Using Tables and Appendices in Your Response Letter

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

Quick Answer

• Use tables in your response letter when reviewers raise multiple distinct points that share a clear structure, such as point-by-point replies, revised locations, or data summaries.
• Place detailed supporting material in appendices when it is too long for a table or when it would interrupt the logical flow of your response narrative.
• A key limitation is that tables cannot replace clear prose explanations, and appendices must be referenced explicitly in your letter so reviewers know where to look.

Understanding the Purpose of a Response Letter

A response letter is a formal document that accompanies your revised manuscript when you resubmit it to a journal after peer review. The letter serves two primary functions. First, it demonstrates that you have read and understood each reviewer comment. Second, it shows exactly how you addressed each concern in the revised manuscript. Editors and reviewers use this letter to evaluate whether your revision is responsive and whether you have engaged seriously with the feedback.

The structure of your response letter matters because reviewers often handle many manuscripts at once. A cluttered or disorganized letter makes their job harder and can create the impression that you did not take their comments seriously. When you organize your responses clearly, you help reviewers verify your work quickly and accurately. This practical benefit explains why journals and publication experts emphasize clear organization in revision correspondence.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the responsibilities of authors during peer review, including responding appropriately to reviewer feedback. While these practices do not prescribe a specific letter format, they establish that transparent and honest communication with journals is a core ethical obligation. Your response letter is part of that communication record.

When Tables Improve Your Response Letter

Tables are not appropriate for every response letter. They work best when you have a specific type of information that benefits from visual organization. The decision to use a table should come from the nature of your content, not from a desire to make the letter look more polished.

Multiple Reviewer Comments on the Same Topic

When two or more reviewers raise concerns about the same aspect of your manuscript, a table can help you show how you addressed each comment. For example, if Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 both question your statistical approach, you can create a table that lists each comment, your response, and the location of the revision. This format lets reviewers see at a glance that you considered both perspectives.

A table is especially useful when the comments are related but not identical. You can use columns to show the reviewer number, the original comment or a paraphrase, your response, and the manuscript location where the change appears. This structure prevents you from writing repetitive prose paragraphs that say essentially the same thing twice.

Point-by-Point Response Tracking

Journals commonly expect authors to respond to each comment individually. A table can serve as a tracking mechanism that ensures you have not missed any comments. You can list every comment in the first column and mark your response in the second column. This approach gives you a checklist that is visible to the editor and reviewers.

The table format also helps you maintain consistency in your responses. When you respond to twenty or thirty comments, it is easy to become inconsistent in how much detail you provide. A table with defined columns encourages you to give each comment the same level of attention.

Summarizing Changes Across the Manuscript

Reviewers often ask for changes that affect multiple sections of your manuscript. For instance, a request to clarify your inclusion criteria might require edits to the abstract, methods, results, and discussion. A table can summarize these cross-cutting changes in one place.

You can structure the table with columns for the reviewer request, the sections affected, and the specific changes made. This format is more efficient than describing each change separately in prose. It also helps the editor see the full scope of your revision without reading through long paragraphs.

Data or Parameter Summaries

When reviewers ask you to report additional analyses, sensitivity checks, or parameter values, a table can present this information compactly. For example, if you ran multiple sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of your findings, a table can show the different model specifications and their results.

This use of tables is particularly valuable when the data are too extensive to include in the response letter prose but too important to omit. You can present the key numbers in the table and refer readers to an appendix for the full output.

When Appendices Are the Better Choice

Appendices serve a different purpose than tables. They hold material that is too long, too detailed, or too peripheral to include in the main response letter. The decision to use an appendix should be based on the length and importance of the material.

Full Statistical Output or Code

Reviewers sometimes ask to see complete statistical output, analysis code, or additional figures. This material can run to many pages and would overwhelm a response letter. An appendix is the appropriate place for such content.

When you place material in an appendix, you must reference it clearly in your response letter. Tell the reviewer exactly which appendix contains the material and what they will find there. A vague reference such as "see appendix" is not helpful. Instead, write something like "the full regression output for the sensitivity analysis is provided in Appendix A, Table A1."

