The 'Thank You, But' Technique

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-28

Quick Answer

• Use the Thank You, But technique to acknowledge a reviewer's effort before explaining why you disagree with a specific comment.
• Structure your response in three parts: specific acknowledgment, rationale for disagreement, and a constructive alternative that addresses the reviewer's underlying concern.
• The technique works best when you can cite evidence or data to support your position, and it fails when you dismiss feedback without explanation or offer no path forward.

Understanding the Thank You, But Technique

Peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing. The Committee on Publication Ethics identifies peer review as a core practice that journals must handle fairly and competently. When you receive reviewer comments, you are participating in a system designed to improve the quality of published research. The Thank You, But technique is a structured way to respond when you believe a reviewer has misunderstood your work, applied an inappropriate standard, or made an error in their assessment.

The technique rests on a simple premise. You can express genuine appreciation for the reviewer's time and effort while maintaining your position. The key is separating the person from the problem. You thank the reviewer for their contribution to the conversation, then you address the technical or scientific issue on its merits.

This approach matters because the peer review process depends on honest exchange. If you simply agree with every comment to avoid conflict, you may introduce errors or weaken your manuscript. If you dismiss reviewers outright, you risk damaging your reputation and the credibility of your work. The Thank You, But technique gives you a middle path that respects the process and your own scientific judgment.

Core Principles of the Technique

Specific Acknowledgment

The first component of the Thank You, But technique is a specific acknowledgment of the reviewer's effort. This is not a generic thank you. You should identify what the reviewer did that was useful. For example, you might say that you appreciate the reviewer's careful reading of your methodology section or that you value their attention to the statistical approach.

A specific acknowledgment serves two purposes. It shows the reviewer that you actually read their comments and took them seriously. It also establishes a tone of respect that makes your disagreement easier for the reviewer to accept. When you acknowledge the specific value in a comment, you demonstrate that your disagreement is based on substance, not defensiveness.

The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices emphasize that peer review should be conducted fairly and objectively. Your acknowledgment should reflect that same standard. You are not flattering the reviewer. You are recognizing the legitimate effort they put into evaluating your work.

Rationale for Disagreement

The second component is your rationale for disagreement. This is where you explain why you believe the reviewer's comment is incorrect or why you have chosen not to follow their suggestion. Your rationale must be grounded in evidence, methodology, or the scope of your study.

A strong rationale might reference your study design, your data, or the existing literature. For example, if a reviewer suggests that you should have used a different statistical test, you might explain why your chosen test was appropriate for your data structure and research question. If a reviewer questions your sample size, you might explain your power analysis or the constraints of your study population.

The National Library of Medicine research methods resources can help you articulate the methodological basis for your decisions. When you can point to established research methods that support your approach, your rationale becomes more persuasive. You are not simply defending your ego. You are defending the scientific integrity of your work.

Constructive Alternative

The third component is a constructive alternative. This is where you offer a way forward that addresses the reviewer's underlying concern without compromising your scientific position. The alternative might be a compromise, a clarification, or an addition to your manuscript that does not change your core findings.

For example, if a reviewer questions your interpretation of a result, you might agree to add a paragraph that acknowledges the alternative interpretation and explains why you believe your interpretation is more supported by the evidence. If a reviewer questions your methods, you might agree to add more detail about your procedures so that readers can better evaluate your approach.

The constructive alternative is what separates the Thank You, But technique from simple rejection. You are beyond saying no. You are saying that you appreciate the concern, you have a reason for your position, and here is what you can do to address the concern within the bounds of your scientific judgment.

The Reviewer Response Letter

The Thank You, But technique is most often applied in the reviewer response letter. This is the document you submit alongside your revised manuscript. The letter should address each reviewer comment in turn, explaining what you changed and what you did not change.

A well-structured response letter uses a table or a numbered list. Each entry includes the reviewer comment, your response, and a description of the changes you made. For comments where you disagree, you use the Thank You, But structure. You acknowledge the comment, explain your rationale, and offer your constructive alternative.

The response letter is a professional document. It should be clear, concise, and respectful. It should not be defensive or dismissive. The goal is to show the editor and the reviewer that you have taken the comments seriously and that you have made a good-faith effort to improve your manuscript.

When to Use the Thank You, But Technique

The Thank You, But technique is appropriate when you have a genuine, evidence-based reason to disagree with a reviewer. It is not appropriate when you are simply resistant to change or when you have not fully considered the reviewer's point.

You should use the technique when the reviewer has made a factual error. For example, if the reviewer misreads your methods or misinterprets your data, you can respectfully point out the error and explain the correct interpretation. You should also use the technique when the reviewer suggests a change that would conflict with your study design or your research question.

