Revision Response Template
This template helps authors systematically respond to all review comments. The format follows Reviewer Comment → Author Response → Changes Made (R→A→C format).
Instructions
- Every reviewer comment must receive a response; none may be skipped
- If you disagree with a comment, you must explain your reasoning (not simply "disagree")
- Change tracking: Mark all changes in the revised manuscript using tracked changes or color highlighting
- Page cross-reference: Provide page number cross-references between the original and revised manuscripts
Template
# Response to Reviewer Comments
## Manuscript Information
- **Title**: [Paper title]
- **Manuscript ID**: [Manuscript number]
- **Original Submission Date**: [Original submission date]
- **Revision Submission Date**: [Revised manuscript submission date]
- **Review Round**: [Round N revision]
---
## Summary of Changes
[300-500 words summarizing the major changes made in this revision]
### Major Changes
1. [Major change 1 — brief description]
2. [Major change 2]
3. [...]
### Structural Changes
- [Section reorganization/additions/deletions]
- [Word count change: original X words → revised Y words]
### New Content
- [Newly added analyses/data/references]
---
## Response to Journal-Fit Reviewer
### Journal-Fit Reviewer Comment 1
> [Direct quote of the Journal-Fit Reviewer's comment]
**Author Response**: [Response]
**Changes Made**: [Specific changes made, indicating revised manuscript page X, paragraph Y]
---
### Journal-Fit Reviewer Comment 2
> [Direct quote]
**Author Response**: [Response]
**Changes Made**: [Specific changes]
---
[Repeat the above format for each Journal-Fit Reviewer comment]
---
## Response to Reviewer 1 (Methodology)
### Strengths Acknowledged (only when the review reported strengths)
We thank Reviewer 1 for acknowledging the following aspects:
1. [Quote Reviewer 1's positive comments]
2. [...]
[A zero-strength review legitimately has no entries here — skip this block rather than invent praise to fill it (#574 A1).]
### R1-W1: [Weakness title]
> [Direct quote of Reviewer 1's weakness description]
**Author Response**:
[Detailed response, which may include:]
- We agree / partially agree with the Reviewer's point
- Specific changes made to address this issue
- If disagreeing, provide rationale and evidence
**Changes Made**:
- [Revised manuscript page X, paragraph Y: specific text changes]
- [Newly added analyses/tables/figures: description]
- [Or: We maintain the original text for the following reasons...]
---
### R1-W2: [Weakness title]
> [Direct quote]
**Author Response**: [Response]
**Changes Made**: [Specific changes]
---
### R1-W3: [Weakness title]
> [Direct quote]
**Author Response**: [Response]
**Changes Made**: [Specific changes]
---
### R1-W4..Wn
[Repeat the same structure for EVERY additional weakness in the report — weakness lists are unbounded (#574 A1), and every emitted weakness gets a response entry; none may be dropped for exceeding a template count.]
---
### R1 Questions
#### R1-Q1
> [Direct quote of Reviewer 1's question]
**Author Response**: [Answer]
**Changes Made**: [If applicable, indicate change location]
---
#### R1-Q2
> [Direct quote]
**Author Response**: [Answer]
**Changes Made**: [If applicable]
---
### R1 Minor Issues
| # | Reviewer Comment | Action Taken | Location |
|---|-----------------|--------------|----------|
| 1 | [Minor issue description] | [Correction/explanation] | p.X, para.Y |
| 2 | [Minor issue description] | [Correction/explanation] | p.X, para.Y |
...
---
## Response to Reviewer 2 (Domain Expert)
[Same format as above: Strengths Acknowledged → W1..Wn (every emitted weakness, unbounded — #574 A1) → Questions → Minor Issues]
---
## Response to Reviewer 3 (Interdisciplinary Perspective)
[Same format as above: Strengths Acknowledged → W1..Wn (every emitted weakness, unbounded — #574 A1) → Questions → Minor Issues]
---
## Response to Required Revisions
[Respond to each Required Revision from the Editorial Decision one by one]
| # | Required Revision | Status | Response Summary | Location |
|---|------------------|--------|-----------------|----------|
| R1 | [Description] | Completed / Partially Addressed | [Summary] | p.X-Y |
| R2 | [Description] | Completed / Partially Addressed | [Summary] | p.X-Y |
| R3 | [Description] | Completed / Partially Addressed | [Summary] | p.X-Y |
...
---
## Response to Suggested Revisions
| # | Suggested Revision | Status | Response Summary |
|---|-------------------|--------|-----------------|
| S1 | [Description] | Adopted / Not Adopted (reason) | [Summary] |
| S2 | [Description] | Adopted / Not Adopted (reason) | [Summary] |
...
---
## Change Log
### Page-by-Page Changes
| Page (Original) | Page (Revised) | Section | Change Description |
|-----------------|---------------|---------|-------------------|
| p.3 | p.3-4 | Introduction | Added research motivation paragraph |
| p.7-8 | p.8-9 | Methodology | Supplemented sampling strategy description |
| p.12 | p.13 | Results | Added Table 4 (effect sizes) |
| — | p.16-17 | Discussion | Added limitations discussion subsection |
| p.20-22 | p.23-25 | References | Added 8 new references |
### Word Count Change
- **Original**: [X] words
- **Revised**: [Y] words
- **Net Change**: [+/- Z] words
---
## Closing Statement
We sincerely appreciate the reviewers' thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the quality of our manuscript. We believe the revised version addresses all the concerns raised, and we hope it now meets the standards of [journal name].
[If any items were not fully addressed, explain the reasons and future plans here]Quality Standards for Responses
Characteristics of Good Responses
- Direct: Does not evade issues; addresses every comment head-on
- Specific: Points to the exact location and content of changes
- Evidence-based: If disagreeing with a reviewer, provides supporting literature or data
- Courteous: Thanks the reviewer for feedback, even when disagreeing
- Complete: No reviewer comment is left unaddressed
Characteristics of Poor Responses
- Perfunctory: "Changed" (but does not say what was changed)
- Evasive: Avoids answering difficult questions
- Defensive: "The Reviewer misunderstood my paper" (but does not explain why)
- Over-promising: Acknowledges all problems but provides no solutions
- Missing markers: Changes were made but locations are not indicated, making it impossible for reviewers to find them
The Correct Way to Disagree with a Reviewer
# Correct approach
> Reviewer: Suggest using Method X instead of Method Y
**Author Response**: We appreciate the Reviewer's suggestion. Our reasons for choosing Method Y over Method X are as follows:
1. Method Y performs better when handling [specific type of] data (Smith et al., 2023)
2. In our research design, the assumptions of Method X (such as [assumption]) are not satisfied
3. However, we have added a robustness check using Method X in the revised manuscript (Appendix B), and the results are consistent.
**Changes Made**: Added Appendix B (pp.25-26), containing robustness check results using Method X. Added justification for choosing Method Y in the methodology section (p.9, para.3).
# Incorrect approach
> Reviewer: Suggest using Method X instead of Method Y
**Author Response**: We disagree. Method Y is appropriate.