Quoting Reviewer Comments in Your Response

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-27

Quick Answer

• Quote reviewer comments exactly as written, using quotation marks or block formatting, to show precise attention to each concern.
• Pair every quoted comment with a direct, numbered response that explains what you changed or why you disagree with evidence.
• Never alter a reviewer's wording, even to fix typos, because misquoting can damage trust and complicate the revision record.

Understanding Why Accurate Quoting Matters in Peer Review

Peer review depends on clear communication between authors, reviewers, and editors. When you receive a decision letter requesting revisions, the reviewer comments become the working document for your response. How you quote those comments shapes whether the editor can quickly verify that you addressed each point and whether reviewers feel their concerns were understood.

The Committee on Publication Ethics identifies peer review as a core practice in scholarly publishing, meaning journals have formal expectations for how review processes operate and how participants communicate. Your response letter is part of that formal record. When you quote accurately, you demonstrate that you read the comments carefully and that your revisions map directly to the concerns raised.

Misquoting or paraphrasing inaccurately creates two problems. First, the editor may struggle to match your response to the original comment, slowing the decision process. Second, the reviewer may perceive that you misrepresented their words, which can introduce tension into what should be a constructive exchange. The goal of a response letter is to make verification easy and to show respect for the reviewer's effort.

Core Principles for Quoting Reviewer Comments

Quote Exactly, Never Edit

The most important rule is to reproduce reviewer comments verbatim. This means preserving the original spelling, punctuation, and wording, even if the comment contains an error or awkward phrasing. If a reviewer wrote "the metod is flawed," you quote it as "the metod is flawed." You may add a bracketed note such as "[sic]" to indicate the error is in the original, but you must not silently correct it.

Exact quoting protects you in several ways. It prevents any accusation that you distorted the reviewer's meaning. It also creates a clear audit trail so the editor can compare your response against the original comment without confusion. When reviewers see their exact words in your letter, they recognize that you engaged with their actual concern instead of a version you found more convenient.

Distinguish Between Direct Quotes and Paraphrases

Not every reviewer comment needs to be quoted in full. Some comments are lengthy, and quoting entire paragraphs can make your response letter unwieldy. The skill lies in deciding when to quote directly and when to paraphrase.

Quote directly when the reviewer made a specific, actionable request or raised a pointed criticism. For example, if a reviewer wrote "The statistical analysis is inappropriate for this study design," quote that sentence exactly so your response can address it head-on. Paraphrase when you need to summarize a longer comment or group related concerns together. When you paraphrase, make clear that you are restating the reviewer's point in your own words, and be careful to preserve the original meaning without softening or exaggerating it.

Use Formatting to Make Quotes Visually Distinct

Your response letter should make it immediately obvious which text comes from the reviewer and which text is your response. Standard approaches include:

• Placing quoted comments in italics or quotation marks
• Using a block quote format for longer comments
• Numbering each comment and response pair
• Using bold or a different font color for your responses

Whatever formatting system you choose, apply it consistently throughout the letter. The editor and reviewers should never have to guess whether a sentence is a quote or your own words.

Formatting Your Response Letter

Numbered Comment and Response Pairs

The most common and effective structure for a response letter is to number each reviewer comment and provide your response directly beneath it. This creates a clear one-to-one correspondence that the editor can follow quickly.

A typical format looks like this:

Reviewer 1, Comment 1: "The methods section does not describe how sample size was determined."

Response: We agree that sample size justification was missing. We have added a new paragraph to the Methods section describing the power analysis used to determine the sample size, including the assumed effect size and significance threshold.

Numbering serves multiple purposes. It helps you track that you have addressed every comment. It helps the editor verify completeness. It also helps reviewers navigate to their specific concerns without reading the entire letter.

Grouping Comments by Theme

Some response letters organize comments by theme instead of by reviewer. This approach can work when multiple reviewers raised similar concerns. For example, you might group all comments about statistical methods into one section and all comments about literature coverage into another.