You should not use the technique when the reviewer has identified a genuine weakness in your manuscript. If the reviewer is right, you should make the change. If the reviewer suggests a change that would improve the clarity or rigor of your work, you should accept the suggestion. The Thank You, But technique is not a tool for avoiding legitimate criticism.

At a Glance

Practical Implementation Steps

Step 1: Read All Comments Before Responding

Before you write anything, read all the reviewer comments and the editor's decision letter. Make notes about which comments you agree with and which you disagree with. This gives you a complete picture of the revision process before you start writing.

Step 2: Categorize Each Comment

Create a table with three columns. In the first column, list each comment. In the second column, note whether you agree or disagree. In the third column, note what action you will take. This table becomes the foundation of your response letter.

Step 3: Draft Your Responses

For comments you agree with, write a brief response that describes the change you made. For comments you disagree with, use the Thank You, But structure. Start with the acknowledgment, then the rationale, then the constructive alternative.

Step 4: Check Your Tone

Read your response letter aloud. Does it sound respectful? Does it sound defensive? If you are angry or frustrated, wait a day and revise. The tone of your response letter can affect how the editor and reviewer receive your work.

Step 5: Submit Your Revision

When you submit your revision, include your response letter. Make sure the letter is complete and that you have addressed every comment. The editor will use your response letter to evaluate your revision.

Records and Measurements

Your response letter is a record of your decision-making process. It documents what you changed and why. This record is important for several reasons.

First, it shows the editor that you have taken the review process seriously. Second, it provides a basis for the editor's decision about your manuscript. Third, it creates a record of your scientific judgment that you can refer to if there are questions about your work later.

You should keep a copy of your response letter and your revised manuscript. You should also keep the original reviewer comments. This record can be useful if you need to explain your decisions to a supervisor, a collaborator, or a future editor.

The National Institutes of Health grant process also emphasizes the importance of documentation. When you apply for funding, you need to show that your research is rigorous and well-documented. Your response letters are part of that record.

Common Failure Patterns

Failure Pattern 1: The Dismissive Response

The dismissive response is when you reject a reviewer comment without acknowledging the reviewer's effort or explaining your rationale. This pattern is common when you are frustrated or when you believe the reviewer is wrong. The problem is that the dismissive response makes you look defensive and unprofessional.

Failure Pattern 2: The Overly Agreeable Response

The overly agreeable response is when you accept every reviewer comment, even when you disagree. This pattern is common when you are worried about rejection or when you want to avoid conflict. The problem is that you may weaken your manuscript or introduce errors by following suggestions that are not appropriate.

Failure Pattern 3: The Vague Response

The vague response is when you say that you disagree with a reviewer but you do not explain why. This pattern is common when you have not fully thought through your rationale. The problem is that the editor and the reviewer cannot evaluate your decision, and they may assume that you are being difficult.

Failure Pattern 4: The Emotional Response

The emotional response is when you let your frustration or anger show in your response letter. This pattern is common when you feel that the reviewer has been unfair or harsh. The problem is that the emotional response damages your credibility and may cause the editor to question your judgment.

Limitations of the Technique

The Thank You, But technique has limitations. It is not a guarantee that the editor will accept your position. The editor may still decide that the reviewer is right and that you should make the change. The technique is a way to communicate your position, not a way to control the outcome.

The technique also requires that you have a genuine rationale for your disagreement. If you do not have a strong reason, the technique will not help you. You cannot use the technique to avoid legitimate criticism or to protect a weak manuscript.

The technique is also limited by the quality of your evidence. If your rationale is based on a misunderstanding of the literature or a flawed analysis, the reviewer will see through it. The technique works best when you have a solid foundation for your position.

Safety and Regulatory Context

Peer review is a process that protects the integrity of the scientific record. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices emphasize that peer review should be fair, and transparent. When you use the Thank You, But technique, you are participating in this process in a way that respects the reviewer and the scientific record.

The National Library of Medicine provides access to research methods resources that can help you understand the standards of your field. When you can cite these standards in your rationale, you are beyond expressing an opinion. You are grounding your position in the established practices of your discipline.

The National Institutes of Health also has policies that affect your research. The NIH data management and sharing policy requires that you plan for the sharing of your data. When you respond to reviewers, you may need to explain how your data-sharing plan addresses their concerns. The Thank You, But technique can help you do this respectfully and clearly.

Professional Escalation Criteria

There are times when the Thank You, But technique is not enough. If you believe that a reviewer has acted unethically or that the review process has been unfair, you may need to escalate the issue to the editor.

