rebuttal in research paper

5 Effective Tips for Writing a Good Academic Rebuttal Letter

An academic rebuttal letter can be a great chance to convince referees and editors that your paper is good and should be published in that journal. Often, it is your last opportunity to emphasize the quality of your work during the peer review process . So, before writing a rebuttal letter, you should take time to examine the reviewer comments very carefully and determine the nature of the revisions that have been suggested and how you should reply to them. Also, try and be realistic, can you really address all the points raised by the referees? Will you be able to make the required improvements to your paper within a reasonable time? Often, based on the reviewer comments, you may have to conduct certain experiments and re-evaluate the data that you have provided. These five tips could help you:

Tip 1: Be Polite and Respectful

The manner in which you write the rebuttal letter can make a big difference in how editors and referees judge your revision. Before actually examining your revised paper, they will most likely read the rebuttal letter, so if you want them to be on your side , you should not be too brief in your comments as it may seem disrespectful. Always remember that each reviewer that has examined your paper will read the rebuttal letter, so be equally polite to all of them and always avoid taking their comments personally. Each critique is made to improve the quality of work and is not directed towards any specific individual. Always begin by thanking the referees and editors for the time they have invested in evaluating your paper—and for the valuable comments they have provided. If the reviewers have misunderstood something, maybe it was unclear enough in the original paper, so report the misunderstanding in a respectful way and clarify any doubts. An example of such a response is as follows:

“Unfortunately, this point was not clear in our original manuscript. We would like to apologize for the misunderstanding and have now revised the paper to explain this better.”

Tip 2: Provide Point-by-Point Replies to All the Referees’ Comments

Always ensure that you have copied each reviewer’s comment in your academic rebuttal letter and a clear reply is written immediately after each point. If the comments are in the form of long paragraphs, break them into separate points so that you can address them one-by-one. To help referees and editors follow the changes you have made, it is a good idea to distinguish the comments and responses in your letter using different fonts or text colors , for example:

Referee 1: Why did you use A instead of B?

Reply: We used compound A because…

Do not ignore any of the referees’ remarks. If you cannot address a particular point, you should thank the reviewer(s) for their suggestion and clearly explain why you were not able to make the change—or why that particular correction is beyond the scope of the paper (monetary or personal reasons are not accepted as an excuse). You could write:

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion and agree that it would be interesting to carry out this study. However, in this case, it is outside the scope of the paper because…”

Related: Would you like to serve as a manuscript reviewer? Check out this post before you proceed!

Always remember that editors and reviewers are usually quite busy, so it is important that your responses are clear and short. You should also make an attempt to address the referees’ concerns as well as you can, but do this succinctly and directly without redundant explanations or long discourses.

Tip 3: Highlighting Changes in Your Manuscript

All the corrections that have been made should also be marked on the revised version of your paper. If you have conducted additional experiments, included new data, or added figures, tables, or attachments to the revised paper, you should clearly indicate where this information has been placed. Always provide the exact page, table, and figure numbers so that editors and referees know where to search. If necessary, provide more references or include supporting/unpublished material to support your arguments.

Tip 4: Choose the Right Ending

Your letter should end with positive and friendly sentences and should let the referees know that you have done your best to improve the manuscript according to their comments—and that you are willing to make further corrections (if necessary). Moreover, reviewers and editors should get the feeling that you value their work and the time they have invested in revising your paper. A good ending for your letter could be:

“We would like to thank the referees and editors for evaluating our manuscript. We have tried to address all the reviewers’ concerns in a proper way and believe that our paper has improved considerably. We would be happy to make further corrections if necessary and look forward to hearing from you soon.”

Tip 5: Becoming a Reviewer

Now that your letter is ready, read it once more to check if you really like it. Read it from the perspective of the reviewers. Will they understand the explanations you have given? Is the text clear and precise? Is your tone friendly and respectful throughout? If your answer to all these questions is yes, then it is time to send your revised paper and the rebuttal letter to the editorial office!

thank you very much

Greeting from Enago Academy! Thank you for your positive comment. We are glad to know that you found our resources useful. Your feedback is very valuable to us. Happy reading!

