A decision of "major revision" or "minor revision" is good news. It means the editor sees value in your paper and wants to publish it if you can address the concerns. What happens next depends largely on your response letter: a clear, complete and polite response can turn a hesitant editor into an accepting one.
Before you write
- Read the comments, then put them aside for a day. First reactions are often defensive. A day later, most comments look more reasonable
- Number every comment from every reviewer, and split long comments into separate points
- Decide your action for each: change, add, clarify, or politely disagree
- Note the deadline, and ask the editor for more time early if new analysis will take longer. Editors usually agree when asked in good time
The structure that works
Begin with a short letter to the editor: thank the editor and reviewers, and summarise the main changes in three or four lines. Then answer every comment in order, using the same three parts each time:
Reviewer 1, Comment 3: The authors should test whether the results hold with an alternative measure of firm size.
Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have repeated the main analysis using total assets in place of employee numbers. The results are consistent with our main findings, and we now report them as a robustness check.
Change in the manuscript: Section 4.3, page 12, lines 240 to 262; new Table 5.
This format lets the editor check each point in seconds, without hunting through the manuscript.
A simple opening you can adapt
Dear Editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, "[title]" (manuscript number [number]). We are grateful to you and the reviewers for the careful reading and constructive comments, which have improved the paper.
The main changes are: (1) a robustness check using an alternative measure; (2) an expanded discussion of the study's limitations; and (3) an updated review of recent literature. Our point-by-point responses follow. Changes in the manuscript are highlighted in yellow.
Yours sincerely,
[Name], on behalf of all authors
Good practice
- Answer every comment, even the small ones. A skipped comment is the most common reason for a second round
- Show exactly where each change is, by section, page and line
- Highlight changes in the revised manuscript, or use tracked changes if the journal asks for them
- Be specific: "we added three studies published between 2024 and 2026" is better than "we updated the literature"
- Quote new text in the response when it is short, so the reviewer can read it without opening the manuscript
- Stay polite, even when a comment seems unfair or shows that the reviewer misread the paper. If a reviewer misunderstood something, other readers may too, so clarify the text
When you disagree
You do not have to accept every suggestion. When you disagree, explain your reasons with evidence: a reference, a result, or a methodological argument. Show that you took the point seriously, and where you can, make a small change anyway, such as a sentence acknowledging the alternative view. For example:
We appreciate this suggestion and considered it carefully. However, a fixed-effects model is not suitable here because our key variable does not change over time for most firms (see Wooldridge, 2010). We have added a note explaining this choice in Section 3.2, page 8, lines 150 to 156.
Editors respect a well-argued disagreement far more than silence or a vague reply.
When reviewers contradict each other
Sometimes one reviewer asks you to shorten a section and another asks you to expand it. Do not try to satisfy both by accident. Choose the approach you think is best, explain the conflict openly in your response to each reviewer, and if necessary ask the editor for guidance in your cover letter.
Final checks
- Every comment answered, with locations given
- Abstract, introduction and conclusion updated if your results or framing changed
- New references added to the reference list and formatted in the journal's style
- Tables, figures and their numbering still consistent
- Word and page limits still met
- A clean version and a marked version uploaded, if the journal asks for both
If the answer is "reject and resubmit"
Treat it much like a major revision: the editor is still interested. Make substantial changes, explain them fully in a cover letter, and resubmit as a new manuscript, referring to the earlier number.
Our submission and peer-review support helps you plan revisions and draft the response letter with you, and our manuscript editing service can polish the revised text.
