Response to Reviewers Generator
Paste the reviewers' comments and the tool splits them by reviewer and number. Choose a response for each — agreed and revised, partly revised, or respectfully left unchanged — add what you did and where, and get a point-by-point letter with a thank-you opening and a summary of changes. Honest templates, no AI.
Your manuscript
Leave blank for “Dear Editor”.
Reviewer comments
Splitting again replaces the comments below, including any responses you have written.
Paste the reviewers' comments above and choose “Split into comments”. Nothing is uploaded — the splitting happens in your browser.
Your response letter
2 placeholders left to fill — shown in [brackets]
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript “[Manuscript title]”. We are grateful to the reviewers for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us to improve the manuscript.
Below, we respond to each comment in turn. The reviewers' comments are reproduced in full, each followed by a response. Page and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript.
We hope the revised manuscript is now suitable for publication. Thank you again for your time and for the reviewers' helpful comments.
Sincerely, [Your name] On behalf of all authors
How to Use the Response to Reviewers Generator
- 1. Fill in the manuscript details. The title, the journal, the manuscript ID, and the editor's name if the decision letter gives one.
- 2. Paste the reviews and split them. Headings such as “Reviewer #1”, “Reviewer: 2”, or “Referee B” start a new reviewer, and numbered points — “1.”, “2)”, “(3)”, “Comment 4:” — start new comments. A review with no numbers is split at bullets, or else by paragraph.
- 3. Check the split. Merge a comment that was cut in two, remove anything that is not a comment, and fix any text the paste mangled. The reviewer's “Major comments” and “Minor comments” headings are kept as sections.
- 4. Respond to each comment. Choose agree, partly agree, respectfully disagree, or general remark; write what you changed or why you did not; and give the page and lines in the revised manuscript.
- 5. Copy the letter and check it. The summary counts your responses automatically. Fill any highlighted placeholders, then check every page and line reference against the final file.
What a Strong Response Letter Looks Like
Reviewers and editors read the response with the revised manuscript open beside it, so the letter's job is to make checking easy: every comment quoted and numbered, every response saying exactly what changed and where, and every disagreement argued with evidence rather than asserted. The tone stays courteous even when a review was not.
Example: the opening and two responses from a generated letter
Dear Dr. Osei,
Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript “Peer tutoring and reading attainment in secondary schools: a cluster randomised trial” (ERL-2026-0412) for Educational Research Letters. We are grateful to the reviewers for their careful reading and constructive comments, which have helped us to improve the manuscript.
Below, we respond to each comment in turn. The reviewers' comments are reproduced in full, each followed by a response. Page and line numbers refer to the revised manuscript. All changes are also marked in the tracked-changes version of the manuscript.
Comment 1.2: The power analysis is not reported. Please state how the target sample size was determined.
Response: We agree with the reviewer and have made this change. We have added the power calculation to the Methods: with 14 schools and 1,120 students, the trial had 80% power to detect an effect size of 0.25 at α = 0.05. See page 6, lines 98–104 of the revised manuscript.
Comment 1.3: The reading test was administered by teachers who knew which classes received tutoring. Could this have biased the results?
Response: We understand the reviewer's concern, but on reflection we believe the original approach is the more appropriate one. The reading test was scored by external markers who did not know which classes had received tutoring, so teachers' knowledge of allocation could not affect the scores. A short explanation now appears on page 8, lines 140–143.
The manuscript, journal, and numbers are illustrative; “Try an example” loads the full review. The disagreement in comment 1.3 is the one to imitate: it takes the concern seriously, answers it with a checkable fact, and adds a sentence to the manuscript so the next reader does not have the same doubt.
Agree, Partly Agree, or Disagree: Choosing a Stance
| Stance | Use it when | The response must include |
|---|---|---|
| Agree — revised | The reviewer is right, or the change costs little and helps readers | What you changed, and the page and lines where it now is |
| Partly agree | Part of the request is sound, and part would weaken the paper or falls outside its scope | The change you made, where it is, and why you did not do the rest |
| Respectfully disagree | The suggestion is mistaken, out of scope, or contradicted by your data | Your reasoning, with evidence or citations — ideally plus a sentence in the manuscript that answers the question |
| General remark | The comment is praise, a summary of the paper, or needs no change | A brief thank-you, and any change you made anyway |
Disagreeing is normal, and editors expect it when it is argued well. What they do not accept is silence: every comment, including the ones you decline, needs its own response. To keep twenty responses from opening with the same sentence, the tool rotates three phrasings for each stance.
Common Mistakes in Responses to Reviewers
- Skipping or bundling comments. Answer every point separately, however small. A missing response reads as an oversight or an evasion.
- “Done.” as a response. Say what you changed and where, so the reviewer does not have to search the manuscript for it.
- Line numbers from the old version. Refer to the revised manuscript and check every reference after your final edits, because line numbers move.
- Arguing with the reviewer instead of the point. Never suggest a reviewer misread the paper or lacks expertise, even if it seems so. Clarify the text so that no reader can misread it.
- Unannounced changes. Edits nobody asked for belong in the summary of changes too, so the editor is not surprised by them.
- Missing the revision deadline. Decision letters usually set a date for the revised version. If you need more time, ask the editor before it passes.
Frequently Asked Questions
- How do you start a response to reviewers letter?
- Address the editor, thank them for the chance to revise, and thank the reviewers for their time in a sentence or two. Then explain the format — comments quoted in full, each followed by your response, with page and line numbers referring to the revised manuscript — and summarize the main changes before the point-by-point section.
- How do you politely disagree with a reviewer?
- Thank them for the point, show that you have considered it, and give your reasoning with evidence: data, a citation, or a methodological argument. Write “we have kept our original approach because…” rather than “the reviewer is wrong”. Where you can, add a sentence to the manuscript that addresses the concern, so readers with the same question find the answer.
- Should I quote the reviewer's comments in full?
- Yes. Quoting each comment lets the editor check your response without opening the review. Number the comments if the reviewer did not, keep each response directly below its comment, and use the same numbers if the comment comes up again in a later round.
- How long should a response to reviewers be?
- As long as it takes to answer every comment, and no longer. A minor revision may need two pages; a major revision with three reviewers can run to ten or more. Keep each response to what changed, where, and why.
- Should page and line numbers refer to the original or the revised manuscript?
- Usually to the revised manuscript, and the letter should say so. If you also upload a tracked-changes version and its line numbers differ from the clean file, state which one you mean. Check every reference after your last edit.
- Will the tool split my reviews correctly?
- Most of the time, but no splitter reads every reviewer — some write one long paragraph, others nest lists inside numbered points. Treat the split as a starting point and merge, remove, or edit comments before you respond. The splitting happens in your browser, and nothing you paste is uploaded.