I wrote an article “How to get scientific feedback? Instructions for Authors writing scientific feedback needed to revision” and this your tips help me. I cited your tips. thanks a lot.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Figures & Tables
• Free Resources
• Publishing Research
• Reporting Research
• Understanding Reviews

Responding to Reviewer Feedback: Challenges and solutions for non-native authors

Academic publishing and the peer review process are generally global by nature. However, the international…

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

Behind the Scenes With Editors-in-Chief

Mistakes leading to desk rejection Acceptable standard for English language quality How to avoid plagiarism…

• Selecting Journals

Journal Rejections: How Common Are They?

Journal rejections are common, irrespective of the researcher’s academic career. The acceptance rate of scholarly…

An Editor-in-Chief’s Advice on ‘How to Avoid Desk Rejections of Your Manuscript’

Desk-rejection of manuscripts is a common occurrence in academic publishing. Manuscripts getting desk rejected can…

15 Most Common Reasons for Journal Rejection

Every researcher aims to publish their work in a high impact journal. However, publishing research…

Top 5 Tips to Avoid Journal Rejection

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• Industry News
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Open Access Week 2024
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Publication Integrity Week 2024
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

Which among these would you prefer the most for improving research integrity?

• Affiliate Program

• UNITED STATES
• 台灣 (TAIWAN)
• TÜRKIYE (TURKEY)
• Academic Editing Services
• - Research Paper
• - Journal Manuscript
• - Dissertation
• - College & University Assignments
• Admissions Editing Services
• - Application Essay
• - Personal Statement
• - Recommendation Letter
• - Cover Letter
• - CV/Resume
• Business Editing Services
• - Business Documents
• - Report & Brochure
• - Website & Blog
• Writer Editing Services
• - Script & Screenplay
• Our Editors
• Client Reviews
• Editing & Proofreading Prices
• Wordvice Points
• Partner Discount
• Plagiarism Checker
• APA Citation Generator
• MLA Citation Generator
• Chicago Citation Generator
• Vancouver Citation Generator
• - APA Style
• - MLA Style
• - Chicago Style
• - Vancouver Style
• Writing & Editing Guide
• Academic Resources
• Admissions Resources

How to Write a Rebuttal Letter After Rejection from a Journal

What is a Rebuttal Letter?

After submitting your manuscript to a journal (along with your journal submission cover letter ), journal editors might include some reasons in their response to the author explaining why the article was not immediately accepted in the journal and what the author must address to further prepare the article for re-submission.

The journal rebuttal letter allows an author to directly reply to the reviewers, explain how they will improve the work, clarify any misunderstandings, and/or justify aspects of the work that were mentioned in the review letter. How you write your rebuttal letter can make a big difference in whether or not an author is granted an appeal and how the reviewers respond to your specific rebuttal requests and comments.

Table of Contents

• An overview of the journal submission process and the key decisions made by editors, reviewers, and authors
• How to address editor and reviewer questions and comments
• How to handle rejection letters
• Useful phrases to include in journal submission rebuttal and appeal letters
• Annotated template rebuttal letter
• Checklist for preparing and submitting your revised manuscript
• List of additional resources

 Journal Submissions Process Overview

The journal submission process can be a bit like the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. In particular, it might be similar to her learning how to play baseball. She walks up to home plate, determined to make a home run. She swings the bat.

“Strike one,” calls the umpire.

She tries again, but this time she taps the ball gently.

“Strike two!” the umpire says.

She’s got one more chance and isn’t sure what to do. What Goldilocks doesn’t realize is that swinging the bat too hard or too softly could yield the same result: she’s still stuck on home plate.

Likewise, submitting your research manuscript can be a hit or miss, depending on a few factors. It will take a few tries, but eventually, you will find the right match for your manuscript and hit that home run you’ve been dreaming of.

