Responding to Reviewer Comments
A point-by-point response letter and a revised manuscript that gives the reviewers what they asked for.
A decision letter asking for major revisions often feels like a rejection. It usually isn’t. It means the editor thinks the paper could be published if the reviewers’ concerns are answered, and most papers in indexed journals go through at least one such round. The difficulty is doing it well: twenty or thirty comments, some contradictory, some unclear, one that asks for an experiment you cannot run, and a deadline a few weeks away.
This service helps you turn a set of reviewer reports into two documents the editor can check quickly: a revised manuscript with changes tracked, and a point-by-point response letter addressing each comment, says what changed and where, and, when you need to, disagrees with evidence and courtesy.
You decide how to respond to each point. We help you understand what the reviewer is really asking, plan the changes, draft the replies with you, and check that every promise in the letter is kept in the manuscript.
Scope
What’s included
Take the whole package or just the part you need. Some scholars only want the triage; others want support through a second round.
Comment triage
Every comment numbered and sorted: required changes, requests for clarification, points to discuss, and points you may reasonably decline. You get an action plan before anything is rewritten.
Additional analysis planning
Where reviewers ask for new tests, robustness checks or comparisons, we help you plan what is feasible and what to explain instead. Statistical reruns can be scoped separately.
Manuscript revision
Revisions to the text, figures and tables with changes tracked, plus a clean version: the two files most journals ask for at resubmission.
Response letter
A point-by-point letter drafted with you: each comment quoted, your reply, and the exact location of each change by page and line.
Second-round support
Help if the reviewers come back with further comments. Many papers need two rounds, and later comments are often narrower but firmer.
After a rejection
If the decision is a rejection with useful reviews, we help you revise and prepare the paper for a different journal, so the reviewers’ work 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
We number every comment, including those buried mid-paragraph in a reviewer’s report, and check that each has a reply. Missed comments are among the most frequent reasons for another round.
Every stated change verified
Before you resubmit, each “we have revised…” in the letter is checked against the manuscript at the page and line cited. Line numbers are rechecked after final edits, because they move.
Tone read separately
The finished letter gets a separate read for tone alone: courteous, direct, and free of defensiveness, especially in the replies where you disagree.
Re-analysis reconciled
If results change after new analysis, every affected number in the abstract, text, tables and figures is updated and checked for consistency.
New text and references checked
Added passages come with a similarity report, and every new reference is checked to exist and to support the point it is cited for.
Deadline tracked from day one
The journal’s revision deadline is written into the scope, with our work planned backwards from it and time left for your co-authors to approve.
Time
Realistic timelines
Journals set revision deadlines in the decision letter. They are often shorter for minor revisions and longer for major ones, though it varies by journal. Our schedule is built around yours.
| Stage | Typical time | What it depends on |
|---|---|---|
| Comment triage and action plan | 2–3 working days | Number and length of the reviews |
| Minor revision: manuscript and letter | 4–7 working days | How quickly you answer our questions |
| Major revision: 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 read response letters quickly. The best ones make it easy to see, comment by comment, that the concern was taken seriously.
The structure that works
Open with a short thank-you and a summary of the main changes. Then take each reviewer in turn, and for every comment give three things: the comment itself, quoted in full; your reply; and what changed, with page and line numbers. Where nothing changed, say why. Keep your replies in a different font or colour so the editor can scan them.
An example of a reply that disagrees
Reviewer 2, comment 4: “The authors should use a larger sample; 120 respondents is insufficient.”
Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this. A power analysis for the planned regression with five predictors (medium effect size, f² = 0.15, α = 0.05, power = 0.80) indicated a minimum sample of 92, which we now report in Section 3.2 (page 7, lines 14–18). We agree that a larger sample would allow subgroup analysis, and we have added this to the limitations (page 19, lines 3–6).
Notice what it does: it accepts the underlying concern, answers it with evidence, makes a real change, and doesn’t argue about the reviewer’s competence.
When to push back
You don’t have to accept every suggestion. It is reasonable to decline, politely and with reasons, when a request would change the study’s question, needs data that cannot be collected, contradicts another reviewer, or asks you to cite papers that are not relevant to your work. When reviewers contradict each other, say which route you took and why, and let the editor decide. If you are unsure, a brief, polite query to the editor before resubmitting is usually welcome.
If the deadline is too close
Ask the editorial office for an extension early, with a short reason, rather than on the last day. Many journals grant reasonable requests; if the deadline passes, some will treat the revision as a new submission. If new analysis is the bottleneck, statistical analysis support can be scoped quickly alongside the revision.
Pricing
How pricing works
The work depends heavily on the reviews: three minor comments and forty major ones are very different jobs. Send us the decision letter, the reviewer reports and your manuscript, and we will return a fixed quote, agreed before we start. It usually comes within a working day, because revision deadlines matter.
If the journal charges an article processing charge on acceptance, you pay it directly to the publisher, separately from our fee.
What the quote depends on
- Number of reviewers and comments, and whether the decision is minor or major revision
- Whether new analysis, figures or experiments are needed
- Length of the manuscript
- Time left before the journal’s deadline
- Whether second-round support is included from the start
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, reviewer reports and your manuscript. We confirm the deadline and whether we can realistically meet it before quoting.
Triage and quote
You receive a numbered triage of every comment, a proposed plan, and a fixed quote. Work proceeds once you agree.
Revise together
We work through the plan with you: revised manuscript with tracked changes, and a response letter where you approve every reply.
Final check and resubmission
Every change is cross-checked against the letter, line numbers are confirmed, and 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?
A careful revision gives the paper its best chance, and the editor decides, sometimes after sending it to reviewers again. The outcome rests with the journal.
Can you write the response letter for me?
We draft it with you. Each reply has to reflect what you actually did and what you believe about your research, and you need to be able to discuss it with the editor or at your viva. You approve every word before it goes. Our ethics policy explains why.
A reviewer asked me to cite several of their own papers. Do I have to?
Only if they are genuinely relevant. Cite the ones that improve your paper; for the rest, a polite note that they fall outside its scope is acceptable. If the pressure seems excessive, you can mention it confidentially to the editor. Publishing ethics bodies such as COPE treat coercive citation as inappropriate.
The reviewers want an experiment I can’t do. What now?
Explain clearly why (cost, access, time or the scope of the study) and offer what you can: an additional analysis of existing data, a clearer statement of limitations, or softened claims. Editors often accept a well-reasoned explanation.
A reviewer suggested adding a statistician as co-author. Can you provide one?
If the paper needs statistical work, we can support you in doing it, and you can acknowledge help where appropriate. Authorship goes to people who made a genuine contribution to the research, so our team stays off the author list.
Should I just send the paper to another journal instead of revising?
Rarely. A revise decision means the editor sees a route to publication; starting again elsewhere usually adds months, and the new journal may raise the same points. There are exceptions, such as requests that would turn it into a different study, and we will talk them through with you. Our publication timeline guide shows what restarting costs in time.
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, used only for your project, and deleted on request after the engagement. We will sign a non-disclosure agreement if you want one.
The paper was rejected outright. Can you still help?
Yes, if the reviews contain useful criticism. We help you address it and prepare the paper for another journal; see journal manuscript preparation for the formatting side. Please contact us through the contact page with the reviews attached.
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