Extended Quotations or Source Materials

If a reviewer questions your interpretation of a source or asks to see the original wording of a policy document, you may need to provide extended quotations. These can be placed in an appendix to keep the main letter readable. The same principle applies to copies of correspondence, ethics approvals, or other supporting documents.

Reproducible Protocols or Supplementary Methods

Some revisions require you to describe methods in more detail than the manuscript allows. Detailed protocols, reagent lists, or step-by-step procedures can go in an appendix. This approach keeps your response letter focused on the conceptual response while still providing the technical detail the reviewer requested.

The National Library of Medicine Research Methods Resources provide access to authoritative texts on research methodology that can help you determine what level of methodological detail is appropriate for your field. These resources can guide your decisions about what belongs in the manuscript versus what belongs in supplementary material.

Criteria for Choosing Between Tables and Appendices

The choice between a table and an appendix depends on several practical factors. You should consider the length of the material, its relationship to the main response, and the needs of your reviewers.

Length and Density

Tables work best for material that fits on one page or less. When a table becomes so long that it spans multiple pages, it loses its advantage as a quick reference tool. If your material is extensive, an appendix is usually the better choice.

Density also matters. A table with too many columns or rows becomes difficult to read. If you find yourself creating a table with more than six or seven columns, consider whether an appendix might serve better.

Centrality to the Response

Material that is central to your response belongs in the letter itself, whether in prose or in a table. Material that is supporting or supplementary belongs in an appendix. For example, if a reviewer asks about your handling of missing data, your main response should explain your approach. The detailed results of your sensitivity analysis can go in an appendix.

Reviewer Expectations

Different journals have different expectations for response letters. Some journals provide specific guidance on format. Others leave the format to the author's discretion. You should check the journal's instructions to authors and any communication from the editorial office.

The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines that can help you understand what information journals expect in manuscripts and related documents. While these guidelines focus on reporting standards, they can inform your decisions about what level of detail to provide in your response letter.

At a Glance: Tables Versus Appendices

Practical Steps for Building Your Response Letter

A systematic approach to building your response letter will help you decide where tables and appendices fit. The following steps provide a practical workflow.

Step 1: Inventory All Reviewer Comments

Start by listing every comment from every reviewer. Number them so you can track each one. This inventory is the foundation of your response letter. You cannot organize your responses until you know the full scope of what you must address.

Step 2: Group Comments by Theme

Look for comments that address the same topic. Common themes include study design, statistical analysis, interpretation, writing clarity, and missing information. Grouping helps you see where a table might consolidate related responses.

Step 3: Draft Your Prose Responses First

Write your responses in prose before you decide on tables. This approach ensures that you think through each response carefully. A table should summarize or organize responses you have already developed, not replace the thinking process.

Step 4: Identify Table Candidates

Review your drafted responses and identify places where a table would improve clarity. Good candidates include multiple comments on the same topic, cross-cutting changes, and data summaries. If you are unsure whether a table helps, read the section aloud. If the table makes the information easier to follow, keep it.

Step 5: Identify Appendix Candidates

Look for material that is too long for the letter or that would interrupt the flow of your responses. This material goes in an appendix. Create a clear label for each appendix and reference it explicitly in your letter.

Step 6: Review for Completeness

Before you submit, check that you have addressed every comment from your inventory. The NIH Grants and Funding resources emphasize the importance of complete and accurate documentation in research communications. The same principle applies to your response letter. A missing response can delay your revision or create the impression that you overlooked a concern.

Effective Table Formats for Response Letters

The format of your table should match the type of information you are presenting. Different situations call for different column structures.

Format 1: Reviewer Comment and Response

This format works when you have a series of distinct comments that each require a separate response.

This format is most useful when the comments are independent and each response is relatively brief. It gives reviewers a clear map of your responses.

Format 2: Cross-Cutting Changes

This format works when one reviewer request leads to changes in multiple sections.