Until that moment comes, however, receiving rejections along the way can be stressful and frustrating. In this guide, we’d like to share a few tips with you on how to cope with rejection letters. That is,  we’ll explain the manuscript approval process and outline when and how you should appeal or rebut a rejection letter.

The bad news about journal submission

Let’s start with a brutally honest fact: submitting your manuscript to a journal and having it accepted the first time with little to no change is like trying to hit a home run in the World Series when you don’t even know how to hold a bat. In other words, it’s  not  impossible, but first submissions are rarely accepted, at least not without some revision.

The truth is, no matter how cleanly written a research manuscript might be, some of the more prestigious  journals reject close to 90% (if not more) of all submissions . Most rejected papers never even make it to the reviewers because the editors feel that the paper does not fit the journal’s current needs or the editors are not convinced by the research and methodology presented in the manuscripts. But don’t stop reading here. We do have good news for you!

The good news about journal submissions

Even though the submission process can be frustrating,  you can improve your odds of acceptance . In a  separate article ,  we emphasize following author guidelines, presenting a thoroughly developed experimental design, and structuring your findings to answer questions that would intrigue your target journal’s readers. In addition to these methods, you should also draft a strong cover letter. An effective submission cover letter will persuade editors to forward your paper to peer reviewers for further consideration.

If you make it past the editorial cut, you’ve made it to first base!    Once there, your paper’s success will depend on how peer reviewers react to your paper and how you respond to their comments.

What happens once your paper is submitted?

Before we explain how to respond to editor and peer feedback, we want to explain what happens to your paper once you submit your draft manuscript to the journal. Below is a flowchart that highlights the key decisions and actions that occur during the submission review process.

Baseball as a Metaphor for the Journal Submission Process

As you examine the image above, imagine that you’ve just warmed up and are now ready to bat. How you advance from home plate to each subsequent base will depend on the factors we discuss below.

• You’re up to Bat . You initiate the review process when you submit your draft manuscript to your target journal. Assuming that your bat makes contact with the pitched ball, the following are some milestones you’ll come across as you trek toward victory!
• Does your research paper meet the journal’s scope and aim?
• Will the paper interest the journal’s readers?
• Did the journal recently publish a similar article (and therefore doesn’t want to publish another of the same kind)?
• Did you follow submission guidelines provided in the journal’s formatting rules and Instructions for Authors?
• Are there any gaps in your research methodology ?

If the editors don’t think your paper matches their requirements, then your paper will be rejected flat out without undergoing peer review. Here, you have two choices: – submit to another journal; or – follow-up with an appeal to reconsider your paper for submission. [Unfortunately, this second option is highly unlikely. If you completely revamp your paper, then you should make a new submission altogether.]

• Does your methodology have flaws that can’t be ignored?
• Is your research incomplete?

If your reviewers don’t think your paper is up to par (especially if they feel your research is incomplete or your analysis is flawed), then your paper will be rejected. You have two choices: – submit to another journal; or – follow-up with an appeal to reconsider your paper for submission. [Unfortunately, this second option is highly unlikely. If you completely revamp your paper, then you should make a new submission altogether.] If your reviewers liked your paper but have several questions as is often the case), then they will recommend further consideration upon your satisfactory response to peer feedback (more on this below in the section “How to Respond to Peer Feedback”).

• Slide to Third Base . At this point, the editorial team has received your reply to their feedback and is satisfied with the changes–they are now convinced that your paper is suitable for publication. They may have a few follow-up questions, but these should require minimal changes to your edited manuscript . You’re about to score, and unless there are some issues like discovering that you falsified any information you provided, your paper will be published.

Stroll to Complete the Run ! The editors are ready to green-light the publication of your paper. They’ve made all the final edits and you’ve satisfied any remaining administrative matters before your article is published.