Thematic grouping has a tradeoff. It can reduce repetition in your responses, but it can also make it harder for the editor to verify that each individual comment received a response. If you use thematic grouping, include a mapping table that shows which reviewer made each comment and where your response appears.

Handling Lengthy Comments

When a reviewer comment is long, you have two options. You can quote the entire comment and then respond, or you can quote the key sentence and summarize the rest. If you choose to summarize, make clear that you are condensing the comment and provide enough context that the reviewer recognizes their point.

For example, you might write: "Reviewer 2 raised several concerns about the discussion section, including that we overstate the clinical implications of our findings. The reviewer wrote: 'The authors should be more cautious in their conclusions.' We have revised the final paragraph to acknowledge the study limitations more explicitly."

This approach shows that you read the full comment while keeping your letter focused.

Practical Steps for Building Your Response Letter

Step 1: Organize the Reviewer Comments

Before you write any responses, create a working document that lists every comment from every reviewer. Copy the comments exactly as they appear in the decision letter. Include the reviewer number and comment number for each entry.

This master list becomes your checklist. As you revise your manuscript, mark which comments you have addressed. When you finish the revisions, you can build your response letter directly from this list, ensuring nothing is missed.

Step 2: Draft Responses That Show Specific Changes

Each response should do three things. First, acknowledge the reviewer's concern. Second, describe what you changed in the manuscript. Third, point to where the change appears, such as "Methods, paragraph 3" or "Figure 2 legend."

Avoid vague responses such as "We have revised the manuscript accordingly." These give the editor no way to verify your work. Instead, be specific about what changed and where.

Step 3: Decide When to Disagree

You are not required to accept every reviewer comment. Sometimes reviewers misunderstand your work or suggest changes that would introduce errors. In those cases, you can disagree, but you must do so respectfully and with evidence.

When you disagree, quote the comment exactly, then explain your reasoning. Reference specific data, analyses, or literature that support your position. If the journal allows, you might also note that you have added a sentence to the manuscript to clarify the point the reviewer misunderstood.

The Committee on Publication Ethics notes that peer review should be conducted fairly and objectively. Your response letter should reflect that same standard. Disagreement is acceptable when it is evidence-based and courteous.

Step 4: Review Your Letter for Accuracy

Before submitting, read your response letter alongside the original decision letter. Verify that every quoted comment matches the original text exactly. Verify that every comment received a response. Verify that your descriptions of manuscript changes are accurate.

This final check is important because errors in your response letter can delay the decision or create the impression that you were careless. The same attention you gave to your manuscript revisions should apply to your response letter.

At a Glance

Common Failure Patterns in Response Letters

Altering the Reviewer's Words

The most serious failure is changing a reviewer's wording, whether by correcting typos, changing emphasis, or editing for brevity without indicating the change. Even well-intentioned edits can create problems. If a reviewer notices that their comment was altered, they may question whether you accurately represented their concerns elsewhere.

If you must shorten a quote, use ellipses to indicate omitted text. If you must add context, use brackets. Never change the reviewer's actual words.

Responding to a Different Comment Than the One Quoted

Another common failure is quoting a comment and then responding to a different issue. This can happen when you group comments by theme and accidentally attach a response to the wrong quote. It can also happen when you assume you understand the reviewer's concern without reading carefully.

The fix is to read each comment twice before responding. First, read to understand the concern. Second, read to identify the specific request or criticism. Then write your response to match that specific point.

Using Vague Language in Responses

Responses such as "We have addressed this concern" or "This has been fixed" do not give the editor enough information. The editor needs to know what you changed and where. Without that specificity, the editor may need to reread your entire manuscript to verify your response, which slows the process.

Write responses that stand alone. A reader who has not seen your manuscript should understand what you changed and why.

Ignoring the Tone of the Reviewer's Comment

Reviewer comments range from constructive to critical to occasionally harsh. Your response should match the substance of the comment without matching its tone. If a reviewer was blunt, respond professionally and focus on the technical issue. If a reviewer was encouraging, acknowledge that appreciation briefly before addressing the substance.