You should escalate when the reviewer has made a personal attack or has used inappropriate language. You should also escalate when the reviewer has requested changes that would require you to falsify or misrepresent your data. The Committee on Publication Ethics provides guidance on how to handle these situations.

You should also escalate when you believe that the reviewer has a conflict of interest that has affected their review. For example, if the reviewer appears to be promoting their own work or the work of a competitor, you may need to bring this to the editor's attention.

When you escalate, you should do so in writing. Explain the situation clearly and provide evidence for your concern. The editor will then decide how to handle the issue.

The Role of the Editor

The editor is the final decision-maker in the peer review process. When you use the Thank You, But technique, you are writing to the editor as well as the reviewer. The editor will read your response letter and decide whether your revision is acceptable.

The editor is not obligated to accept your rationale. The editor may decide that the reviewer is right and that you should make the change. The editor may also decide that the reviewer is wrong and that your position is correct. The editor's decision is based on their judgment of the evidence and the quality of your response.

You should write your response letter with the editor in mind. The editor is the person who will decide whether your manuscript is accepted. Your response letter should be clear, respectful, and persuasive. It should show the editor that you have taken the review process seriously and that you have made a good-faith effort to improve your manuscript.

The Thank You, But Technique in Practice

The Thank You, But technique is a practical skill that you can develop with practice. The more you use it, the more natural it becomes. You will learn how to acknowledge reviewers, how to explain your rationale, and how to offer constructive alternatives.

The technique is also a way of thinking about the peer review process. It is a way of approaching the process with respect and integrity. It is a way of saying that you value the review process and that you are committed to the quality of your work.

When you use the technique, you are beyond responding to a reviewer. You are participating in a process that is designed to improve the quality of the scientific literature. You are showing that you are a responsible member of the scientific community.

Decision Framework for Disagreement Severity

The Thank You, But technique requires you to judge how firmly to hold your position and how much effort to invest in your response. A practical decision framework helps you sort reviewer comments into categories before you write a single word. This framework prevents two common errors: fighting every minor point and conceding on issues that matter to your study's integrity.

Level 1: Concede and Implement

The first level applies when the reviewer is correct or when the suggestion improves the manuscript without compromising your design. You implement the change and describe it briefly in your response letter. No Thank You, But structure is needed. You simply state what you changed and where.

Use this level when the reviewer catches a typo, requests a clarification, or suggests additional analysis that strengthens your argument. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices emphasize that peer review should improve the quality of published work. Accepting valid suggestions is part of that process.

Level 2: Concede With Modification

The second level applies when the reviewer raises a valid concern but their proposed solution does not fit your study. You agree with the underlying issue but offer a different way to address it. This is a partial Thank You, But response. You acknowledge the concern, explain why the specific suggestion is not workable, and offer your alternative.

For example, a reviewer might ask you to add a subgroup analysis that your sample size cannot support. You agree that subgroup effects are important, explain the power limitations, and offer to add a discussion paragraph about subgroup effects as a direction for future research. The National Library of Medicine research methods resources can help you articulate why a proposed analysis is not feasible with your data structure.

Level 3: Disagree With Evidence

The third level is the full Thank You, But response. You disagree with the reviewer's assessment and you have evidence or logic to support your position. This is where the technique matters most. You acknowledge the reviewer's effort, explain your rationale, and offer a constructive alternative.

Use this level when the reviewer has misread your methods, applied an inappropriate standard, or made a factual error. Your rationale should reference your study design, your data, or the established literature. The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines that can support your position when a reviewer asks for reporting that does not match your study type.

Level 4: Escalate to the Editor

The fourth level applies when the issue goes beyond a technical disagreement. You escalate when a reviewer makes a personal attack, requests data falsification, or appears to have a conflict of interest. The Committee on Publication Ethics provides guidance on handling these situations. You should document the issue and contact the editor directly.

Applying the Framework

For each reviewer comment, ask three questions. First, is the reviewer correct? If yes, use Level 1 or Level 2. Second, do I have evidence or logic to support my disagreement? If yes, use Level 3. Third, is there an ethical or professional concern beyond the technical content? If yes, use Level 4.

This framework prevents you from treating every comment the same way. It also prevents you from using the Thank You, But technique when a simple concession is more appropriate. The technique is a tool for genuine disagreement, not a default response to every comment.

A Scoring System for Disagreement Decisions

You can turn this framework into a simple scoring system. For each reviewer comment, assign a score from 1 to 5 for each of three criteria.

