Writing your response letter for a journal article resubmission
In a previous post, I talked about key considerations and steps in writing cover letters for the initial stages of journal article submission. Here, I want to talk briefly about another type of letter which you may need to write in the later stages of the submission process: response letters for journal resubmissions. These are equally important for getting your manuscript accepted, hopefully without another stage of review, and are therefore deserving of the time and effort to get them right.
Why is it important to craft a strong response letter?
It may be disheartening to have received revisions, and you may not have agreed with them all, but with the shared goal of achieving a stronger paper, editors and reviewers are there to provide feedback and recommendations which will help you to develop and improve your manuscript. Making sure you communicate your appreciation of the feedback and specific details as to how you have addressed their comments is therefore essential.
Before I take you through some key elements to include in your response letter, I want to begin by highlighting the positive position you are in at this stage, which I think is best communicated in the words of Sullivan et al. (2019: 119). If you are preparing your revisions for resubmission and writing a response letter, it is because:
…your first submission is potentially a good “fit” for this venue. Articles that are outside the scope or on topics that have already received heavy coverage by a journal will be rejected on first review. Thus, your paper has promise.
You are therefore in a strong position which you should strive to maintain by taking care during the review process and in your response letter. For more information on revising your work, see the sources listed at the bottom of this blog, or take a look at advice provided by Springer (see: https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/submitting-to-a-journal-and-peer-review/revising-and-responding/10285584).
What should I include in my response letter?
Response letters are similar to cover letters in their formal business letter style, use of respectful language and the inclusion of letter purpose and key details. Response letters, however, include additional information in the form of detailed responses to reviewers’ comments and may therefore be considerably longer than cover letters.
1. Editor’s name and date of resubmission
You should ensure that you direct the letter to the person who signed the response that you received and include the date of resubmission.
2. The purpose of your letter and key details (manuscript title and number, author name and journal title).
This paragraph requires you to explain your reason for writing the letter (e.g., ‘I am writing to resubmit my paper’ or ‘I was grateful to receive a response from you requesting the revision and resubmission of my manuscript and I am subsequently resubmitting the revised paper’).
You should include the title of your manuscript and explain if you have retitled it (e.g., ‘…now titled…’/ ‘Please note the title of the paper has been revised to …’ / ‘Please note that the revised title is…’). You may have been given a manuscript number with your response. If so, you can also include that in the details section, after your title.
3. Thank the editor and reviewers
This is an opportunity to show your appreciation for the feedback (whether you agreed or not). There is no need to be overly emotional, rather you should demonstrate that you are grateful and that you have found the feedback valuable. You may also want to refer to a specific issue that they requested to be addressed, such as a reduction of the word count.
4. Provide detail on how the reviewers’ comments have been addressed
Here you should explain whether or not all feedback has been addressed and how you have revised and presented the revisions to the manuscript. This may be through track changes or highlighting amendments in a colour or listing the responses in a table.
Even if you choose to attach a document with track changes or highlights, you should also provide a detailed list of the comments/recommendations provided by the reviewers (preferably by pasting the exact wording for each) and your response to every comment. This might involve stating how you have addressed or changed a point and where you have done this in the manuscript, or it might require you to explain why you have chosen not to address a particular comment.
It is important to maintain a respectful approach to your responses, even where you disagree with the reviewers’ comments. As Noble (2017: e1005730) states:
Keep in mind that if the reviewer failed to understand something, the fault likely lies, at least in part, with you for not making the point clear enough. If the reviewer does not seem to be an expert in the area, remember that this level of expertise (or lack thereof) may be representative of many readers of the journal. Your goal is to make the work clear and accessible to all readers, not just to experts.
You should therefore provide politely worded responses to the comments which explain whether or not you agree with the feedback and your subsequent actions. The following provides examples of ways that responses could be presented, depending on your opinion.
