To respond to peer reviewers you send the revised manuscript and a response letter that answers every comment in turn. EdCitation publishes this guide. Its advice comes from the author pages of Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Elsevier, PLOS ONE, Nature Communications and BMJ, from COPE, and from published papers, all read on 24 September 2026. Nothing here promises acceptance.
Reviewers often ask for sources: a newer study, a missing one, a reference that is wrong or retracted. That part EdCitation does, free. Find sources searches by subject or by the exact claim you need to support, Cite a source takes each entry from the publisher's record, and Verify references checks the revised list and flags retractions. EdCitation writes no part of the response or the paper. The paper itself is covered in how to write a journal article.
What does a major or minor revision decision mean?
It means the editor will look again after changes; what each label promises differs by journal. PLOS ONE (n.d.-a) chooses among reject, major revision, minor revision and accept. Wiley (n.d.-a) calls "accept after major revisions" a conditional acceptance. At the Journal of Graduate Medical Education, only a minor revision signals a commitment to publish once the changes are made, and even a complete response can meet a rejection (Sullivan et al., 2019). Your decision letter outranks any general label.
Read the editor's letter first
Kuper et al. (2023) advise reading the editor's comments first: the editor has the final say, and may already have marked some reviewer points as essential and others as optional. Then wait. Wiley suggests 24 to 72 hours before replying, and Noble (2017) a private draft for your frustration before the real one.
How do I plan the revision?
List every comment, sort by the work each needs, and start with the largest.
- Catalogue. Number every comment from the editor and each reviewer in one document, with a section for each (Pallas, n.d.), and split a comment that raises two points (Noble, 2017).
- Sort. Sullivan et al. (2019) use three piles: quick fixes, work that needs time and co-authors, and requests you do not understand or cannot meet.
- Share. A table of comment, response, owner, due date and location divides the work; one author then reads the whole revision.
- Start large, so nobody polishes text that will be cut, and track every change as you make it (Pallas, n.d.).
| Kind of comment | What to do | Who does it |
|---|---|---|
| Text misread or unclear | Rewrite it: a misreading is feedback too | You |
| Reanalyse or re-present data | New tables and figures; old and new side by side in the letter | You and co-authors |
| New experiments or data | Do them if you can; if not, give reasons or ask the editor | You and co-authors |
| Add or update sources | Search by the claim, read, cite only what supports it | Find sources and Cite a source, free |
| A reference wrong or retracted | Check it against the record; replace it, or keep it only where the retraction itself is discussed | Verify references, free |
The deadline
The decision letter sets it. Nature Communications (n.d.) typically allows two months, and a revision returned in that time keeps its original submission date. If you need longer, ask before the date passes (Sullivan et al., 2019); PLOS ONE (n.d.-b) takes requests by email.
How do I respond to peer reviewers point by point?
Write a response letter that opens with thanks and a summary of the main changes, then copies each comment in full and answers it directly, saying what changed and where.
- Thank the editor and reviewers once, at the top (Springer Nature, n.d.), not after every comment (Sullivan et al., 2019).
- Summarise the main changes, including new data and any point several reviewers raised (Noble, 2017).
- Copy each comment in full. Cutting part of one can look like choosing what to answer ("How to Respond to Reviewers," 2025).
- Answer first: yes, no, or what you did, then the explanation (Noble, 2017).
- Say where: page and line, naming the version.
- Set comment, reply and new text apart by type, colour or a two-column table (Sullivan et al., 2019).
- Put every clarification in the paper too, since readers will ask the same.
- Follow the journal's template, and have someone outside the team read the letter.
How much of the new text to quote
The sources disagree. Noble (2017) and Pallas (n.d.) want a self-contained letter that quotes each change. The Nature Computational Science editors advise line numbers instead, quoting only new figures. Kuper et al. (2023) call both common. The journal's instructions win; without them, quote short changes and point to long ones.
