How to write an effective response letter to reviewers

Abstract

The review process is intended to provide an objective assessment of the suitability of a submission to the target journal. When authors receive the decision letter from the editor it is almost always accompanied with the reviews, which at times can be quite critical. Writing a well-constructed response letter to the reviewers, with well-reasoned arguments, is a key part of the reviewing process. Although the manuscript is the main focus of the submission, the content and tone of the response letter can have a surprisingly large impact on the eventual recommendation given by the reviewers. The importance of writing a clear response letter is often overlooked by authors. This prompted us to prepare a short article addressing the main points that can help authors prepare their response to reviewer letter to the reviewers. Although each review is unique, here, we outline ten points which are aimed at helping authors respond effectively and clearly to reviewers’ comments. The points are based on the authors’ collective experiences which includes publishing and reviewing for international peer-reviewed journals. The tone of the letter should always be professional, organized and objective. Each point raised by the reviewers needs to be replied to in a precise way, with clear evidence that the major concerns have been considered in a serious way. This article also covers what information should be included, when it is appropriate to disagree with a reviewer, and how to present appropriate rebuttals. KeyWOrdS: academic writing, response letter, article sections, tips HOW TO WrITE AN EffECTIvE rESpONSE LETTEr TO rEvIEWErS Mark Jeremy Hunt1,2 E • ORCID: 0000-0001-7741-2191 Magdalena Ochmańska1 E • ORCID: 0000-0001-6312-0278 Justyna Cilulko-Dołęga1 E • ORCID: 0000-0002-7334-1063 1 eCOrrECTOr, Newton, Cambridge, UK 2 Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology pAN, Warsaw, poland A – study design, b – data collection, C – statistical analysis, d – interpretation of data, e – manuscript preparation, F – literature review, G – sourcing of funding