Reply to reviewers

A request for a revision is good news: the editors think the work can be accepted. Your reply is read by the same reviewers, beside the changes you made. Make it easy for them to say yes.

Before you write

1. Read every review twice, then leave it for a day if you can.
2. List every point, from every reviewer and from the editors’ letter.
3. Decide for each: change the paper, or explain why not.
4. Talk to your co-authors before you answer.

The shape of a reply

Start with one or two sentences of thanks and a summary of the main changes. Then answer every point, in the reviewer’s order.

For each point:

1. Quote or restate the comment.
2. Answer it.
3. Say what you changed, and where.

An example

Reviewer 1, comment 2. The sample size is not given, and it is unclear how many times each drying run was repeated.

Thank you for pointing this out. Each run was repeated six times in each season. We have added this to the Methods (section 2.3, first paragraph) and to the captions of Figures 2 and 3.

Reviewer 2, comment 4. The authors should compare their dryer with a commercial electric dryer.

We agree this comparison would be useful. It is outside what we could measure, because no electric dryer was available at the site. We now state this as a limitation (section 5, second paragraph) and name it as future work.

Rules that work

• Answer everything. A point you skip looks like a point you could not answer.
• Be exact about where. “Section 3, second paragraph”, not “we revised the text”.
• Change the paper, not only the reply. If a reviewer misunderstood, a reader will too. Make the text clearer.
• Agree where you can. Most comments improve the work.
• Disagree politely, with evidence. “We respectfully keep the original analysis because…” and then the reason.
• Never be sharp. The reviewer gave their time free. The editor reads your tone too.
• If two reviewers ask for opposite things, say so, choose one, and explain why.
• Keep it short. A reviewer should be able to check each answer in seconds.

Common mistakes

Mistake	Why it hurts
“Done.”	The reviewer has to search for the change.
Answering in the reply but not changing the paper.	The published paper still has the problem.
Arguing every point.	It reads as unwilling to improve the work.
New results that nobody asked for.	They open a new review.
Missing the date.	Ask the editors for more time before it passes.

In Quorum Press

When the editors ask for a revision, your submission opens for editing again. You change the work, answer each reviewer, and submit it as the next round. The reviewers see their earlier review, your reply and the changes together. See Revise and resubmit.