Example phrasings (our suggestions)
Our suggestions for a made-up paper, not quotations:
- "We agree. The Methods now give the exclusion criteria (revised version, page 7, lines 151 to 158)."
- "We have not added a third site, which would need new ethics approval and a new study. The Discussion now names this limitation (page 15, lines 402 to 409)."
- "Reviewers 1 and 2 asked for a shorter and a longer Background. We kept its length and moved the history into Table 1, because …"
How do I disagree with a reviewer politely?
With reasons and evidence, calmly, after asking whether your own text caused the misreading. Springer Nature (n.d.) asks for "a polite and scholarly rebuttal".
- A misreading is at least partly the text's fault, and a reviewer outside the specialism may stand for many readers (Noble, 2017).
- An analysis you doubt is often best run anyway, reported in the letter, and explained as kept out of the paper. Scope is a fair answer, but not to nine requests out of ten (Noble, 2017).
- Word limits are no reason to leave a comment unanswered: offer the material in the letter or an online appendix (Sullivan et al., 2019).
- Evidence adds weight: a reference or two (Kuper et al., 2023), found by the very claim in Find sources.
When reviewers contradict each other
Look for the editor's steer first. Without one, Kuper et al. (2023) describe three ways out: keep the passage as a middle ground, expand it, or cut it. Then tell the editor which comments conflict and how you resolved each, without criticising either reviewer.
Rude reviews, suspected bias and requests to cite the reviewer
A rude critique does not justify a rude reply (Noble, 2017). Concerns about a reviewer's tone or motives go to the editor in a separate letter (Noble, 2017; Sullivan et al., 2019); Nature Computational Science keeps such letters from reviewers.
Requests to cite the reviewer's own work are common. Peebles et al. (2020) read 932 reports on 373 papers in BMC Medicine from 2017 and 2018: 25.9% asked for at least one more citation, 11.5% of all reports asked for the reviewer's own work, and 65.1% of requested self-citations were added, against 52.1% of other requested citations. COPE Council (2024) accepts that such requests can be legitimate, as in a small field, and cites advice that authors "need not feel pressured to cite" what was requested. In one case, a reviewer had asked for more than 30 of his own papers in a single manuscript, and COPE members advised authors to push back (Committee on Publication Ethics, 2019). Cite a requested paper only if it supports your claim.
How do I find and check the new sources a reviewer asks for?
Search by the claim, read, build each entry from the record, and check the revised list. The ICMJE (2026a) lets authors cite a retracted article only to discuss the retraction.
A worked example
The reviewer comment is made up; the sources and runs are real. An Introduction says that signing an honesty statement at the top of a form reduces dishonest reporting (Shu et al., 2012), and Reviewer 2 notes that the paper was retracted.
- Verify references returned: "The DOI resolves to this record and the title matches. This paper has since been retracted." The journal's editors retracted it in 2021, citing outside evidence that questioned its data.
- Find sources, given the claim "signing an honesty pledge at the beginning of a form reduces dishonest reporting", returned 909 results, and 204 from 2020 on, with a 2024 megastudy of 21 honesty oaths near the top (Zickfeld et al., 2024). A search for the retracted paper's title put Kristal et al. (2020) second: replications by a team including the original authors, finding no effect of signing first. Above it sat an unmarked 2011 working paper of the retracted study, so check an early version's published status.
- Cite a source, from Kristal and colleagues' DOI, gave in APA 7:
Kristal, A. S., Whillans, A. V., Bazerman, M. H., Gino, F., Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2020). Signing at the beginning versus at the end does not decrease dishonesty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(13), 7103–7107. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911695117
It also listed a 2026 correction, which we could not read; read it before citing. The same test list caught Noble's paper typed as 2016, "The work was published in 2017, not 2016; the record has no date in 2016", and an entry we invented: "No publisher's or registry's record matches this reference." Rewriting the sentence around new evidence is covered in how to replace a weak or retracted source.