The first criterion is the validity of the reviewer's concern. A score of 1 means the reviewer is clearly wrong. A score of 5 means the reviewer has identified a genuine weakness. The second criterion is the impact of the suggested change on your study. A score of 1 means the change would have no effect on your findings. A score of 5 means the change would fundamentally alter your conclusions. The third criterion is the strength of your evidence for disagreement. A score of 1 means you have no evidence. A score of 5 means you have direct data or established methodology that supports your position.

Add the three scores. A total of 3 to 5 suggests you should concede and implement. A total of 6 to 9 suggests you should concede with modification. A total of 10 to 12 suggests you should use the full Thank You, But technique. A total of 13 to 15 suggests you should escalate to the editor if the issue involves ethics or professionalism.

This scoring system is not a substitute for judgment. It is a way to force yourself to think systematically about each comment before you respond. It also creates a record of your reasoning that you can refer to if the editor asks for clarification.

Recording Your Decisions

Your response letter should include a table that documents your decision for each comment. The table should have four columns. The first column lists the reviewer comment. The second column lists your decision level. The third column lists your rationale. The fourth column lists the action you took.

This table serves several purposes. It shows the editor that you have considered each comment systematically. It provides a record of your decision-making process. It also helps you maintain consistency across your responses. If you use the Thank You, But technique for one comment, you should use it for all comments that fall into the same category.

The National Institutes of Health grant process emphasizes the importance of documentation. Your response letter is part of your research record. It shows that you have engaged with the peer review process in a systematic and professional way.

Troubleshooting the Framework

The framework can fail in predictable ways. The first failure is when you score a comment as Level 3 but you do not have strong evidence. You should be honest with yourself about the strength of your position. If you cannot cite a source or point to a specific aspect of your study design, you may need to concede.

The second failure is when you use the framework to justify dismissing a reviewer without genuine consideration. The framework is a tool for organizing your thinking, not a way to avoid legitimate criticism. If you find yourself scoring every comment as a Level 3 disagreement, you should reconsider your approach.

The third failure is when you escalate too quickly. Escalation should be reserved for serious ethical or professional concerns. If you escalate every disagreement, you will lose credibility with the editor. The Committee on Publication Ethics core practices provide guidance on what constitutes a serious concern.

The fourth failure is when you do not document your decisions. If you do not keep a record of your reasoning, you cannot explain your decisions to the editor or to your collaborators. The record is part of your professional responsibility.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I respond to a reviewer comment I disagree with?

Use the Thank You, But technique. First, acknowledge the specific effort the reviewer made. Second, explain your rationale for disagreeing, using evidence or logic. Third, offer a constructive alternative that addresses the reviewer's underlying concern without compromising your scientific judgment.

What if the reviewer is wrong but I cannot prove it?

If you cannot prove the reviewer is wrong, you should consider whether the reviewer might be right. If you still believe the reviewer is wrong, you can explain your reasoning and offer a constructive alternative. The editor will make the final decision.

How do I avoid sounding dismissive when I disagree?

The key is to be specific in your acknowledgment. Do not say thank you for your comment. Say thank you for your careful reading of our statistical analysis. This shows that you have taken the comment seriously and that you are not dismissing the reviewer.

What if the reviewer suggests a change that would weaken my manuscript?

If the reviewer's suggestion would weaken your manuscript, you should explain why you believe the change would be harmful. Use the Thank You, But technique to acknowledge the reviewer's effort, explain your rationale, and offer a constructive alternative.

How long should my response letter be?

Your response letter should be as long as it needs to be to address every comment. It should be clear and concise, but it should not be so short that you do not explain your decisions. A good response letter is a complete record of your decision-making process.

What if I disagree with the editor, not the reviewer?

If you disagree with the editor, you should address your concern directly to the editor. The Thank You, But technique can still be useful. Acknowledge the editor's decision, explain your rationale, and offer a constructive alternative.

How do I handle a reviewer who is rude or unprofessional?

If a reviewer is rude or unprofessional, you should not respond in kind. Use the Thank You, But technique to maintain your professionalism. If the behavior is severe, you may need to escalate the issue to the editor.

What if I am not sure whether to agree or disagree with a reviewer?

If you are not sure, you should consider the reviewer's comment carefully. If the comment is reasonable and would improve your manuscript, you should agree. If the comment is not reasonable, you should use the Thank You, But technique to explain your position.

Using the Evidence

Related Articles

• Meta-Analysis vs Peer Review: Understanding the Differences
• Peer Review Metrics: What They Are and How to Use Them
• Sample Size Symbol and Notation: What You Need to Know
• Cosmetics Regulatory Affairs Jobs: What You Need to Know
• Responding to Peer Review: A Structured Revision and Response Process

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.