How to Respond to Reviewer Feedback

When you receive a response letter from an editor that isn’t a flat-out rejection, it will most likely also contain feedback asking for clarification and revision. These comments and questions will come from the editor and your reviewers. Positive feedback generally comes in two forms:

• The journal is interested in your paper, and the reviewers would like you to make some minor changes or additions to polish your article’s contents. This type of letter indicates you’ve hit a double, and it’s fairly smooth sailing from this point forward.
• You might receive a letter that rejects your paper but says that the journal would reconsider upon substantial revision, including the possible addition of new data. To use our baseball analogy, you’ve hit a single but didn’t quite make it as far as second base. You’re not out of the game, though. You quickly dash back to first base, and while there, you can work through editing your manuscript and conducting additional experiments, if necessary.

Regardless of how you make it to first or second base, journal acceptance will depend on how you answer the questions and comments noted in the editor’s letter. To that end,  when you write your rebuttal letter to the journal, keep the following points in mind .

How to Handle Rejection Letters from Journals

Sadly, rejection is a part of the academic publishing experience. As we stated above, sometimes editors reject your paper at no fault of your own. The frustrating part of this process is knowing that any appeal regarding a rejected article will most likely be put into a “slush pile” and  will only be considered after new submissions are reviewed .

As the author, consider  whether an appeal is worth the time and resources needed to overhaul your paper . Additionally, you could be waiting for several weeks or longer before the journal reviews your appeal. In that time, it might be more prudent to accept the feedback you have received, revise your paper, and submit the new draft to another journal.

If you decide to appeal, keep the following in mind.

 Useful Phrases to Include in a Rebuttal Letter

Below are a handful of phrases you might find useful to help explain how you revised your manuscript.

Preface to explanations

• Thank you for providing these insights.
• Thank you for your suggestion.
• That is an interesting query.
• This is an interesting perspective.
• We agree with you.
• We agree with your assessment.
• You have raised an important question.
• You have asked an interesting question.

 Expressing agreement with editor/reviewer comments

• We agree with you and have incorporated this suggestion throughout our paper.
• We have reflected this comment by… (p. #, lines #-#).
• We have incorporated your comments by… (p. #, lines #-#).
• We agree that…
• We have now [X] (p. #, lines #-#) and [Y] (p. #, lines #-#). We think these changes now better [Z]. We hope that you agree.

Expressing disagreement with editor/reviewer suggestion

• You have raised an important point; however, we believe that [X] would be outside the scope of our paper because…
• This is a valid assessment of…; however, we believe that [X] would be more appropriate because…
• We agree that…; however, due to [X], we believe that…
• In our revisions, we have attempted to [X] (p. #, lines #-#); however, we have retained some of our arguments because…
• We acknowledge that [X] has certain limitations; however,…

Expressing clarification

• We have clarified that… means… (p. #, lines #-#) throughout the paper.
• We have redrafted the [X] section (p. #, lines #-#) to establish a clearer focus.
• We have revised the text (p. #, lines #-#) to reflect…
• We removed [X] (from p. #, lines #-#) and hope that the deletion clarifies the points we attempted to make.
• We have replaced the term [X] throughout the paper with [Y] to use more precise terms.
• We have rewritten [X] (p. #, lines #-#) to be more in line with your comments. We hope that the edited section clarifies…
• We have elaborated on [X] (p. #, lines #-#) and expanded our consideration of [Y]. We hope these revisions provide a more [balanced][thorough] discussion.

Additional information or explanation

• We have included a new Figure # (p. #) to further illustrate…
• We have added a new Table # (p. #), which outlines…
• We have supplemented the [X] section with explanations of [Y] (p. #, lines #-#).
• There are multiple reasons/approaches to…, including [our scenario]. We have included an acknowledgment regarding this point in the [X] section (p. #, lines #-#).
• We have not done… However, we believe that [doing X] (p. #, lines #-#) would address this issue because…
• We have not done…; however, our sense is that…

Repeated responses (when one of your responses answers multiple comments)

• Please see point # above.  [e.g., “Please see point 2(a) above.”]  

Annotated Template Rebuttal Letter

[Click the link at the top of this page to download a Word version of this letter and the useful phrases from the section above.]

