Response to Reviewers Letter Template
Three documents and three sheets that split every numbered comment into the separate things it actually asks for.
Free download · No account needed
Request Register
Reviewer 3, comment 4. One number, five requests.
| Row | What it asks for | Kind | In the comment-by-comment draft | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.4a | Counts are pooled across transects, ignoring the nesting structure | Analysis | Answered | Made |
| 3.4b | Unclear whether the counts are overdispersed, and if so Poisson is wrong | Analysis | Missing, second sentence | Made |
| 3.4c | Figure 3 is unreadable at print size and its legend disagrees with Figure 2 | Structure | Missing, parenthetical | Made |
| 3.4d | The four-week aggregation window needs justifying | Reporting | Missing, final sentence | Made in part |
| 3.4e | Replace the aggregation with a continuous time-varying term | Analysis | Missing, final clause | Declined |
The draft written comment by comment answered comment 4 well and answered one fifth of it. Across three reports it answered all 24 comments and 33 of the 41 things they asked for.
The pack is three documents and three sheets and one rule. The rule is that a numbered comment is not one request. Reviewers write in paragraphs, so comment 4 asks for a random intercept, then asks in its second sentence whether the counts are overdispersed, then mentions in a parenthetical that a figure is unreadable, then wonders about the aggregation window. That is four requests wearing one number, and a fifth arrives in the last clause.
So the unit here is the request. Every numbered comment is split into its separable asks and each one becomes a row. Each row then needs three fields a letter usually leaves vague: a disposition in three values rather than the word addressed, the change that satisfies it, and the section, page and line where that change now sits. Two joins run across the register after that. Where one edit answers more than one reviewer, it goes in the letter under each of them. Where two reviewers want opposite things, it goes to the editor.
Everything else in this category answers the reviewer's numbering, because the numbering is what is printed. In the worked example that draft answers all 24 comments and 33 of the 41 things they ask for, and five of the eight it drops come from the reviewer who recommended rejection. Open the pack in River and the split happens first, before a word of response. Or download the sheets and keep the register beside the grant reporting pack.
What's in the pack
Request Register sheet
One row per request, numbered reviewer, comment, part, with the clause quoted verbatim rather than summarised. A summary is already an interpretation, and the interpretation is what quietly narrows a request into something easier to answer.
Conflict and Overlap Map sheet
The register run against itself. Where one change answers two reports, and where satisfying one report means refusing another. In the worked example that is four shared changes and two real conflicts.
Disagreement Log sheet
Every decline with a reason class, the evidence behind it, and the reviewer's strongest reply written out. If that reply comes easily, the decline is not finished and it will be back.
Response Letter
In the reviewer's numbering, with each part of a multi-part comment answered separately and labelled. Disposition first, then the change, then the location, because the reader is scanning for the disposition and it gets missed under two sentences of thanks.
Editor Cover Note
Under a page, and a different document from the letter. What changed, the count, the conflicts that need adjudicating, and the declines in one line each. Nothing about any reviewer.
Revised Manuscript Note
What is in the package, how much of the file moved, and any change nobody asked for. An unexplained difference between two versions costs more attention than the correction it hides. If the decision goes the other way and the paper moves journals, the reformatting is a separate job.
The pre-resubmission check
Six counts before anything is uploaded: requests, made, made in part, declined, missing locations, missing responses. Line numbers move when text is added above them, so every location gets opened and confirmed in the current file.
A numbered comment is not one request
The standing space rule every prompt reads first. Anything a reviewer could later say was not addressed becomes its own row, including a bare question, because an unanswered question reads as an evasion.
How to use it
- 1
Open in River, or download it
Open the pack in River and the agent splits the reports with you before drafting anything, or download the three CSV sheets and three Word documents instantly, filled in with the worked example.
- 2
Split before you draft
Read each comment twice: once for what it is worried about, once for how many separate things it asks. Those readings disagree more often than not, and the second one is what goes in the register.
- 3
Give every row a change and a location
Section, page and line in the revised file rather than the original. Leave it blank rather than guess: a blank shows up in the check, a wrong line number does not, and it is the worse of the two.
- 4
Argue the declines, then hand up the conflicts
Six declines in the worked example, each with a reason class and evidence, the way an evidence register grades a claim. The two conflicts go to the editor in the cover note.
Frequently asked questions
Is this template free?
Yes. Download the whole pack as CSV sheets and Word documents with no signup and no credit card. Edit with AI is a separate, optional path that has the agent split your own decision letter and open the register. The template library holds the rest of the research packs.
What format are the downloaded files?
CSV for the three sheets and Word documents for the response letter, the manuscript note and the editor cover note, in one zip. They open in Excel, Numbers, Sheets, Word, Pages and Google Docs with nothing to convert. Inside River the same content opens as live Docs and Sheets.
Why split comments up when the journal numbered them?
The letter still uses the journal's numbering, and it has to. The split changes what goes underneath each number. Journals ask you to address the specific points each reviewer made, and the specific points are not the same object as the numbered paragraphs they arrived in.
Do I really need a line number for every change?
Yes, and it is the cheapest thing on the list. A response without one asks the reviewer to search for the change, and searching is what turns into a query and then into a second round. Give the section, page and line in the tracked-changes file rather than the original.
Is it safe to decline a reviewer's request?
Routinely, if it is argued. Six of the 41 requests in the worked example are declined. What is not safe is a decline resting on the sentence that it is beyond the scope of the present study, with nothing after it. Name a reason class, show the evidence, and concede something smaller.
What if two reviewers want opposite things?
That belongs to the editor, and it goes in the cover note rather than being settled quietly in the letter. Reviewers often see each other's reports, and may be asked to comment on the criticisms of other reviewers, so a side picked in silence tends not to stay silent.
Does River write the responses?
It writes the drafts and holds the record. What to concede, what to defend and what the data will support are judgements belonging to whoever signs the letter. The split, the locations, the cross-references and the check are the mechanical part, and that is where the round gets lost.
Find out how many things your reviewers actually asked for
Send the decision letter and the manuscript. The split comes back before any draft response does, with the count both ways.
Edit with AI