If you agree:
Comment: [include full comment from reviewer]
Response: Thank you for your comment which I/we agree with. Accordingly, I/we have [explain the changes made].
If you disagree:
Comment: [include full comment from reviewer]
Response: This is an important point and whilst it would have been interesting to explore this, I/we believe that [explain why you chose to do what you did instead].
Ensure that this section is well-structured and easy to follow, with numbered comments, specific details and page numbers included. It is important that the editor can see that all comments have been addressed as a lack of clarity or the appearance of incomplete responses may simply lead to rejection. Furthermore, if responses are well-presented, this “increases the speed at which a manuscript moves through the review process” and assists “journals [to] manage the growing demands on the network of volunteers who edit and review manuscripts for publication” (Taylor, 2016: 1082).
Creating a ‘comment and response’ table can be helpful here (see Sullivan et al., 2019) but the journal may have a specific approach or template for formatting the response, so check the author guidelines and ensure that you closely follow their advice or requirements.
5. Concluding statement and contact details
Thank the editor for reviewing your submission a second time, sign off formally and include your contact details again.
Is there a template I can use?
It is advisable that you check the author guidelines provided by the specific journal to which you are submitting your manuscript as they may have requirements for the presentation and formatting of responses to comments. You may also find the following template helpful for guidance:
Editor name Author name
Position (e.g., Editor-in-Chief) Position
Journal name Contact details
Contact details
Date
Dear [name of editor]
I was/We were grateful to receive a response from you requesting the revision and resubmission of my/our manuscript and I am/we are subsequently resubmitting the revised paper entitled [title of manuscript], manuscript reference number [insert number] for submission in [name of journal]. [If you have retitled the paper] Please note the title of the paper has been revised to [title of manuscript] / Please note that the revised title is [title of manuscript].
I/We would like to thank you and the reviewers for taking the time and effort to review my/our manuscript. I/We greatly valued your advice and insightful comments for developing and improving the overall quality of the paper and have made revisions in line with your recommendations. As per your request, the manuscript word count has been reduced.
The manuscript has been revised in line with all of the reviewers’ comments. The responses to the comments and the changes made are detailed in the points below/ The changes are shown using track changes in the attached document/ The changes are highlighted in red in the manuscript.
Comment 1: [include full comment from reviewer]
Response: [If agree] Thank you for your comment which I/we agree with. Accordingly, I/we have [explain the changes made].
Response: [If disagree] This is an important point and whilst it would have been interesting to explore this, I/we believe that [explain why you chose to do what you did instead].
Comment 2: [include full comment from reviewer]
Response: [If agree] Thank you. The change has been made on page/line [insert number].
Response: [If disagree] I/we have not included the recommended addition for this section because [explain why you have not followed the reviewers’ recommendations].
Comment 3: [include full comment from reviewer]
Response: [Agree and disagree] I/we agree with the reviewer and have clarified the statements in line with the recommendations, but I/we have retained the point about [insert detail] as I/we feel that [explain why].
Comment 4, 5, 6 and so on…
Thank you for taking the time to reconsider my/our manuscript. I/we hope that my/our submission is now acceptable for submission in [Journal name] and I/we look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
Name
Contact details
Where can I get more advice on writing my response letter?
There are several sources which provide helpful advice and tips for writing your response letter. The following are particularly useful:
Noble, W.S. (2017) ‘Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers’. PLoS Computational Biology. 13(10) e1005730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730
Springer (2022) ‘Revising and Responding’. https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-editors/authorandreviewertutorials/submitting-to-a-journal-and-peer-review/revising-and-responding/10285584.
Sullivan, G.M., Simpson, D. and Artino, A.R. (2019) ‘Writing Author Response Letters That Get Editors to “Yes”’. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. 11(2) 119-123.
Taylor, B.W. (2016) ‘Writing an effective response to a manuscript review’. Freshwater Science. 35(4) 1082-1087.
Thank you for reading and good luck with your publications!