Checking the whole revised manuscript
A test manuscript uploaded to Verify references returned "In-text citation “Sullivan et al. (2019)” has no entry in the reference list." and flagged an entry that was "never cited in the text." References from a file makes the same kind of check in the dashboard and stores the paper under My papers, so a run after the next round shows what changed: three checks a month with a free account, no limit with Pro. More in checking references before journal submission.
What do I send back with the revised manuscript?
Usually a response letter, a marked-up copy and a clean copy; systems differ.
| Journal or publisher | What to send | Worth knowing |
|---|---|---|
| PLOS ONE | A "Response to reviewers" file, a copy with Track Changes, a clean copy | The response is published if you opt in |
| Springer Nature | Major revisions, then point-by-point replies; changes in colour, highlighting or Track Changes | Second-round reviewers see the letter |
| Elsevier | A reply typed under each comment in its new review system, with no attachments | A reply cannot be edited once sent (Elsevier, 2026) |
| Nature Communications | A cover letter on the changes and a separate point-by-point response | Rebuttals published with accepted papers submitted from 1 November 2022 |
| Any journal | Every reference real, matched, not retracted | EdCitation's Verify references, free |
Write the letter as if it will be published: at PLOS ONE and Nature Communications it may be. Then clear the clean copy of leftovers. Mechanics QA, part of Pro, reports comments, tracked changes and placeholder text still in a file; it measures layout against the APA 7 student paper, so a journal's template stays yours to check.
What can I do after a rejection?
Revise and submit elsewhere, accept a transfer, or appeal if the decision rests on an error. Wiley (n.d.-a) advises against resubmitting unchanged, since in a small field the same reviewer may read it again. The rejection rates on that page name no study, so we omit them.
Transferring the manuscript
- Wiley: an editor's referral, or a tool suggesting up to eight journals; files and reviewer reports move, and you may revise first (Wiley, n.d.-b).
- BMJ: files, editor notes and reviews move, and the draft waits 90 days (BMJ, n.d.-b).
- PLOS and Nature Communications: transfers within each family, reviews included.
Outside a transfer, the ICMJE (2026b) finds it helpful to send earlier reviews with your responses. Rewrite the cover letter and rebuild the references in the new style.
Appealing a decision
- BMJ: within 30 days, answering every point; reversed only for a serious mistake, an error of fact or bias; one appeal, and appeal or transfer, not both (BMJ, n.d.-a).
- PLOS ONE: a significant factual error or a documented competing interest that would change the decision; the paper stays under consideration meanwhile.
- Springer Nature: appeals are "only successful in a handful of cases". Withdraw formally, with confirmation, before submitting elsewhere.
Which EdCitation tools help with a revision?
EdCitation is the best tool for the part of a revision that reviewers most often turn into a to-do list: the sources. Every entry it gives comes from the publisher's record, never composed, a guarantee no chatbot offers, and one pass of the test list above caught both a retraction and a wrong year.
- Free, no account. Find sources reaches about 300 million published works through a subject or a claim, narrowed by kind of source, years and open access. Cite a source turns a DOI, title, PubMed ID, ISBN or web address into APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago 18 author-date, Harvard, IEEE or Vancouver, and screens the source for retraction. Verify references gives each entry a verdict (verified, "check this" or not found) and keeps "could not check" apart from not found.
- Pro, $8 a month. References from a file, which also proposes published replacements for an entry that fails, and Mechanics QA; a free account has three runs of each a month.
- Max, $24 a month. Theoretics QA and the Library. A year paid at once costs 25% less (Pricing).
EdCitation writes no part of the response or the paper, and cannot say what an editor will decide.
Quick questions
How long should a response to reviewers be?
As long as answering every comment takes: complete but concise, in the JGME editors' words. Taylor & Francis's guide allows more than 20 pages if well structured.
Do I have to make every change a reviewer asks for?
No, but every comment needs an answer. Springer Nature asks for the analyses reviewers recommend unless they would not improve the paper, with the reason in the letter.
How long do I have to submit a revision?
