What do I do if I disagree with a reviewer?

You can push back, but do it respectfully and with evidence. Acknowledge the point, explain your reasoning with references or data, and offer a compromise such as adding a limitation or clarifying the text. Never ignore a comment or dismiss it; an unanswered or curt response gives the editor a reason to reject.

How should I organise a response to reviewers?

Group the comments by reviewer, number them, and respond to each in turn. Reproduce the comment in one format (for example italics or a quote block) and your response in another so the editor can scan it. Where you changed the manuscript, point to the section, page, or line so the change is easy to verify.

Home › Guides › Academic Writing › Responding to reviewers

How to respond to reviewer comments

Q: How do I respond to reviewer comments?

Write a point-by-point response letter that quotes each reviewer comment, states what you changed, and gives the location of the change in the revised manuscript. Address every comment, thank the reviewers, and keep the tone professional. The letter is read alongside your revision and is often as important as the revision itself.

Q: What does 'major revisions' mean?

Major revisions means the editor sees promise but wants substantial changes before reconsidering, often including new analyses or restructuring. It is an opportunity, not a rejection: most papers that reach major revisions are eventually accepted if the authors respond thoroughly and on time.

By Dr. Rafiq Muhammad, MD, PhD · Updated June 2026

A “major revisions” decision is good news that feels like bad news. The editor sees promise and is giving you a path to acceptance — and the document that walks you down it is the response letter: a point-by-point reply to every reviewer comment. Reviewers and editors often weigh the letter as heavily as the revised manuscript, so treat it as part of the writing, not a chore.

The point-by-point structure

Open with thanks. A brief, genuine note that the comments improved the paper — then get to work.
Reproduce each comment verbatim, grouped by reviewer and numbered.
Respond to every one — no exceptions. State what you changed.
Point to the change — the section, page, or line in the revised manuscript, so the editor can verify it in seconds.

Reviewer 1, Comment 3: “The sample size justification is unclear.”
Response: We thank the reviewer. We have added a power analysis (Methods, p. 6, para 2) showing the sample of 84 gives 80% power to detect d = 0.5 at α = .05.

When you disagree

You’re allowed to push back — but respectfully and with evidence. Acknowledge the point, explain your reasoning with references or data, and offer a compromise (add a limitation, clarify the text). What you must never do is ignore a comment or answer curtly — an unanswered or dismissive reply hands the editor a reason to reject.

Tone and the things that get papers accepted

Stay professional even with a harsh or mistaken review — the editor is reading.
Be thorough and on time — most papers at major revisions are accepted when authors respond fully and meet the deadline.
Make changes easy to find — highlight or track-change the manuscript and cross-reference from the letter.

Before you reply, turn the decision letter into a worklist. The free Feedback Triage tool converts reviewer, supervisor, and editor comments into a structured, prioritised action plan — so nothing slips and every point gets a response.

Get the free Academic Writing toolkit

A self-edit checklist and revision-and-response guidance for getting a paper over the line — from Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. We’ll email you the download link.

Get Write and Publish a Scientific Paper

Frequently asked questions

How do I respond to reviewer comments?

A point-by-point letter: quote each comment, state what you changed, and point to where in the manuscript. Address every one.

What if I disagree?

Push back respectfully with evidence, and offer a compromise. Never ignore or dismiss a comment.

What does “major revisions” mean?

The editor sees promise but wants substantial changes — an opportunity, not a rejection. Most are eventually accepted.

How should I organise the response?

Group by reviewer, number each comment, reproduce it, and respond below — with the location of every change.

← Academic writing overview Open Feedback Triage →