[Journal Editor’s First and Last Name][, Graduate Degree (if any)] TIP: It’s customary to include any graduate degrees in the addressee’s name. e.g.,  John Smith, MD or Carolyn Daniels, MPH e.g.,  Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Co-Editors-in-Chief 

[Journal Address] [Submission Date: Month Day, Year] Dear Dr./Mr./Ms. [Editor’s last name]:

TIP: When the editor’s name is not known, use the relevant title employed by the journal, such as “Dear Managing Editor:” or “Dear Editor-in-Chief:”. Using a person’s name is best, however. Also, websites may be outdated, so call the journal to confirm to whom you should address your cover letter when in doubt.

TIP: Use “Ms.” and never “Mrs.” or “Miss” in formal business letters.

TIP:  Never   use “Dear Sirs:” or any similar expression. Many editors will find this insulting, especially given that many of them are female!

Thank you for inviting us to submit a revised draft of our manuscript entitled, “[TITLE]” to [JOURNAL]. We also appreciate the time and effort you and each of the reviewers have dedicated to providing insightful feedback on ways to strengthen our paper. Thus, it is with great pleasure that we resubmit our article for further consideration. We have incorporated changes that reflect the detailed suggestions you have graciously provided. We also hope that our edits and the responses we provide below satisfactorily address all the issues and concerns you and the reviewers have noted.

To facilitate your review of our revisions, the following is a point-by-point response to the questions and comments delivered in your letter dated _____.

Editor’s Suggestions:

• RESPONSE:  [Brief response thanking editor or expressing delight at the feedback, where appropriate.]
• RESPONSE:  [General opinion of comment ( e.g. , “You raise an important question.”)][Response discussing changes or providing clarifications and explanations.]
• RESPONSE:  [General opinion of comment ( e.g. , “You make a fair assessment.”)][Response discussing changes or providing clarifications and explanations.]

Reviewer 1 Comments:

• RESPONSE:  [Show appreciation for time and energy reviewer committed and the value of their comments.]
• RESPONSE:  [General opinion of comment ( e.g. , “Thank you for this suggestion.”)] [Response discussing changes or providing clarifications and explanations.]
• RESPONSE:  [General opinion of comment ( e.g. , “Thank you for this suggestion.”)] [Response discussing changes or providing clarifications and explanations.]

Reviewer 2 Comments:

• [Show appreciation for time and energy reviewer committed and the value of their comments.]

CONCLUDING REMARKS : Again, thank you for giving us the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript with your valuable comments and queries. We have worked hard to incorporate your feedback and hope that these revisions persuade you to accept our submission.

[Your Name]

Corresponding Author Institution Title Institution/Affiliation Name [Institution Address] [Your e-mail address] [Tel: (include relevant country/area code)] [Fax: (include relevant country/area code)]

Additional Contact  [should the corresponding author not be available] Institution Title Institution/Affiliation Name [Institution Address] [Your e-mail address] [Tel: (include relevant country/area code)] [Fax: (include relevant country/area code)]

Rebuttal Letter Checklist

Substantive points

• Make a list of changes you mention in your letter and make sure you’ve made all the changes in your draft!
• Make sure you’ve thanked the editor and reviewers for their time.
• Make sure you are sending the right version of your manuscript
• Did you copy and paste ALL the original comments from the editor and reviewers? Did you answer or address ALL those comments?
• Did you include page and line references, where appropriate?
• Did you include all new figures and other visual aids (and mention them in the rebuttal letter)?
• Get manuscript editing services to polish your work and make your writing more compelling.

Technical points

• Set the font to Arial or Times New Roman, size 12 point.
• Single-space all text.
• Use one line space between body paragraphs.
• Do not indent paragraphs.
• Keep all text left justified.
• Use spelling and grammar check software. If needed, use professional proofreading and editing services  such as Wordvice to review your letter for clarity and concision.
• Double-check the spelling of the editor’s and reviewers’ names.

