How to Write a Strong Response to Reviewers — JNGR 5.0 AI Journal

Introduction

Receiving reviewer comments can feel overwhelming.

This overview describes common practices used when preparing a response document for journal revisions.

In many editorial workflows, both the revised manuscript and the accompanying response document are considered during assessment.

Step 1: Read All Comments Carefully

Before making changes, authors often:

  • Read all reviewer comments carefully
  • Separate major and minor points
  • Plan revisions across sections of the manuscript

Reviewer feedback is typically intended to clarify, strengthen, or verify aspects of the work.

Step 2: Prepare a Structured Response Document

Response letters commonly:

  • Quote each reviewer comment
  • Provide a direct response beneath each comment
  • Indicate where changes were made (page/line references when applicable)

Example structure:

Reviewer 1 – Comment 1:
[Insert the full comment]

Response:
Thank you for the comment. We have clarified the methodology section (Page 6, Paragraph 2) by adding...

Clear organization supports efficient review of the revision package.

Step 3: Maintain a Professional Tone

Response documents are typically written in a professional and respectful tone. Authors often:

  • Acknowledge helpful feedback
  • Respond without personal language
  • Use neutral phrasing when clarification is needed

For example, instead of “We disagree,” authors may write: “We respectfully clarify that…”

Step 4: Address Each Comment

Many journals expect a response to each point raised.

If an author chooses not to implement a suggestion, the response commonly includes:

  • A brief academic justification
  • Supporting references where relevant
  • A clarification added to the manuscript when appropriate

Step 5: Indicate Where Revisions Were Made

To help readers locate changes, authors may:

  • Use track changes (if permitted by the journal)
  • Highlight modified text (if requested)
  • Provide page and line numbers in the response document

Step 6: Revise Related Sections When Needed

Reviewer comments may require revisions beyond a single sentence.

Common revision areas include:

  • Methodology clarification
  • Literature context expansion
  • Discussion refinement
  • Additional references or reporting details

Revisions may lead to broader improvements in structure and clarity.

Step 7: Add a Short Note to the Editor

In addition to detailed responses, authors often include a brief cover note summarizing:

  • That the revision package is submitted
  • That reviewer points were addressed
  • Any major changes made in response to reviews

Common Issues During Revision

  • Leaving comments unanswered
  • Providing vague responses without indicating manuscript changes
  • Making substantial changes without explaining them in the response document
  • Submitting a revision without a structured response file when one is expected

Final Remarks

A revision response document typically aims to present changes clearly, document how feedback was addressed, and maintain a professional tone.

Alongside the revised manuscript, it helps editors and reviewers evaluate the revision outcome.

Related Resources

For additional information regarding submission and publication policies, please consult the following resources: