Receiving a “major revisions” decision can feel discouraging at first glance, especially when reviewer comments are blunt or extensive. But how you respond to those comments often matters more than the comments themselves. A well-constructed response can turn a skeptical reviewer into a supporter of your paper — and a poorly handled one can sink a manuscript that had a real chance.
Start by Reframing the Decision
Major or minor revisions are not rejections. They mean an editor and reviewers believe your paper is worth the additional investment of their time. Read the reports fully before reacting, ideally after a day or two of distance from the initial disappointment.
Address Every Single Comment
Reviewers notice when a point has been ignored, and it undermines trust in the rest of your revision. Even if you disagree with a comment, address it directly rather than leaving it unaddressed.
Structure Your Response Letter Clearly
The most effective response letters:
- Quote or paraphrase each reviewer comment individually
- Follow immediately with your response and the specific change made
- Reference exact page or line numbers where the revision appears
- Use a consistent, numbered format so nothing gets lost
This structure makes it easy for a reviewer to verify, point by point, that their concerns were taken seriously.
When You Disagree With a Reviewer
You don’t have to accept every suggestion, but you do have to explain your reasoning respectfully and with evidence. A confident, well-supported pushback (“We appreciate this suggestion; however, X approach was chosen because…”) is far more persuasive than either blind compliance or defensive dismissal.
Prioritize Substantive Comments Over Style Preferences
Distinguish between comments that challenge your methodology or claims (which need careful, evidence-based responses) and comments that reflect a reviewer’s stylistic preference (which are often easy wins that cost little to accommodate).
Keep Your Tone Professional and Appreciative
Even when a comment feels unfair, thank the reviewer for their time and engage constructively. Reviewers are volunteers, and editors read the tone of your response letter as a signal of how you’ll handle disagreement generally.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Responding defensively or dismissively to legitimate critiques
- Making changes to the manuscript without documenting them in the response letter
- Leaving minor comments unaddressed because they “don’t matter”
- Submitting a rushed revision just to meet a deadline, without proofreading the final version
A Quick Template
Reviewer Comment: [paste comment] Author Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have [describe the change] on page [X], paragraph [Y]. [If disagreeing: We respectfully note that… because…]
This format, used consistently across every comment, keeps your revision transparent and easy to evaluate.
For additional structured guidance on writing response letters, many university research offices publish templates and examples — the APA’s guide to responding to reviewers is a widely referenced starting point across disciplines.
Preparing a revision for the Journal of Economics and Management? Revisit the journal’s scope to ensure alignment, and manage your resubmission through the paper submission page.