# What to Include in a Resubmission Cover Letter: A Section-by-Section Breakdown ## Quick Answer - A resubmission cover letter must address every reviewer comment with a point-by-point response, clearly stating what was changed and where in the revised manuscript. - Structure the letter with sections for editor summary, reviewer responses, and a list of major changes, using numbered points that match the reviewers' original comments. - The cover letter is a professional communication that should be concise, respectful, and free of defensive language, even when you disagree with a reviewer's suggestion. ## Understanding the Purpose of a Resubmission Cover Letter A resubmission cover letter serves as the primary communication tool between authors and journal editors during the revision process. It documents your responses to peer review comments and provides a clear record of changes made to the manuscript. The letter functions as a formal response to the reviewers' evaluations and demonstrates that you have carefully considered each point raised during the review process. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices emphasize that peer review depends on mutual respect and clear communication between authors, reviewers, and editors. A well-structured resubmission letter reflects this professional standard by showing that you take the review process seriously and have engaged thoughtfully with the feedback provided. The letter also serves a practical purpose for the editor. It allows the editor to quickly assess whether you have addressed the reviewers' concerns without having to compare the original and revised manuscripts line by line. This efficiency is valuable because editors often manage multiple manuscripts simultaneously and rely on the cover letter to guide their decision-making. ## At a Glance: Essential Components of a Resubmission Cover Letter | Component | Required or Optional | Purpose | |-----------|---------------------|---------| | Manuscript title and ID number | Required | Identifies the submission and links it to the original review records | | Summary of major changes | Required | Provides an overview of the most significant revisions made | | Point-by-point response to reviewers | Required | Demonstrates that each comment was considered and addressed | | Response to editor comments | Required | Addresses any specific instructions or concerns raised by the editor | | Statement of new data or analyses | Required if applicable | Informs the editor about additional experiments or analyses performed | | List of authors and affiliations | Optional | Confirms authorship is unchanged or documents any changes | | Statement of ethical compliance | Optional | Confirms the research was conducted according to ethical standards | ## Core Principles of an Effective Resubmission Letter ### Transparency in Reporting Changes Transparency is the foundation of a credible resubmission letter. The letter must accurately describe what was changed in the manuscript and what was not changed. If you chose not to make a requested change, you must explain your reasoning clearly and respectfully. The editor needs to understand why a particular suggestion was not implemented so they can make an informed decision about the revised manuscript. The EQUATOR Network emphasizes the importance of transparent research reporting. This principle extends to the revision process. When you describe changes in your cover letter, you should reference the specific reporting guidelines relevant to your study type. For example, if your study is a randomized trial, you should indicate that you have followed the CONSORT guidelines. If it is an observational study, you should reference the STROBE guideline. This demonstrates that your revisions align with established standards for research reporting. ### Maintaining Professional Tone The tone of your resubmission letter should remain professional and respectful throughout. Even when you disagree with a reviewer's comment, you should express your disagreement diplomatically. Phrases such as "We respectfully disagree with the reviewer's interpretation" are more effective than defensive or confrontational language. The goal is to demonstrate that you have considered the feedback seriously and made a reasoned decision about whether to incorporate it. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices highlight that peer review should be conducted fairly and objectively. Your response letter should reflect these values by engaging with the reviewers' comments on their merits instead of dismissing them outright. ### Documenting All Changes Every change you make to the manuscript should be documented in the cover letter. This includes changes to the text, figures, tables, and supplementary materials. If you added new data or analyses, you should describe them in sufficient detail for the editor to understand their significance. If you removed content, you should explain why the removal was necessary. The National Institutes of Health Data Management and Sharing Policy provides context for the importance of documenting data-related decisions. While this policy applies specifically to NIH-funded research, the principle of clear documentation applies broadly to all research manuscripts. When you describe data-related changes in your cover letter, you should be specific about what data were added, removed, or reanalyzed. ## Section-by-Section Breakdown of the Resubmission Cover Letter ### Section 1: Submission Identification The opening of your resubmission letter should identify the manuscript clearly. Include the manuscript title, the manuscript ID number assigned by the journal, and the journal name. This information ensures that the editor can quickly locate the original submission and the review records. You should also state that this is a revised manuscript being resubmitted for consideration. This distinguishes the letter from an initial submission cover letter and signals to the editor that you are responding to the previous review. ### Section 2: Summary of Major Changes The summary of major changes provides an overview of the most significant revisions you made in response to the review. This section should be brief, typically one to three paragraphs, and should highlight the most important modifications. The summary should not repeat the point-by-point responses but should give the editor a sense of the overall scope of the revisions. For example, if you added a new analysis that addresses a major reviewer concern, you should mention this in