This format helps the editor see the full scope of your revision for each request.

Format 3: Data or Parameter Summary

This format works when you need to present numerical results compactly.

This format is valuable when reviewers ask about the robustness of your findings. It presents the key numbers without requiring reviewers to read through long paragraphs.

Common Failure Patterns in Response Letters

Understanding common mistakes can help you avoid them. The following patterns appear frequently in response letters that are difficult to follow.

Failure Pattern 1: The Wall of Text

Some authors respond to every comment with a long paragraph. When a letter contains twenty comments and each response is a paragraph, the letter becomes a wall of text. Reviewers must work hard to extract the key information. Tables can break up this pattern by organizing responses into a scannable format.

Failure Pattern 2: Buried Appendix References

Some authors place material in an appendix but never tell the reader. The reviewer reads a response that references data "not shown" and must guess where to find it. Every appendix must be explicitly referenced in the letter with a clear label and description.

Failure Pattern 3: Inconsistent Response Depth

Some authors respond to one comment with a detailed explanation and to another with a single sentence. This inconsistency can make reviewers wonder whether you took all comments equally seriously. A table format encourages consistent responses because each row receives similar treatment.

Failure Pattern 4: Tables That Are Too Wide

A table with too many columns becomes unreadable. If your table requires the reader to scroll horizontally or to refer constantly to a legend, it has failed its purpose. Limit tables to four or five columns and move additional detail to an appendix.

Failure Pattern 5: Missing Comment Numbers

When you do not number the reviewer comments, it becomes difficult to track which comment you are answering. Numbering comments in your inventory and using those numbers in your table creates a clear link between the review and your response.

Records and Documentation Practices

Your response letter is part of the permanent record of your manuscript's publication history. Good documentation practices protect you and your coauthors.

Maintain a Comment Tracking Log

Create a spreadsheet or document that lists every reviewer comment, your response, and the location of the change. This log serves as your working document throughout the revision process. It helps you ensure completeness and provides a record of your decisions.

Preserve Correspondence

Keep copies of all correspondence with the journal, including the original decision letter, your response letter, and any subsequent communications. This record is important if questions arise later about the revision process.

Coordinate With Coauthors

The ORCID for Researchers resources describe how researchers can maintain accurate records of their contributions and outputs. While ORCID focuses on researcher identity, the underlying principle applies to your revision work. Ensure that all coauthors agree on the responses and that the final letter reflects the collective decisions of the team.

Document Data Management Decisions

The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for managing and sharing research data. If reviewers ask about data availability or sharing plans, your response letter should address these points clearly. You may need to reference your data management plan or describe where data will be deposited.

Welfare and Ethical Considerations

Response letters carry ethical weight. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe expectations for honest and transparent communication in publication. Several ethical considerations apply specifically to response letters.

Honesty in Reporting Changes

Your response letter must accurately describe the changes you made. Do not claim to have addressed a comment if you have not. Do not describe a change as more extensive than it actually was. Reviewers can check your claims against the revised manuscript, and discrepancies damage your credibility.

Transparency About Disagreements

You are not required to agree with every reviewer comment. If you believe a comment is based on a misunderstanding or if you disagree with a suggested change, you can say so respectfully. Explain your reasoning and provide evidence for your position. A table can help you organize these explanations clearly.

Acknowledgment of Errors

If a reviewer identifies a genuine error in your manuscript, acknowledge it directly. Do not minimize the error or deflect responsibility. A clear acknowledgment followed by a description of the correction builds trust with the editor and reviewers.

Data Integrity

If reviewers ask about data handling, analysis decisions, or results, your responses must be accurate. Do not present results that you have not actually obtained. Do not describe analyses that you have not run. The NIH Grants and Funding resources emphasize the importance of research integrity in all aspects of the research enterprise, including communication about your work.

Limitations of Tables and Appendices

Tables and appendices are tools, not solutions. They have limitations that you should recognize.

