it varies by journal. We plan our work to finish before your journal’s date.
| Stage | Typical time | What it depends on |
|---|---|---|
| Comment triage and action plan | 2–3 working days | Number and length of the reviews |
| Minor revision: feedback on manuscript and letter | 4–7 working days | How quickly you answer our questions |
| Major revision: feedback on manuscript and letter | 2–4 weeks | Scope of changes; longer if new analysis is needed |
| Co-author approval | Varies | Your co-authors and supervisor |
| Journal decision after resubmission | Days to 3 months | Whether the editor decides alone or sends it back to reviewers |
Response letters
What a good response looks like
Editors go through response letters fast. In a well set letter they can go comment by comment and see each concern was dealt with.
The structure that works
Start with a short thank-you and a summary of the main changes. After that, go reviewer by reviewer. Under every comment put the comment itself, quoted in full. Below it put your reply, and then what was changed, with page and line numbers. Where you changed nothing, write why. Blue text for replies helps, the editor’s eye goes straight to them.
An example of a reply that disagrees
Reviewer 2, comment 4: “The authors should use a larger sample, since 120 respondents is insufficient.”
Response: Thank you, this is a fair point. We ran a power analysis for the planned regression with five predictors and it gave a minimum sample of 92 (medium effect size, f² = 0.15, α = 0.05, power = 0.80). This is now reported in Section 3.2 (page 7, lines 14–18). We agree that a larger sample would allow subgroup analysis, and this has been added to the limitations (page 19, lines 3–6).
See how the reply works. The worry about sample size is taken seriously and the power analysis answers it. Then something actually gets added in Section 3.2 and the limitations. Nowhere does it question whether the reviewer knows the subject.
When to push back
Accepting every suggestion is not compulsory. In a few situations you can decline, politely and with reasons. Maybe the request will change the question of the study, or it needs data that cannot be collected now. Or it goes against another reviewer, or asks you to cite papers that have no relevance to your work. If two reviewers contradict each other, tell them which route you followed and why, and leave the decision to the editor. Not sure what to do? A short and polite query to the editor before resubmitting is usually welcome.
If the deadline is too close
Write to the editorial office early and ask for an extension, giving a short reason. Waiting till the last day is a mistake. Many journals agree to a reasonable request. Some are strict. Miss the date there and your revision may be taken in as a fresh submission only. If new analysis is holding you back, statistical analysis support can be scoped quickly along with the revision.
Pricing
How pricing works
How much work there is depends mainly on the reviews. Three minor comments and forty major ones are totally different jobs. Send us decision letter, the reviewer reports and your manuscript. We will come back with a fixed quote, and it is agreed before any work starts. Revision deadlines are short, so mostly we send the quote within a working day.
Some journals charge an article processing charge on acceptance. That amount you pay straight to the publisher, and it is separate from our fee.
What the quote depends on
- How many reviewers and comments there are, and if the decision is a minor or a major revision
- Whether you need new analysis, new figures or new experiments
- The length of your manuscript
- How much time is left before the journal’s deadline
- Whether second-round support is part of the work from the beginning
Every quote includes
- A written scope listing exactly what will be delivered
- A fixed price agreed before any payment
- Payment in stages, tied to delivery
- Revision rounds stated in the scope
Process
How it works
Send the decision letter
Share the editor’s letter, the reviewer reports and your manuscript. We confirm the deadline first, and whether we can realistically meet it, before giving any quote.
Triage and quote
You receive a numbered triage of all the comments, a plan we propose, and a fixed quote. We start the revision work only after you say yes to that quote.
You revise, we review
We go through the plan along with you. You revise the manuscript with tracked changes and write the response letter, and we give feedback on each draft.
Final check and resubmission
Each change is cross-checked with the letter and the line numbers are confirmed. Then you resubmit from your own account.
Keep reading
Guides and related services
How to respond to reviewer comments
Point-by-point structure, tone, disagreeing politely, and a response-letter template.
How long journal publication really takes
Stage-by-stage timelines for indexed journals, and how to check a journal that offers a fixed publication date.
Journal Manuscript Preparation
Your finished paper, formatted and checked against the target journal’s rules before a desk editor sees it.
How to spot a predatory journal
A checklist to run before you submit anywhere — and what to do if you’ve already submitted.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
If I revise with your help, will the paper definitely be accepted?
Nobody can promise acceptance. With a careful revision the paper gets its best chance. But the editor takes the decision, and sometimes the editor sends it to reviewers one more time first. What happens finally is up to the journal.
Do you write the response letter for me?
No. You write the replies, because they go under your name and must match what you did and what you yourself think. We explain the comments and give feedback on your draft. Nobody from our team goes on the author list either, even if a reviewer suggests adding a statistician. Why we work like this, you can read in our ethics policy.
A reviewer asked me to cite several of their own papers. Do I have to?
Not if those papers have nothing to do with your work. If one or two of them really help your argument, cite those. For the rest, politely write that they are outside this paper’s scope. A reviewer may still push you after that, then quietly inform the editor, as COPE and similar publishing ethics bodies treat coercive citation as inappropriate.
The reviewers want an experiment I can’t do. What now?
Give a clear reason why it is not possible. It may be cost, access, time or the scope of the study. After that, offer what you are able to do. Maybe you can run one more analysis on the data you already collected. Or you write the limitation more clearly, and soften the claims a little. Editors many times accept an explanation if it is well reasoned.
Should I just send the paper to another journal instead of revising?
Rarely is that a good idea. Asking for revision is the editor’s way of saying your paper has a chance in their journal. With a new journal the whole review starts again, so months get added usually. And there is good chance the new reviewers ask the same things. Exceptions exist, like requests that would make it a different study, and we will talk those through with you. How much time restarting costs is shown in our publication timeline guide.
Are the reviews and my manuscript kept confidential?
Yes. Your manuscript, decision letter and reviewer reports are seen only by the person working on them. They are used for your project only and are deleted on request once the engagement is over. If you want a non-disclosure agreement, we will sign one.
The paper was rejected outright. Can you still help?
Yes, provided the reviews have some useful criticism in them. We help you work through that criticism, and you get the paper ready for another journal. For the formatting of the new journal, see our journal manuscript preparation service. Reach us through the contact page and attach the reviews.
Talk it through with a specialist for free
Send us where you are and what you need. We’ll reply within one working day with clear advice, a written scope and a fixed quote. No obligation.
Book a free consultation