the summary. If you restructured the discussion section to better contextualize your findings, you should note this as well. The summary should give the editor confidence that the revision is substantive and responsive to the review. ### Section 3: Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer Comments The point-by-point response is the core of the resubmission letter. This section should address each reviewer comment individually, using the same numbering system that the journal used in the review. For each comment, you should provide a clear response that describes what was changed in the manuscript or explains why no change was made. The structure for each response should include the reviewer's comment, your response, and a reference to the specific location in the revised manuscript where the change was made. This allows the editor to verify that the change was actually implemented. ### Section 4: Response to Editor Comments Editors often provide their own comments in addition to the reviewer comments. These may include instructions about formatting, length limits, or specific concerns about the manuscript. You should address these comments in a separate section of the cover letter, following the same point-by-point format used for reviewer comments. ### Section 5: Description of New Data or Analyses If you conducted new experiments, collected new data, or performed new analyses in response to the review, you should describe these in a dedicated section. This section should provide enough detail for the editor to understand the nature of the new work without requiring them to read the entire revised manuscript. The National Institutes of Health Data Management and Sharing Policy provides context for the importance of describing data-related work clearly. While the policy applies to NIH-funded research, the principle of clear data description applies broadly. When you describe new data in your cover letter, you should be specific about the type of data, the methods used to collect it, and how it addresses the reviewer's concern. ### Section 6: Confirmation of Ethical Compliance The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices outline expectations for ethical conduct in research publication. These include proper attribution of authorship, transparent reporting of conflicts of interest, and adherence to data integrity standards. Your resubmission letter should confirm that the manuscript complies with these expectations. This section should confirm that all authors have approved the revised manuscript and that any changes to the authorship list have been documented. It should also confirm that the manuscript has not been submitted to another journal simultaneously and that the work has not been published elsewhere. ### Section 7: Closing and Contact Information The closing of the letter should include a brief statement expressing your appreciation for the reviewers' time and effort. It should also include your contact information, including your email address and institutional affiliation. This allows the editor to contact you if they have questions about the revision. ## Practical Implementation Steps for Writing the Letter ### Step 1: Organize the Reviewer Comments Before writing the letter, organize all reviewer comments into a structured document. Create a table with columns for the reviewer number, the comment number, the full text of the comment, and your response. This organization will help you ensure that no comment is overlooked. ### Step 2: Draft the Point-by-Point Responses For each comment, draft a response that addresses the concern directly. Start with a statement of what was changed, then describe the change in sufficient detail. If you did not make a change, explain why and provide your reasoning. ### Step 3: Write the Summary Section After completing the point-by-point responses, write the summary section that provides an overview of the major changes. This section should be concise and should highlight the most significant revisions. ### Step 4: Review the Letter for Completeness Before submitting the letter, review it to ensure that every reviewer comment has been addressed. Check that the letter is free of defensive language and that the tone is professional throughout. ### Step 5: Submit the Letter with the Revised Manuscript The letter should be submitted as a separate file or in the designated field in the journal's submission system. Ensure that the letter is properly formatted and that all references to the manuscript are accurate. ## Records and Measurements ### Keeping Track of Changes Maintaining a detailed record of changes is essential for the revision process. Create a version of the manuscript with tracked changes enabled, and keep a separate document that lists each change and the reviewer comment it addresses. This record will be useful when writing the cover letter and can also be submitted as a supplementary file if the journal requests it. ### Documenting the Timeline Keep a record of the timeline for the revision process. Note the date the review comments were received, the date the revised manuscript was submitted, and any significant milestones in between. This documentation can be useful if there are questions about the revision timeline. ## Common Failure Patterns in Resubmission Letters ### Incomplete Responses One of the most common failures in resubmission letters is failing to address every reviewer comment. This can happen when the author overlooks a comment or assumes that a comment does not require a response. The editor will notice missing responses, and this can delay the decision on the manuscript. ### Defensive or Dismissive Language Another common failure is using defensive or dismissive language in response to reviewer comments. Phrases such as "The reviewer misunderstood our methods" or "This comment is not relevant" can create a negative impression. Even if you disagree with a comment, you should respond respectfully and provide a reasoned explanation for your decision. ### Vague Descriptions of Changes Some authors describe their changes in vague terms, such as "We have revised the manuscript accordingly." This does not give the editor enough information to evaluate the revision. Each response should describe the specific change that was made and where it can be found in the revised manuscript. ### Failure to Address Editor Comments Authors sometimes focus exclusively on reviewer comments and overlook the editor's own comments. The editor's comments are equally important and must be addressed in the