The decision letter sets the date; Nature Communications typically allows two months. Ask for more time before it passes.
Can EdCitation write my response to reviewers?
No. It finds, cites and checks the sources a reviewer asks for, free in Verify references and Find sources; the response and the paper are yours.
References
- BMJ. (n.d.-a). Appeals and rebuttals. BMJ Author Hub. https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/rejected/
- BMJ. (n.d.-b). BMJ Article Transfer Service. BMJ Author Hub. https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/bmj-transfer-service/
- Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). Reviewer requesting addition of multiple citations of their own work (Case No. 19-01). https://publicationethics.org/guidance/case/reviewer-requesting-addition-multiple-citations-their-own-work
- COPE Council. (2024). Handling citation manipulation. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/raEKBDOK
- Elsevier. (2026, May 20). Author guide to new peer review experience. Journal Article Publishing Support Center. https://www.elsevier.support/publishing/answer/author-guide-to-new-peer-review-experience
- How to respond to reviewers [Editorial]. (2025). Nature Computational Science, 5(11), 975. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43588-025-00931-5
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2026a). Preparing a manuscript for submission to a medical journal. ICMJE Recommendations. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/preparing-for-submission.html
- International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2026b). Sending the manuscript to the journal. ICMJE Recommendations. https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/manuscript-preparation/sending-the-submission.html
- Kristal, A. S., Whillans, A. V., Bazerman, M. H., Gino, F., Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2020). Signing at the beginning versus at the end does not decrease dishonesty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(13), 7103–7107. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1911695117
- Kuper, A., O'Sullivan, P., & Cleland, J. (2023). Questions and quandaries: How to respond to reviewer comments. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 28(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-023-10213-2
- Nature Communications. (n.d.). Editorial process. Springer Nature. https://www.nature.com/ncomms/submit/editorial-process
- Noble, W. S. (2017). Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(10), Article e1005730. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730
- Pallas, C. L. (n.d.). How to respond to reviewer comments. Taylor & Francis Author Services. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/blog/peer-review/how-to-respond-to-reviewer-comments/
- Peebles, E., Scandlyn, M., & Hesp, B. R. (2020). A retrospective study investigating requests for self-citation during open peer review in a general medicine journal. PLOS ONE, 15(8), Article e0237804. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237804
- PLOS ONE. (n.d.-a). Editorial and peer review process. Public Library of Science. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/editorial-and-peer-review-process
- PLOS ONE. (n.d.-b). Revising your manuscript. Public Library of Science. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/revising-your-manuscript
- Shu, L. L., Mazar, N., Gino, F., Ariely, D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2012). Signing at the beginning makes ethics salient and decreases dishonest self-reports in comparison to signing at the end. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(38), 15197–15200. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1209746109 (Retraction published 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118[38], Article e2115397118)
- Springer Nature. (n.d.). Common rejection reasons. How to submit a journal article manuscript. https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/campaigns/how-to-submit-a-journal-article-manuscript/common-rejection-reasons
- Sullivan, G. M., Simpson, D., Yarris, L. M., & Artino, A. R., Jr. (2019). Writing author response letters that get editors to "yes." Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 11(2), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-19-00161.1
- Wiley. (n.d.-a). Peer review process. Wiley Author Services. https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/submission-peer-review/peer-review.html
- Wiley. (n.d.-b). Refer and transfer. Wiley Author Services. https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/submission-peer-review/Refer_and_Transfer.html
- Zickfeld, J. H., Ścigała, K. A., Elbæk, C. T., Michael, J., Tønnesen, M. H., Levy, G., Ayal, S., Thielmann, I., Nockur, L., Peer, E., Capraro, V., Barkan, R., Bø, S., Bahník, Š., Nosenzo, D., Hertwig, R., Mazar, N., Weiss, A., Koessler, A.-K., . . . Mitkidis, P. (2024). Effectiveness of ex ante honesty oaths in reducing dishonesty depends on content. Nature Human Behaviour, 9(1), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02009-0