Once your manuscript has been peer reviewed, you may be asked to revise it. This is a standard and valuable part of the publishing process, but how you respond matters.

Poor or partial revisions can lead to another round of revising and resubmitting, or even rejection after revisions. Here’s how to make your response clear, constructive, and reviewer-friendly.

Find out more about the peer review process at Frontiers.

Key things to remember

• Respect the reviewers’ role - they’re subject experts offering feedback to improve your work. Unless the editor suggests otherwise, respond to every point, including those that recommend rejection.

• Be easy to review - reviewers are busy. A structured, point-by-point response letter and a clearly marked-up manuscript make their job easier and improve your chances of acceptance.

Peer reviewers are tasked with ensuring that published research meets high standards of clarity, rigor, and credibility. When they suggest amendments, it’s not a sign that your work isn’t valuable. It’s a way to strengthen it.

Here’s what reviewers typically aim for when they request changes.

• Clarity – to help future readers fully understand your argument, data, or methodology.

• Completeness – to fill in gaps in information, analysis, or references that might weaken your conclusions.

• Accuracy – to ensure that claims are supported by appropriate evidence and that methods are reproducible.

• Context – to situate your work within the broader literature or clarify its relevance to the field.

• Ethical standards – to confirm that human/animal research, conflicts of interest, or data sharing comply with publishing norms.

1. Catalogue the revisions

Copy each reviewer and editor comment into a response document, grouped by source (e.g. Reviewer 1, Editor). Number or bullet each point clearly.

2. Mark up your manuscript

Insert comment bubbles or use tracked changes to identify where each revision occurs. This makes it easy to navigate between feedback and edits.

3. Start with the major changes

Tackle structural or substantial changes first — these may influence other elements of your manuscript. Leave any cosmetic edits for later.

4. Update your data if needed

If changes to analysis or data presentation are requested, include revised tables/figures in your manuscript and response letter. Explain any new interpretations.

5. Include visuals (where helpful)

For complex studies, especially in STEM, include a diagram or graphical abstract to clarify the design or workflow.

6. Clarify unclear points

If a reviewer misunderstood something, don’t dismiss it — improve the clarity in your manuscript so future readers don’t miss it too.

7. Address feedback you can’t act on

If the suggested change isn’t feasible (e.g. requires new experiments), explain this clearly and respectfully in your response letter.

• Start with a brief thank you to the editor and reviewers.

• Repeat each comment exactly (no paraphrasing), followed by your response.

• Include direct quotes from revised text in italics or as block quotes.

• Separate responses by reviewer/editor for clarity.

• Format for readability — long is fine, but hard to follow is not.

Final steps

• Resubmit your revised manuscript through the ‘Resubmit manuscript button’ on the Review Forum which takes you to the submission portal. Reviewers and editors will then be able to download the updated version.

• Submit a clean, anonymized manuscript using ‘Simple Markup’ in Microsoft Word. This helps editors and reviewers focus on the key changes you've made in response to feedback, without being distracted by minor edits.

• Include your structured response letter and any additional material requested.

Tip: A strong revision doesn’t mean agreeing with everything — it means showing you’ve engaged thoughtfully and transparently with the feedback.

FAQs

Do I have to respond to every reviewer comment?

Yes. Unless the handling editor advises otherwise, you’re expected to address every point reviewers raise, even if they are recommending rejection.[AR3] Even if you choose not to implement a change, you should explain why in your response letter. This shows you’ve engaged thoughtfully with the feedback.

What if I disagree with a reviewer?

It’s okay to disagree respectfully, but explain why. Peer review is a dialogue. If a suggested change would misrepresent your findings or isn’t feasible, clarify your reasoning in a constructive, evidence-based way. Editors and reviewers appreciate transparency and professionalism in how you handle differences of opinion.

Learn more about what's expected of you during the review process.

May I request a different reviewer?

In rare cases, yes, but only via the handling editor. If you believe a reviewer has a conflict of interest or provided inappropriate feedback, you can raise your concerns directly with the editor (not in the public response letter). The editor will review the case and decide whether further action is needed.

How long should my response letter be?

As long as it needs to be, but ensure it is well-structured. There's no strict word limit. A good response letter clearly addresses all reviewer and editor comments, with any revised text quoted where relevant. Use formatting (headings, bullet points, block quotes) to keep it easy to follow.