cover letter. ### Inconsistent Numbering If the journal uses a numbering system for reviewer comments, you must use the same numbering system in your response. Inconsistent numbering can make it difficult for the editor to match your responses to the original comments. ## Limitations and Professional Escalation Criteria ### Limitations of the Cover Letter The resubmission cover letter has limitations that you should be aware of. The letter cannot compensate for a manuscript that has not been adequately revised. If the manuscript still has significant flaws, the cover letter will not be able to hide them. The letter also cannot address concerns that are outside the scope of the review, such as concerns about the underlying research design that cannot be changed at the revision stage. ### When to Escalate Concerns If you believe that a reviewer comment is based on a misunderstanding of your work, you should address this in the cover letter. However, if you believe that the review process has been conducted unfairly or that the editor has not followed the journal's policies, you may need to escalate the concern. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices provide guidance on handling disputes in the publication process. You should contact the journal editor directly to discuss your concerns before escalating the matter further. ## Welfare and Safety Context ### Protecting Research Integrity The resubmission cover letter plays a role in protecting the integrity of the research record. By documenting the changes made in response to review, the letter helps to ensure that the published version of the manuscript accurately reflects the research that was conducted. This is important for maintaining trust in the scientific literature. ### Avoiding Misrepresentation The cover letter must not misrepresent the changes that were made to the manuscript. If you claim that a change was made when it was not, this is a form of research misrepresentation. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices address the importance of honesty in research communication, and this applies to the cover letter as well. ## Building a Revision Response Matrix to Track Every Comment A resubmission cover letter is only as complete as the tracking system behind it. Authors who write the letter directly from memory or from a scattered set of notes often miss comments, misstate what was changed, or lose track of which revisions belong to which reviewer. A structured tracking system prevents these failures before you begin drafting. ### The Revision Response Matrix Create a matrix before you write a single sentence of the cover letter. This matrix is a working document that maps every reviewer comment to a specific action and a specific location in the revised manuscript. The matrix has five columns: reviewer number, comment number, full comment text, your response summary, and manuscript location where the change appears. Start by copying every comment from the decision letter into the matrix. Do not edit or paraphrase the comments at this stage. The full text matters because you will later verify that your response addresses the actual comment instead of your interpretation of it. After copying all comments, assign each one a unique identifier such as R1C3 for reviewer 1 comment 3. This identifier becomes the reference number you use in the cover letter. The matrix serves three functions. First, it forces you to account for every comment before you begin writing. Second, it creates a permanent record of the revision process that you can consult if the editor asks for clarification. Third, it provides the raw material for the point-by-point response section, so you do not need to reconstruct your thinking after the fact. ### Building the Matrix in Practice Open a spreadsheet or a table in a word processor with the five columns described above. Copy the comments from the decision letter exactly as they appear. Do not truncate or summarize them at this stage. For each comment, leave the response and location columns blank until you have completed the corresponding revision in the manuscript. Work through the revisions one comment at a time. After you make a change in the manuscript, return to the matrix and fill in the response summary and the location. The location should be specific enough for the editor to find the change without searching. For example, write "Results section, paragraph 3, page 7" instead of "Results section." If the change involves a figure or table, include the figure or table number. When you finish a revision, mark the matrix row as complete. This visual cue helps you see your progress and identifies comments that still need attention. The matrix also reveals patterns in the review. If several comments point to the same weakness, such as missing statistical detail, you may choose to address them with a single comprehensive change instead of separate edits. ### Using the Matrix to Draft the Cover Letter The matrix becomes the skeleton of your point-by-point response section. For each comment, your response in the cover letter should follow a consistent structure: restate the comment briefly, state what you changed, and give the location. The matrix provides all three elements in a structured form, so drafting becomes a matter of converting each row into a paragraph. The matrix also helps you identify which comments require a disagreement response. When you decide not to make a requested change, mark the response summary column with your reasoning. This ensures that your explanation is recorded while the context is fresh, instead of reconstructed later. ### Recording the Revision Timeline In addition to the response matrix, keep a separate timeline log for the revision process. Record the date the decision letter arrived, the date you completed each major revision step, and the date you submitted the revised manuscript. This log is useful if the journal asks about the revision timeline or if you need to document your process for a funding agency or institutional review. The National Institutes of Health Grants and Funding pages describe the importance of maintaining clear records throughout the research process. While the policy context is specific to NIH awards, the principle of documenting your work applies to the revision process as well. A timeline log is a simple way to demonstrate that you managed the revision process in an organized manner. ### Common Failure Patterns in Tracking The most common tracking failure is treating the response letter as the tracking system. Authors