Never respond with defensiveness or sarcasm. The response letter is a professional document, and the editor will read it as a reflection of your ability to collaborate in the scholarly process.

Records and Measurements for Tracking Revisions

Maintaining a Revision Log

A revision log is a practical tool for tracking your progress through the revision process. Create a table with columns for comment number, reviewer, comment summary, your response, and the location of the change in your manuscript.

This log serves multiple purposes. It helps you organize your work during the revision period. It becomes the foundation for your response letter. It also provides a record you can consult if questions arise later about what was changed and why.

Verifying Completeness

Before you submit your revised manuscript, count the comments in the decision letter and compare that number to the responses in your letter. Every comment should have a response. If you grouped comments by theme, verify that each individual comment is accounted for in your mapping.

This verification step is simple but essential. Missing a comment is one of the most common reasons editors return response letters for revision.

Tracking Changes in the Manuscript

Your response letter should reference specific locations in your revised manuscript. Use paragraph numbers, section names, or line numbers if the journal provides them. This makes it easy for the editor and reviewers to find your changes.

If you made changes that were not directly requested but that you believe improve the manuscript, mention them separately. Do not bury unrelated changes in responses to specific comments, as this can confuse the reviewer about what was requested versus what you added voluntarily.

Welfare and Professional Context in Scholarly Communication

The Role of Peer Review in Research Integrity

Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing because it provides independent scrutiny of research before publication. The Committee on Publication Ethics includes peer review among its core practices, emphasizing that journals should have clear policies for handling submissions, conducting review, and managing disputes.

Your response letter is part of this integrity framework. When you quote accurately and respond honestly, you contribute to a review process that functions as intended. When you misquote or respond evasively, you undermine the process and risk delaying or damaging your publication.

Professional Conduct Toward Reviewers

Reviewers volunteer their time to evaluate your work. They typically receive no payment and no formal recognition beyond acknowledgment in the journal's annual list of reviewers. Your response letter should reflect an awareness of this contribution.

Professional conduct includes acknowledging valid criticisms, explaining your reasoning when you disagree, and expressing appreciation for the time the reviewers spent. It does not require you to accept every suggestion, but it does require you to engage seriously with every comment.

Escalation Criteria for Problematic Review Situations

Most review interactions proceed constructively, but problems can arise. If a reviewer makes inappropriate personal remarks, demands citations to their own work without scientific justification, or requests changes that would compromise the integrity of your research, you may need to escalate the issue to the editor.

The Committee on Publication Ethics provides guidance on handling ethical issues in publishing, including disputes between authors and reviewers. If you believe a reviewer has acted unethically, contact the editor directly and explain the situation with specific evidence. Do not respond to the reviewer with accusations in your response letter. Keep the letter professional and raise your concerns separately.

Similarly, if you believe the editor has mishandled the review process, you can contact the journal's editorial office or, in serious cases, the publisher. Most journals have procedures for appealing editorial decisions, and the Committee on Publication Ethics offers resources for authors who encounter ethical problems.

Limitations of Quoting Practices

Journals May Have Specific Requirements

Some journals provide specific instructions for response letters, including formatting requirements or limits on length. Always check the journal's author guidelines before preparing your response. If the journal specifies a format, follow it even if it differs from general recommendations.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for many study types, and some journals require authors to indicate how they addressed reporting guideline items in their response letters. If your study type has a relevant reporting guideline, consult it during revision and reference it in your response where appropriate.

Quoting Does Not Guarantee Acceptance

Accurate quoting and thorough responses improve your chances of a favorable decision, but they do not guarantee acceptance. Reviewers may still find problems with your revised manuscript, or the editor may decide that the revisions are insufficient. Your response letter is one part of the process, not a guarantee of outcome.

