Last updated: January 2026 · 2 min read · Audience: Authors, students, early-career researchers · Reading level: Introductory
Introduction
A request for revisions is, in most cases, good news. It indicates that the editor sees the work as potentially publishable subject to specific improvements. The response to reviewers is what converts that potential into an acceptance. A clear, structured, professional response often matters as much as the revisions themselves. This guide describes how to prepare one.
A reliable structure
A response to reviewers is normally submitted as a separate document alongside the revised manuscript. A reliable structure begins with a brief opening paragraph thanking the editor and reviewers for their time, summarising the principal changes made. It then addresses each comment from each reviewer individually, in the order in which the comments appeared. For each comment, quote the reviewer's point, then provide a clear response, and indicate where in the manuscript the change can be found (page and line numbers).
What to accept and what to push back on
Most reviewer comments should be accepted and acted on. Where a comment reflects a genuine misunderstanding, the response should clarify the point in the manuscript itself, not just in the response letter — the next reader should not need the letter to follow the argument. Where the author respectfully disagrees with a comment, the response should explain why, citing evidence or methodology. Disagreement is acceptable; dismissiveness is not.
Tone
Treat the response as a professional document. Thank reviewers for substantive feedback. Avoid defensive or argumentative phrasing even where a comment seems unfair. A measured, evidence-based response is more persuasive — and is read more sympathetically by the editor — than a polemical one. Editors weigh tone alongside substance when deciding whether revised manuscripts are ready for acceptance.
Practical formatting
- Quote each reviewer comment in full, in italics or a distinct typeface, before responding.
- Number comments consistently, e.g., R1.1, R1.2, R2.1, to make cross-reference straightforward.
- Specify exactly where each change appears in the revised manuscript (page and line).
- Submit a clean revised manuscript and, where requested, a tracked-changes version.
- Keep the response self-contained — the editor should not need the original submission to follow it.
Major revisions
A request for major revisions is more demanding than minor revisions, but the principles are the same. Treat the major issues identified by reviewers as the structural backbone of the revision: if three reviewers flag the same concern, that concern almost always needs to be substantively addressed rather than negotiated. Where major work is required (additional analysis, new data, restructured discussion), allocate the time before resubmitting; a hurried major revision often produces a second round of major revisions.
Key points
- A request for revisions is an opportunity, not a setback.
- Address every comment individually, in order, and indicate where changes appear.
- Accept what is sound; disagree where warranted, but always with reasoned justification.
- Maintain a professional, measured tone throughout.
- For major revisions, take the time to do the work properly the first time.
Frequently asked questions
Related topics across the knowledge centre
Comparison
EP Journals vs Predatory Journals: How to Tell the Difference
A practical comparison helping researchers distinguish legitimate structured open-access publishers, such as EP Journals, from predatory journals that lack genuine peer review, transparent fees, or verifiable editorial governance.
Comparison
Indexed vs Non-Indexed Journals: A Practical Comparison
A practical comparison of indexed and non-indexed journals across multiple indexing tiers, helping authors interpret indexing claims accurately and choose venues whose indexing matches their needs.
Publishing
Low-Cost Research Journals
Low-cost journals span subscription venues with no author fee, diamond open-access journals fully subsidised by institutions, and open-access journals with modest APCs. Verifying credibility matters more than the headline number.
Publishing
How to Publish a Research Paper in Law
A practical, field-specific guide to publishing research in law, covering norms, challenges, the step-by-step process, where to publish, and how to choose between journal types.
Resource
Journals for Students: Where to Publish Early Research
Students are typically best served by open-access journals that maintain transparent peer review, modest article processing charges (APCs), and clearly documented timelines.
Resource
Journals for Multidisciplinary Research
Multidisciplinary work fits journals explicitly oriented toward cross-field research, generalist scientific journals, or specialty journals where the work's primary discipline anchors. The choice depends on which audience the work most needs to reach.
Guide
Avoiding Plagiarism in Academic Research
A clear explanation of what counts as plagiarism in academic research, how to avoid it in practice, and how journals detect and respond to it.
Guide
What is Indexing in Academic Journals?
An overview of how academic indexing operates, the principal categories of indexing services, and the implications of indexing status for authors and journals.
Related reading and next steps
Editorial enquiries
Questions about this guide or about preparing a manuscript for submission may be directed to the editorial office. Where a query relates to a specific journal in the portfolio, please indicate the journal abbreviation in your message.
Email: editor@ep-journals.org