who draft the letter first and then try to verify their changes afterward often discover that they described a change that was not actually made or that they missed a comment entirely. The matrix prevents this by requiring the change to exist before the response is written. Another failure is using vague location references. A response that says "We have revised the discussion" does not help the editor verify the change. The editor would need to read the entire discussion section to find the revision. Specific locations such as page numbers, paragraph numbers, or line numbers make verification possible. A third failure is losing track of comments that you decided not to address. These comments are easy to forget because they do not require a manuscript change. The matrix keeps them visible and forces you to write a reasoned explanation for each one. ### Integrating the Matrix with Reporting Guidelines The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for many study types. When a reviewer asks for a change that relates to a reporting guideline, note the guideline in the matrix. For example, if a reviewer asks for more detail about participant flow in a randomized trial, you can note that the CONSORT flow diagram addresses this concern. This connection helps you write a response that references the appropriate guideline and demonstrates that your revision aligns with established reporting standards. ### Records and Measurements The matrix and timeline log are the two records you need for a well-managed revision process. The matrix tracks the substance of your responses, and the timeline tracks the process. Keep both documents after submission. If the editor requests additional revisions, the matrix gives you a starting point for the next round. If the manuscript is rejected, the matrix helps you prepare a submission to another journal by showing which comments were already addressed. ### Professional Escalation Criteria If you discover during the tracking process that a reviewer comment is based on a factual error about your study, note this in the matrix and prepare a respectful explanation for the cover letter. If you believe the review process itself was unfair, the Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices provide guidance on handling disputes. The matrix gives you the evidence you need to document your concern clearly. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### How long should a resubmission cover letter be? The length of the cover letter depends on the number of reviewer comments and the complexity of the revisions. A letter that addresses a few comments may be one to two pages, while a letter that addresses many comments may be longer. The letter should be as long as necessary to address all comments, but it should not include unnecessary detail. ### Should I respond to every reviewer comment? Yes, you should respond to every reviewer comment. Even if you decide not to make a change in response to a comment, you should explain why you made that decision. The editor expects to see a response to each comment. ### Can I disagree with a reviewer comment? Yes, you can disagree with a reviewer comment, but you should do so respectfully. Explain your reasoning and provide evidence to support your position. The editor will make the final decision about whether your response is acceptable. ### Should I include the reviewer comments in the cover letter? Yes, you should include the reviewer comments in the cover letter. This makes it easier for the editor to match your responses to the original comments. You can include the comments in a table or in a numbered list. ### What if I cannot address a reviewer comment? If you cannot address a reviewer comment, you should explain why in the cover letter. This may be because the comment is outside the scope of the study or because the requested change is not feasible. The editor will decide whether your explanation is acceptable. ### Should I mention the new data in the cover letter? Yes, you should mention any new data or analyses in the cover letter. This is important because it informs the editor about the scope of the revision and helps them understand the changes you have made. ### How should I handle a reviewer comment that is based on a misunderstanding? If a reviewer comment is based on a misunderstanding, you should explain this in your response. Describe the misunderstanding and provide the correct information. Be respectful and avoid being defensive. ### What should I do if I disagree with the editor's decision? If you disagree with the editor's decision, you can contact the journal to discuss the matter. The Committee on Publication Ethics provides guidance for handling disputes in the research process. You should follow the journal's procedures for appealing a decision. ## Using the Evidence | Source | Best use in this topic | Important limitation | |---|---|---| | [Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | | [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | | [Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) | official guidance | Check the linked page for current local requirements | ## Related Articles - [Protein Elements](/blog/guides/protein-elements) - [Elements Of Statistical Learning](/blog/guides/elements-of-statistical-learning) - [Protein Synthesis Step By Step](/blog/guides/protein-synthesis-step-by-step) - [Protein Synthesis: A Step-by-Step Guide to Transcription and Translation](/blog/guides/protein-synthesis-a-step-by-step-guide-to-transcription-and-translation) - [Bioinformatics vs Biostatistics: Which Career Fits You?](/blog/careers/bioinformatics-vs-biostatistics-which-career-fits-you) ## References and Further Reading - [Research Methods Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books). National Library of Medicine. - [EQUATOR Network](https://www.equator-network.org/). EQUATOR Network. - [Core Practices](https://publicationethics.org/core-practices). Committee on Publication Ethics. - [NIH Grants and Funding](https://grants.nih.gov/). National Institutes of Health. - [ORCID for Researchers](https://info.orcid.org/researchers). ORCID. - [Data Management and Sharing Policy](https://sharing.nih.gov/data-management-and-sharing-policy). National Institutes of Health. - [NCBI Literature Resources](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). National Center for Biotechnology Information. - [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). National Library of Medicine. > This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.