Cultural and Disciplinary Differences

Response letter conventions vary across disciplines and journals. What is standard in a biomedical journal may differ from practices in physics or humanities journals. If you are uncertain about expectations, look at published response letters from the same journal or ask colleagues in your field.

The National Library of Medicine provides access to research methods resources that can help you understand disciplinary norms and expectations. Consulting these resources can help you tailor your response letter to your specific context.

Building a Comment Classification System for Faster Response Drafting

Why a Classification System Improves Your Response Workflow

Most response letters fail not because the writing is poor but because the author treats every comment with the same drafting strategy. A reviewer comment that asks for a missing statistical test requires a different response structure than a comment that questions your interpretation of a result. When you classify each comment before drafting, you can apply the appropriate quoting and response pattern from the start, reducing revision cycles and making your letter easier for editors to verify.

The Committee on Publication Ethics identifies peer review as a core practice in scholarly publishing, which means journals expect authors to engage with reviewer feedback systematically. A classification system gives you a repeatable method for that engagement. It also helps you spot patterns across reviewers, such as three separate comments that all point to the same weakness in your methods section, so you can address the root cause once instead of patching symptoms repeatedly.

The Four Comment Types You Will Encounter

Reviewer comments generally fall into four categories, and each requires a distinct quoting and response approach.

Type 1: Request for Clarification. The reviewer did not understand something in your manuscript. These comments often use phrases like "It is unclear" or "Please explain." Quote the exact sentence that triggered the confusion, then respond by describing the clarifying text you added. Your response should point to the specific location of the new text and briefly summarize what it says.

Type 2: Request for Additional Analysis or Data. The reviewer wants new work, such as a sensitivity analysis, a subgroup comparison, or an additional experiment. These comments require the most substantive response. Quote the request exactly, describe what you did, report the result, and state where the new material appears in your manuscript. If you chose not to perform the requested work, explain your reasoning with evidence and offer an alternative that addresses the underlying concern.

Type 3: Criticism of Interpretation or Claims. The reviewer believes you overstated a conclusion or misinterpreted a finding. These comments require careful handling because you may need to revise your language even if you disagree with the reviewer's framing. Quote the specific sentence the reviewer criticized, then either show the revised wording or explain with evidence why you retained your original claim.

Type 4: Editorial or Minor Correction. The reviewer noted a typo, a missing citation, or a formatting issue. These are the simplest to address. Quote the comment briefly, state that you corrected the issue, and give the location. Do not overexplain these responses, but do not skip them either, because editors check that every comment received a response.

Building Your Classification Table

Create a working table with columns for comment number, reviewer, comment type, quoting strategy, and response approach. As you read each comment, assign it a type before you draft any response text. This forces you to understand the nature of the comment first, which prevents the common failure of responding to a surface issue while missing the underlying concern.

For example, a comment that says "The authors claim the intervention was effective, but the confidence intervals are wide" is a Type 3 criticism of interpretation, not a Type 2 request for new analysis. If you respond by adding a sensitivity analysis without addressing the interpretive claim, the reviewer may feel you dodged their point. Classifying first helps you see that your response must address the strength of your claim, possibly by softening your language or adding a limitations sentence.

Applying the Classification to Your Drafting Order

Once you have classified every comment, draft your responses in a strategic order instead of sequentially. Start with Type 4 comments because they are quick and build momentum. Then address Type 1 clarification comments, which usually require modest text additions. Move to Type 3 interpretation comments, which require careful wording. Leave Type 2 analysis requests for last because they often take the most time and may require new results that affect other parts of your manuscript.

This ordering also helps you manage your revision workload. If a Type 2 comment requires a new analysis, you may need to rerun statistical models or collect additional data. Starting that work early while you draft responses to simpler comments uses your time efficiently.

Troubleshooting When Comments Do Not Fit the Classification

Some comments will resist easy classification. A reviewer might combine a clarification request with a criticism of interpretation in a single sentence. In that case, split the comment into its component parts and respond to each part separately under the same comment number. Quote the full comment, then structure your response with subpoints that address each element.