Additional Resources

• Nature  blog on  writing a rebuttal letter
• Nature  blog on  writing an appeal letter
• Elsevier blog on top three  tips for responding to reviewer feedback
• Further explanation of how reviewers view your research paper.
• https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ – rebuttal-letters
• https://aom.org/uploadedFiles/Publications/AMLE/Certo et al AMLE Responses to Reviewers.pdf
• http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v27/n27/extref/onc200816x1.doc

• Link to facebook
• Link to linkedin
• Link to twitter
• Link to youtube
• Writing Tips

A Guide to Rebuttals in Argumentative Essays

4-minute read

• 27th May 2023

Rebuttals are an essential part of a strong argument. But what are they, exactly, and how can you use them effectively? Read on to find out.

What Is a Rebuttal?

When writing an argumentative essay , there’s always an opposing point of view. You can’t present an argument without the possibility of someone disagreeing.

Sure, you could just focus on your argument and ignore the other perspective, but that weakens your essay. Coming up with possible alternative points of view, or counterarguments, and being prepared to address them, gives you an edge. A rebuttal is your response to these opposing viewpoints.

How Do Rebuttals Work?

With a rebuttal, you can take the fighting power away from any opposition to your idea before they have a chance to attack. For a rebuttal to work, it needs to follow the same formula as the other key points in your essay: it should be researched, developed, and presented with evidence.

Rebuttals in Action

Suppose you’re writing an essay arguing that strawberries are the best fruit. A potential counterargument could be that strawberries don’t work as well in baked goods as other berries do, as they can get soggy and lose some of their flavor. Your rebuttal would state this point and then explain why it’s not valid:

Read on for a few simple steps to formulating an effective rebuttal.

Step 1. Come up with a Counterargument

A strong rebuttal is only possible when there’s a strong counterargument. You may be convinced of your idea but try to place yourself on the other side. Rather than addressing weak opposing views that are easy to fend off, try to come up with the strongest claims that could be made.

In your essay, explain the counterargument and agree with it. That’s right, agree with it – to an extent. State why there’s some truth to it and validate the concerns it presents.

Step 2. Point Out Its Flaws

Now that you’ve presented a counterargument, poke holes in it . To do so, analyze the argument carefully and notice if there are any biases or caveats that weaken it. Looking at the claim that strawberries don’t work well in baked goods, a weakness could be that this argument only applies when strawberries are baked in a pie.

Find this useful?

Subscribe to our newsletter and get writing tips from our editors straight to your inbox.

Step 3. Present New Points

Once you reveal the counterargument’s weakness, present a new perspective, and provide supporting evidence to show that your argument is still the correct one. This means providing new points that the opposer may not have considered when presenting their claim.

Offering new ideas that weaken a counterargument makes you come off as authoritative and informed, which will make your readers more likely to agree with you.

Summary: Rebuttals

Rebuttals are essential when presenting an argument. Even if a counterargument is stronger than your point, you can construct an effective rebuttal that stands a chance against it.

We hope this guide helps you to structure and format your argumentative essay . And once you’ve finished writing, send a copy to our expert editors. We’ll ensure perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, referencing, and more. Try it out for free today!

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a rebuttal in an essay.

A rebuttal is a response to a counterargument. It presents the potential counterclaim, discusses why it could be valid, and then explains why the original argument is still correct.

How do you form an effective rebuttal?

To use rebuttals effectively, come up with a strong counterclaim and respectfully point out its weaknesses. Then present new ideas that fill those gaps and strengthen your point.

Share this article:

Post A New Comment

Got content that needs a quick turnaround? Let us polish your work. Explore our editorial business services.

5-minute read

Free Email Newsletter Template

Promoting a brand means sharing valuable insights to connect more deeply with your audience, and...

6-minute read

How to Write a Nonprofit Grant Proposal

If you’re seeking funding to support your charitable endeavors as a nonprofit organization, you’ll need...

9-minute read

How to Use Infographics to Boost Your Presentation

Is your content getting noticed? Capturing and maintaining an audience’s attention is a challenge when...

8-minute read

Why Interactive PDFs Are Better for Engagement

Are you looking to enhance engagement and captivate your audience through your professional documents? Interactive...

