Reviewer2

Response to Reviewers Template & Examples That Got Accepted

Response to Reviewers Template and Real Examples That Got Papers Accepted

A response letter is not a formality. Editors at major journals report that a poorly structured response is itself grounds for rejection — not because the paper is bad, but because the authors failed to demonstrate they understood the critique. This guide gives you the exact template structures and worked examples you need.

The Standard Response Letter Structure

Every response letter should follow this skeleton:

```

[Journal name]

[Manuscript ID]

[Date]

Dear Dr. [Editor name],

[Opening summary: 3-5 sentences describing major changes]

We have addressed all reviewer comments below. For each response, the relevant

manuscript changes are noted with page and line numbers.

---

REVIEWER 1

Comment R1.1: [Paste reviewer text]

Response: [Your response]

[Repeat for all comments]

---

REVIEWER 2

[Same format]

```

Simple. Consistent. Scannable. Do not use colored text, tracked changes formatting, or elaborate headers. Editors read many of these documents; clarity is the virtue.

Opening Summary: The Template

> "We thank the reviewers for their careful reading and constructive feedback. In the revised manuscript, we have: (1) added a sensitivity analysis addressing the potential ceiling effects raised by Reviewer 1 (Section 3.2), (2) revised the Introduction to better position our contribution relative to Smith et al. (2019) as requested by Reviewer 2, and (3) added a paragraph on practical implications to the Discussion. We believe the manuscript is substantially improved as a result of this revision."

Key elements: specific changes, section references, and a closing sentence that projects confidence without overclaiming.

Template for a Straightforward Concession

When the reviewer is right, concede clearly and show your work.

Template:

> "The reviewer raises an important point. We agree that [restate concern in your own words]. To address this, we have [specific action taken]. The revised text appears on page [X], lines [Y-Z]. Briefly, the new passage reads: '[quote if short]'."

Example:

> R1.3: The authors state that response times were log-transformed, but the descriptive statistics in Table 2 appear to be in raw milliseconds. Please clarify.

> Response: The reviewer is correct. Table 2 displayed raw millisecond values while our analysis used log-transformed RT. This inconsistency has been corrected: Table 2 now reports log-transformed values, and a footnote clarifies the transformation applied. We have also verified that all reported means and SDs in the text are consistent with the log scale (page 11).

Template for Partial Concession

When the reviewer is partly right but partly asking for something outside your scope:

> "We agree with the reviewer that [acknowledge the valid part]. We have addressed this by [what you changed]. However, [the part you cannot or will not change] because [reason with evidence]. We have added a note in the Limitations section acknowledging this boundary (page 19)."

Example:

> R2.5: The study is conducted entirely in Germany. Generalizability to other cultural contexts is unclear and should be tested with a cross-cultural sample.

> Response: We agree that cultural generalizability is an important question. However, collecting a matched cross-cultural sample is beyond the scope of the present study given the specialized clinical equipment required at each site. We have substantially expanded the Limitations section to foreground this constraint and suggest it as a direction for future work (page 20, lines 14-22). Our sample characteristics (n=187, age range 22-68, diverse educational backgrounds) are described in detail in Table 1 to help readers assess relevance to their contexts.

Template for Principled Disagreement

This is the hardest case. The reviewer is wrong or is asking for something that would weaken the paper.

> "We appreciate the reviewer's concern. We interpret this comment as [your reading of what they're worried about]. We respectfully disagree that [the specific claim], for the following reasons: [numbered list]. [Optional: cite supporting literature.] We have added a sentence to [section] acknowledging that [related valid concern], but we have not made the requested change because [reason]. We hope this explanation is satisfactory."

Example:

> R3.2: The authors use a 0.05 significance threshold throughout. Given the large number of comparisons, a Bonferroni correction should be applied, which would render most findings non-significant.

> Response: We appreciate the reviewer raising this. We note that the analyses in Table 3 are not a family of independent tests on the same hypothesis — they address distinct research questions with separate theoretical motivations. Bonferroni correction is designed for situations where the same null hypothesis is tested multiple times; applying it across conceptually distinct hypotheses increases Type II error without a corresponding benefit (Rothman, 1990; Perneger, 1998). We have added a paragraph to the Methods (page 9, lines 4-11) explaining our rationale for not applying a family-wise correction and providing effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals throughout to allow readers to draw their own conclusions about practical significance.

Template for "We Cannot Do This Experiment"

> "We understand the reviewer's interest in [the experiment requested]. This experiment would require [resources/time/equipment/sample] that we do not have access to at present. To address the underlying concern — [restate what the reviewer is actually worried about] — we have [alternative action: reanalysis, additional robustness check, expanded limitations, or new theoretical discussion]. See also page [X] for [related change]."

For a detailed treatment of this common situation, see [how to respond when reviewers ask for more experiments](/guides/reviewer-asks-more-experiments).

Template for a Missing Citation Request

> "Thank you for this reference. We have read [Author, Year] and incorporated it into the Introduction (page [X]). [One sentence describing how it relates to your work and what it adds to your framing.] We also note that our findings differ from / extend / are consistent with theirs in the following respect: [brief comparison]."

Never just cite a paper in response to a reviewer without showing you read it. The editor can tell.

Full Worked Example: Major Revision Response

Below is a condensed version of what a real major revision response looks like for a single reviewer:

---

REVIEWER 2

R2.1: The theoretical framing in the Introduction conflates two distinct constructs — working memory capacity and processing speed — that have different neural substrates and developmental trajectories. This conflation undermines the interpretive claims in the Discussion.

Response: We thank Reviewer 2 for this substantive critique. The reviewer is correct that we used "cognitive load" in ways that ran together WMC and processing speed. We have restructured the Introduction to treat these as distinct constructs from the outset (pages 2-4), with separate subsections on each. The Discussion has been revised accordingly (pages 17-19), and we are careful throughout to limit interpretive claims to the specific construct our paradigm measures — processing speed as indexed by the digit symbol substitution task. We have added a paragraph to the Limitations acknowledging that WMC was not independently assessed and that the relationship between the two constructs in our population remains an open question.

R2.2: Why was the sample restricted to right-handed participants? Handedness is not discussed in the Methods or justified.

Response: Handedness was restricted to avoid lateralization confounds in the EEG analyses, as hemispheric asymmetry in P300 amplitude is well-documented in left-handers (Polich, 2007). This justification has been added to the Participants section (page 7, line 3). We acknowledge that restricting to right-handers (88% of our final sample would have qualified regardless) limits generalizability, and this has been added to the Limitations.

---

Using Automation Without Losing Your Voice

Drafting 25 individual responses is labor-intensive. [Reviewer2](/#demo) can generate a first-draft response paragraph from any reviewer comment — useful for breaking through writer's block on the harder critiques. You still revise for accuracy and tone, but you start from something rather than a blank page.

For the broader revision strategy, read the [revise and resubmit guide](/guides/revise-and-resubmit-strategy). And if your reviews include hostile or unfair language, see [how to respond to harsh reviewer comments](/guides/respond-to-harsh-reviewer-comments) before drafting.

Final Template Checklist

Before sending your response letter:

More guides