By Kanwal Shabir · Medical writer and scientific editor · MS Pharmaceutical Chemistry, MSc Organic Chemistry
A useful response letter lets an editor follow what changed and why. Start with the decision letter and the manuscript version the reviewers assessed. Keep both beside the revision plan.
Separate the decision from the individual comments
Read the editor’s instructions first. Identify the deadline, submission requirements and any request that changes the scope of the revision. Then read the reviewer reports together. Two reviewers may describe the same underlying problem in different terms.
Before editing, mark the comments that require a scientific decision, a new analysis or information from a co-author. Language changes can begin once those dependencies are clear.
Build a comment-response matrix
Give each comment its own row. Keep the reviewer’s wording intact in your working file and record the planned action beside it. Assign an owner when several authors are involved.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Reviewer comment | The complete comment and its number |
| Action | The change, analysis or clarification required |
| Owner and dependency | Who will act and what information they need |
| Manuscript location | Section and final page or line reference |
| Response and status | The explanation to the reviewer and whether the action is complete |
Revise the manuscript before finalising the response
The response should describe the revision that exists in the submitted file. Drafting it too early creates avoidable mismatches. A change to the interpretation may also affect the abstract, conclusion or a table note.
Check those connected sections as part of the same action. If a requested analysis cannot be performed, the authors need to explain the reason and decide how the limitation should appear in the manuscript.
Make each response specific
State the action, explain its purpose when needed and identify the revised location. “Corrected as requested” gives the editor little help in finding or assessing the change.
Fictional example: We revised the Discussion to describe an association rather than a causal effect. We also changed the corresponding sentence in the Abstract and added the temporal limitation to the limitations paragraph. The revised locations will be inserted after final pagination.
This example illustrates a response structure. It is not taken from a client manuscript and does not describe a study result.
Disagree with the request, when the evidence warrants it
A reasoned disagreement needs a clear basis. Identify the concern, explain the methodological or evidential reason for your decision and consider whether the manuscript still needs clarification. The authors should approve the scientific argument before submission.
Check the complete revision package
Read the response beside the final manuscript. Verify that every claimed change is present, all location references match and no reviewer comment has been missed. Follow the target journal’s instructions for tracked files, clean copies and supporting documents.
New analyses and additional data may fall outside an editing assignment. Agree those requirements early so the quotation and deadline reflect the actual work.
Need help organising a revision?
Ink & Logic can help define a revision plan and edit the agreed manuscript and response documents. Authors retain responsibility for scientific decisions and final approval.