Reviewer2

How to Respond to Harsh or Unfair Reviewer Comments

How to Respond to Harsh or Unfair Reviewer Comments Professionally

Some reviewer comments are not just critical — they are dismissive, contemptuous, or factually wrong in ways that feel personal. A response letter that lets your frustration show, even subtly, can damage your case. A response that simply capitulates to every demand can weaken your paper. This guide is about threading that needle.

What "Harsh" Actually Looks Like

Harsh reviewer comments fall into several recognizable types:

The sweeping dismissal: "This paper lacks any novel contribution and should not be published in any journal."

The personal critique: "The authors appear unfamiliar with the relevant literature."

The moving goalpost: "Even if these concerns were addressed, the fundamental approach is flawed."

The incorrect factual claim: "This analysis has been done before by Jones et al. (2018)." (It hasn't — or Jones et al. studied something different.)

The scope creep demand: "The authors should replicate this study in three additional clinical populations before this can be considered for publication."

Each type requires a different response strategy. The common thread is that emotional neutrality in your prose is not a nicety — it is a strategic choice.

Why Tone Matters More Than You Think

Editors read response letters. They see the reviewer comments too. When a response is visibly irritated, dismissive, or sarcastic, it signals to the editor that the author may be difficult to work with — and it frames subsequent editorial judgments in that light.

By contrast, a response that engages thoughtfully with an unfair critique — taking it seriously, explaining why the concern is addressed or unfounded, and doing so without visible frustration — signals scholarly confidence and maturity. That signal has real effects on editorial decisions.

Responding to the Sweeping Dismissal

When a reviewer says your paper lacks novelty or should not be published, they have given you an objection without a argument. Your response should surface that absence.

The weak response:

> "We respectfully disagree with this characterization."

The strong response:

> "We respectfully disagree and offer the following specific points in support of our paper's contribution. First, [specific contribution 1 with reference]. Second, [specific contribution 2]. Third, [specific contribution 3]. To our knowledge, prior work has not examined [specific gap], and our study addresses this directly. We hope the reviewer will reconsider in light of these specifics."

You have turned a vague negative into a catalog of positive claims that the reviewer would have to rebut specifically to sustain their objection.

Example:

> R1.1: The theoretical contribution here is negligible. This is essentially a replication of prior work with a slightly different sample.

> Response: We appreciate the reviewer's concern but disagree that this constitutes a replication. Prior studies (Harrison et al., 2020; Kim & Park, 2022) examined this effect exclusively in undergraduate populations using laboratory-based tasks. Our contribution is threefold: (1) we test the same hypotheses in a community sample with substantially higher ecological validity (n=312, age 22-71), (2) we use ambulatory measures over 14 days rather than single-session laboratory tasks, and (3) we find divergent results — the effect does not replicate in our population — which is itself a substantive finding. We have revised the Introduction (pages 2-3) to make this positioning more explicit.

Responding to "The Authors Are Unfamiliar with the Literature"

This critique stings because it is an implicit attack on competence. Your job is to engage with the substance rather than defend your honor.

The reviewer almost certainly has a specific paper or body of work in mind, even if they haven't named it. The safest response is a two-part move: (a) invite the specific reference, and (b) demonstrate engagement with the literature you already cite.

> "We would welcome any specific citations the reviewer has in mind and will incorporate them in the revision. In the current manuscript, we engage with the primary literature on [topic] through citations including [3-5 key papers]. If there are important works we have missed, we are committed to addressing them."

If you can guess what they're pointing to, do so directly:

> "We suspect the reviewer may be referring to the literature on [X]. We are familiar with this work — particularly [Author, Year] and [Author, Year] — and note that it is cited in the Introduction (page 3) and Discussion (page 17). If the reviewer has additional specific citations in mind, we would be grateful to receive them."

Responding to the Factually Incorrect Critique

This requires the most care. You are correcting a reviewer, which carries social risk. Do it precisely and without condescension.

Example:

> R2.3: The methodology here is identical to that used by Martinez et al. (2021), making this paper redundant.

> Response: We have read Martinez et al. (2021) carefully and believe there may be a misunderstanding. Martinez et al. examined retrospective self-report data using a cross-sectional design in a clinical sample (n=48). Our study uses prospective daily diary data, a longitudinal design, and a community sample (n=312). While both studies examine emotion regulation, the construct operationalizations, sampling frames, and analytic approaches differ substantially. We have added a paragraph to the Introduction (page 4) explicitly comparing the two studies and clarifying our distinct contribution.

Note the phrase "there may be a misunderstanding" — it attributes the error to a process rather than to the reviewer's competence.

Responding to Scope-Creep Demands

When a reviewer asks for experiments that would constitute a new study, you cannot comply — but you also cannot simply say "no." The goal is to address the underlying concern while firmly scoping the work to what it is.

> "We understand the reviewer's interest in [the expanded scope]. We believe, however, that this would constitute a separate study rather than a revision of the present manuscript, which is focused on [your actual scope]. To address the reviewer's core concern — which we understand as [restate the underlying worry] — we have [alternative action]. We have also added a paragraph to the Discussion noting [the expanded question] as a direction for future research (page 18)."

See [how to respond when reviewers ask for more experiments](/guides/reviewer-asks-more-experiments) for extended examples of this scenario.

The "Even If You Fix It, It's Still Wrong" Reviewer

Occasionally a reviewer signals, explicitly or implicitly, that no revision will satisfy them. This is actually useful information: it tells you that your response needs to be addressed to the editor, not the reviewer.

Write your responses as if the editor — not the hostile reviewer — is your primary audience. This means being scrupulously fair to the reviewer's concerns, engaging with every specific point, and demonstrating that you have made genuine improvements. An editor who sees a well-reasoned, good-faith response to a hostile review will weigh that in your favor.

Do not editorialize about the reviewer's approach. Do not write "we found Reviewer 2's comments difficult to interpret" or "Reviewer 1 appears to have misread our paper." State facts and arguments, not complaints.

Do/Don't Summary

Do:

Don't:

A Note on Appeals

If reviews contain personal attacks, factually incorrect claims that affected the editorial decision, or demands that clearly exceed journal scope, most journals have a formal appeals process. This is different from submitting a revised manuscript. See [how to write a rebuttal letter for journal rejection](/guides/rebuttal-letter-journal) for when and how to appeal.

Getting a First Draft

If you are working through 20 harsh comments and finding it difficult to maintain a neutral tone, it can help to generate a detached first draft for each comment before revising. [Reviewer2](/#demo) can draft a response paragraph to any reviewer comment — particularly useful when the comment's phrasing makes it hard to engage professionally. You then revise for accuracy and specificity, but you start from a calm baseline rather than trying to write past your frustration.

For the structural elements of the response letter, the [response to reviewers template](/guides/response-to-reviewers-template) provides the full format. For understanding whether your paper needs more than responses — a genuine content overhaul — see the [revise and resubmit strategy guide](/guides/revise-and-resubmit-strategy).

More guides