Another common situation is a comment that implies a request without stating one directly. For example, a reviewer might write "The discussion does not address the generalizability of these findings." This is not an explicit request, but it functions as a Type 1 clarification request. Treat it as such and add a paragraph on generalizability, then quote the comment and describe your addition.

If you are genuinely uncertain what a comment is asking, do not guess. Draft a response that acknowledges the comment, states your interpretation of the concern, and describes what you did in response. This gives the editor and reviewer a chance to correct your understanding if you misread the point.

Recording Classification Decisions for Your Revision Log

Add a classification column to your revision log so you can track which comment types required the most work. This record helps you estimate revision time for future submissions and shows you which sections of your manuscript attract the most scrutiny. If you notice that most Type 2 comments target your statistical methods, you can strengthen that section before your next submission.

The National Library of Medicine provides access to research methods resources that can help you understand common reviewer concerns in your field. Reviewing these resources before you draft your responses can help you anticipate what reviewers will ask and prepare stronger responses to Type 2 and Type 3 comments.

Escalation Criteria for Classification Disputes

Classification is a drafting tool, not a formal requirement, so you do not need to escalate classification disagreements. However, if you find that a comment resists classification because it is vague, contradictory, or appears to reference a section of your manuscript that does not exist, you may need to contact the editor for clarification before drafting your response. This is appropriate when the comment is so unclear that you cannot responsibly respond without risking a mismatch between your response and the reviewer's intent.

The Committee on Publication Ethics notes that peer review should be conducted fairly, and this includes the expectation that comments are specific enough for authors to act on them. If you must contact the editor, quote the comment exactly, explain why it is unclear, and ask for clarification. Do this before your revision deadline so you have time to incorporate the editor's guidance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should I quote every reviewer comment in full?

No. Quote comments in full when they are specific and actionable. For longer comments, quote the key sentence and summarize the rest. The goal is to show the reviewer that you understood their concern while keeping your letter readable.

How do I handle a reviewer comment that contains a typo?

Quote the comment exactly as written and add "[sic]" to indicate the error is in the original. Never silently correct a reviewer's typo, because the editor may compare your quote against the original and notice the discrepancy.

Can I paraphrase a reviewer comment instead of quoting it?

Yes, but make clear that you are paraphrasing. Use phrases such as "The reviewer raised a concern about..." and then restate the point in your own words. Be careful to preserve the original meaning without softening or exaggerating it.

What should I do if I disagree with a reviewer comment?

Quote the comment exactly, then explain your reasoning with evidence. Reference specific data, analyses, or literature that support your position. You may also add a clarifying sentence to your manuscript to address the misunderstanding.

How long should my response letter be?

There is no standard length. The letter should be long enough to address every comment thoroughly and short enough to remain readable. Focus on specificity instead of length. A response that says exactly what changed and where is more useful than a long response that is vague.

Should I respond to every comment separately or group them?

Either approach is acceptable, but consistency matters. If you group comments by theme, include a mapping table that shows which reviewer made each comment and where your response appears. This helps the editor verify completeness.

What if a reviewer made a comment that no longer applies after my revisions?

If a reviewer's concern was resolved by changes made in response to another comment, say so explicitly. Quote the original comment, then explain that the issue was addressed through a specific change made in response to another point.

How do I handle comments from multiple reviewers that overlap?

You can respond to overlapping comments together, but make sure each reviewer sees that their specific comment was addressed. Quote each reviewer's comment or reference the reviewer number, then provide a response that covers the shared concern.

Using the Evidence

Related Articles

• Open Access Practices for Researchers: A Guide
• Open Science Practices: A Guide for Researchers
• Ethical Research Practices: A Guide to Responsible Conduct
• Survey Design for Qualitative Research: Best Practices
• Infection Prevention in the NICU: Best Practices and Protocols

References and Further Reading

• Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
• NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
• ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
• Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.