7-minute read

Seven Key Strategies for Voice Search Optimization

Voice search optimization is rapidly shaping the digital landscape, requiring content professionals to adapt their...

Five Creative Ways to Showcase Your Digital Portfolio

Are you a creative freelancer looking to make a lasting impression on potential clients or...

Make sure your writing is the best it can be with our expert English proofreading and editing.

How To Write a Rebuttal Letter for Peer Review: Expert Tips

Updated August 23rd, 2023

So your scientific manuscript has been peer-reviewed and you have received a response from the editors of the journal you submitted it to. If it wasn’t rejected, this means that you likely received some (or many) comments from the reviewers. Now you need to write a rebuttal letter that includes all your responses to the reviewers comments and prepare your revised manuscript.

At the beginning of my scientific career, I found it difficult to structure my rebuttal letters wel l. Over time, it has become easier for me, because they actually always have the same structure. Therefore, in this article I will give you a detailed guide on how to write the best academic rebuttal letter for peer review.

Thinks to Keep in Mind Before You Start Writing a Rebuttal Letter

Before you start typing, we need to clarify a few things. These are less about content and more about how your answer will sound and how you will approach it:

• Be polite . Most reviewers volunteer their “work”. This means that they have written the review of your article in their free time. Maybe late at night or early in the morning before work (as I like to do). They are all human and make mistakes. Make sure that the tone of your rebuttal letter is polite and corresponds to your scientific state.
• Be professional . Adding to the first point, don´t take anything personally. Write professional answers and politely explain if you see something differently.
• Be thorough . Carefully read all the comments and respond to each one. Take each reviewer and each of their comments seriously. Leaving some out may not reflect well on your scientific rebuttal letter.

So now that you are ready to write a polite, professional and thorough rebuttal letter, what should you write? The answer follows here:

Simple Structure of a Rebuttal Letter for Peer Review

Let´s dive right into how to structure your responses to the reviewer comments. Following I present you a simple general structure for a scientific rebuttal letter. Please note, that these are my experiences with medical journals . If you´re doing research in another scientific field, these may vary. Also, there are some journals that may have specific templates or other requirements, such as reviewer-specific responses that you have to enter into an online form.

Nevertheless, the simplest structure of a scientific rebuttal letter consists of three parts:

• An opening paragraph
• The reviewer comments
• The authors responses

In the following paragraphs, I will shortly discuss each one of these important parts of your rebuttal letter for peer review.

1. The Opening Paragraph of your Academic Rebuttal Letter

You created a blank word document to write your rebuttal letter. Now you want to address the editors and reviewers. Imagine you are building a bridge. From the journal´s response (that includes the comments of the editors and reviewers) towards your rebuttal letter. Think about some aspects of the journal and how the peer review process went. This is your chance to write some thankful and polite words to everyone involved.

Template for the Opening Paragraph of your Rebuttal Letter

The opening paragraph of your rebuttal letter could look like this template:

To the Editorial Board of [JOURNAL NAME] : We appreciate the rapid processing of our manuscript and the constructive comments of the editors and reviewers. The quality of the reviews provided reflects the highest scientific standards of the journal. We have tried to incorporate all suggestions and to address all comments relevant to the new manuscript format in a concise manner. We believe that the manuscript has been considerably strengthened as a result. We hope you will be convinced that your readers will find our contribution as significant as we do. Please see below for details:

Of course, you should customize this to make it unique. It would be best to add some information or wording to make it more appropriate for your manuscript/topic.

2. How to Include the Reviewer’s Comments in Your Rebuttal Letter

The reviewer’s comments are the backbone of your scientific rebuttal letter. Your whole response should shimmy along these comments. I always suggest organizing all responses first by person and then by comment . If the editors also wrote some comments, you will want to start with them and number them consecutively. The editor’s comments are then followed by the reviewer’s comments in your rebuttal letter. The structure should be clear enough that it is easy to identify individual comments and follow the thought process in your responses.

