Response to Reviewers

The standard structure

Dear [Editor Name / Editor],

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript "[Title]"
(Manuscript ID: [ID]). We thank both reviewers for their thoughtful
and constructive comments, which have substantially strengthened
the paper.

We have addressed every comment in the point-by-point response below.
Major revisions include: (1) [change 1]; (2) [change 2]; (3) [change 3].
Throughout the revised manuscript, new and substantively modified text
appears in blue.

We respond to each reviewer's comments in turn below.

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Reviewer 1
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

R1.1. [Reviewer 1's first comment, quoted verbatim]

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important point...
[Detailed response]

In response, we have revised Section X.Y as follows:

  [color-coded new/changed text]

R1.2. [Reviewer 1's second comment]

Response: ...

[Continue point-by-point]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Reviewer 2
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

R2.1. [Reviewer 2's first comment]

Response: ...

[etc.]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Summary of changes

We have made the following major changes in response to reviewers:
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

We hope these revisions address all concerns and that the revised
manuscript is now suitable for publication.

Sincerely,
[Author Names]

Response patterns by comment type

Pattern 1: Accept the comment

"Reviewer X comment." → "We thank the reviewer for this point. In response, we have [specific change]. The revised text now reads: [new text]."

Pattern 2: Partially accept

"Reviewer X comment." → "We agree with the reviewer's underlying concern about [issue]. While we did not implement the specific change requested because [reason], we have addressed the underlying concern by [alternative change]. See Section X for the modified text."

Pattern 3: Respectfully disagree

"Reviewer X comment." → "We respectfully disagree with this characterization. [Evidence and reasoning]. We have, however, clarified the original argument to make this point clearer; see the revised wording in Section X."

Pattern 4: Out of scope

"Reviewer X comment." → "While we agree this would be an interesting direction, we feel it is outside the scope of the present work, which focuses on [specific scope]. We have noted this as future work in the Conclusion section."

Tone rules

• Always thank the reviewer first. Even for harsh comments. "We thank the reviewer for raising this point..." sets a collaborative tone.
• Use "we" (the authors), not "I" — even for solo authors.
• Avoid "you" when addressing reviewers — use "the reviewer" or "Reviewer X."
• Don't be defensive. "The original wording was unclear; we have rewritten..." is much better than "The reviewer misunderstood; we did mean..."
• Be specific. "We have addressed this in Section 3.2" beats "We have addressed this throughout."

Common mistakes

• Doing 100% of what reviewers ask. Looks weak. Some pushback (with reason) shows you understand your own work.
• Doing 0% and arguing. Reviewers feel ignored. Editor sides with reviewers.
• Hiding changes. Reviewers re-read your paper looking for changes. If they can't find them, they assume you didn't change anything.
• Long-winded responses. Reviewers' time is limited. Get to the point. Pad with evidence, not throat-clearing.
• Ignoring the editor's comments. The editor often has summary comments separate from reviewer comments. Address both.