Tables Cannot Replace Explanation

A table can organize information, but it cannot explain your reasoning. If a reviewer asks why you made a particular decision, you need prose to explain your thinking. A table that lists your decision without explaining it will not satisfy the reviewer.

Appendices Can Be Overlooked

Reviewers may not read your appendices. If material is critical to your response, it belongs in the letter itself. Use appendices for supporting material that strengthens your response but is not essential to understanding it.

Formatting Constraints

Some journals have specific formatting requirements for response letters. Some use online submission systems that may not support tables or appendices easily. Check the journal's requirements before you invest time in creating elaborate formats.

Time Costs

Creating well-designed tables and appendices takes time. You must weigh this time against the benefit of clearer communication. For a simple revision with a few comments, elaborate tables may be unnecessary. For a complex revision with many comments, the time investment is usually worthwhile.

Professional Escalation Criteria

Some situations require you to seek additional guidance beyond your own judgment.

Escalate When You Cannot Address a Comment

If a reviewer requests something that you cannot provide, such as access to data you do not have or an analysis that is not feasible, seek guidance from your coauthors or mentor before responding. You may also contact the editorial office to discuss the situation.

Escalate When You Suspect a Misunderstanding

If you believe a reviewer has fundamentally misunderstood your study, consider whether the misunderstanding indicates a clarity problem in your manuscript. Discuss this with coauthors and consider whether additional revision is needed.

Escalate When Ethical Questions Arise

If a reviewer raises questions about data integrity, authorship, or other ethical matters, consult the Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices and seek guidance from your institution's research integrity office. Do not attempt to resolve serious ethical questions on your own.

Escalate When You Need Reporting Guidance

If you are unsure whether your manuscript meets reporting standards for your study type, consult the EQUATOR Network to identify the appropriate reporting guideline. You can also seek guidance from your institution's research support services.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I decide whether to use a table or an appendix in my response letter?

Use a table when the material is short enough to fit on one page and central to your response. Use an appendix when the material is long, detailed, or supporting instead of central. If you are unsure, ask whether the table makes your response easier to follow. If it does not, use prose or an appendix instead.

Can I use both tables and appendices in the same response letter?

Yes. Many response letters use tables for point-by-point responses and appendices for supporting material such as full statistical output or extended quotations. The key is to use each tool for its appropriate purpose and to reference appendices explicitly in your letter.

How many tables should I include in a response letter?

There is no fixed limit, but each table should serve a clear purpose. If you find yourself creating many tables, consider whether some material belongs in an appendix instead. A response letter with too many tables can become as cluttered as one with no tables at all.

What should I do if a reviewer asks for data that I cannot share?

Explain the situation honestly in your response letter. Describe what data you can share and what you cannot, and explain the reasons. If data sharing restrictions apply, reference your data management plan or institutional policies. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for data sharing that may help you frame your response.

Should I number the reviewer comments in my response letter?

Yes. Numbering comments creates a clear link between the review and your responses. Use the same numbers in your table and in your prose responses. This practice helps reviewers verify that you have addressed every comment.

How do I reference an appendix in my response letter?

Reference the appendix explicitly at the point where it is relevant. Write something like "the full sensitivity analysis output is provided in Appendix A" or "the extended protocol is included as Appendix B." Give each appendix a clear label and describe what the reviewer will find there.

What if the journal does not accept appendices in response letters?

Check the journal's instructions to authors and any guidance from the editorial office. If appendices are not accepted, you may need to include the material in the letter itself or find another way to provide it. Contact the editorial office if you are unsure about the requirements.

How long should my response letter be?

The length depends on the number of comments and the complexity of your revision. A short revision might require only a few pages. A complex revision with many comments might require twenty pages or more. Focus on clarity and completeness instead of a specific length target.

Related Articles

• Factorial Designs: When and How to Use Them
• Peer Review Metrics: What They Are and How to Use Them
• Control Groups in Experiments: How to Choose and Use Them
• Positive and Negative Controls: How to Choose and Use Them
• Open Access Practices for Researchers: A Guide

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.