Often, the reviewers responses begin with an opening paragraph that summarizes your work and includes a general assessment. Note that you break the responses down into comments/thoughts, not sentences. Therefore, you can think of this first paragraph as one comment that requires only one response.

Template for the Reviewer’s Comments in Your Rebuttal Letter

After separating all comments, and numbering them consecutively, it yould look like this:

E = Editor, R = Reviewer

E-1 : Feedback from three reviewers is provided. Reviewers were convinced of […]. However, some are critical of […]. E-2 : Please move Figure X to the supplement, as there is great redundancy with Table X. R1-1 : I like to thank the authors for presenting their manuscript entitled: “…” They evaluate XXX and provide a well-written manuscript with sound analysis. However, there are some major and minor issues that need to be addressed before publication can be considered. R1-2 : […] R2-1 : In the manuscript entitled “…”, the authors analyze data from XXX patients with the hypothesis: “…”. They found […] and they conclude […]. R2-2 : […]

Structuring all the comments will make it easier for you to respond to each comment. It also makes it easier to divide the work among multiple authors if it was done in a research group.

3. How to Write Responses to the Reviewer’s Comments in Your Rebuttal Letter for Peer Review

Now it’s time to get down to business. Your responses are, as expected, the most important part of your rebuttal letter to a scientific journal. I cannot provide you with your specific answers to the queries you received. However, I can give you a well-structured outline and some tips that will help you to write a great scientific rebuttal letter.

First, lets go back to the second paragraph of this article. Keep in mind to be polite, professional and thorough . Many researchers (myself included) and thus also reviewers have certain narcissistic traits. Additionally, there is some sort of power imbalance. As a researcher that is under pressure to publish, you somewhat depend on the favor of the reviewers and editors. Therefore, you want to affirm these people and in no way offend them. Below is a brief sampling of the responses (beginnings) I have written and received in over 100 peer reviews:

How to Start Your Responses to the Reviewer’s Comments

• We like to thank Reviewer 1 for this comment.
• Thank you for this suggestion.
• Thank you for your comment.
• You raise an important question.
• We agree with Reviewer 1 as this is an important objection.
• Reviewer 1 has raised an important question.
• We thank Reviewer for this thoughtful comment.
• Thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions

You get the direction. Be polite and take the reviewer´s comments seriously . That way, the overall tone of your response is positive, and maybe the responses will be positive, too. If you find yourself using the same phrase over and over, you could also ask ChatGPT to give you some alternatives . I have received more than one rebuttal letter where all the replies start the same way. This looks like the authors did not put too much effort into it and made me read and follow each change more carefully.

Disclaimer : If you are using ChatGPT, make sure to just get your ideas from it and don´t blindly copy and paste its output. There may be wrong or even plagiarized content. If you want to use it, check it first using tools such as PlagiaShield .

So, now we want to put the comments and answers together:

Template for Your Responses to the Reviewer’s Comments in Your Rebuttal Letter

After adding your answers to each comment, your answer will look something like this:

E-1 : Feedback from three reviewers is provided. Reviewers were convinced of […]. However, some are critical of […]. Response to E-1: We like thank the Editor for these comments. […] E-2 : Please move Figure X to the supplement, as there is great redundancy with Table X. Response to E-2: Figure X was moved to the supplement as suggested. […] R1-1 : I like to thank the authors for presenting their manuscript entitled: “…” They evaluate XXX and provide a well-written manuscript with sound analysis. However, there are some major and minor issues that need to be addressed before publication can be considered. Response to R1-1: We thank Reviewer 1 for […].

Using a structure like this makes it easy for the reader (and yourself) to navigate through the comments and read your individual responses to the comments. An easy-to-read structure is very important because it makes it easier for the reader to access the content. It also shows that you have been thorough and have made an effort to create a quality response.

How to Deal with Criticism in the Peer Reviewer´s Comments

The purpose of the review process is, to ensure the quality and validity of the research by having it reviewed by other experts in the field. However, as always in life, there may and will be differing opinions on the same subject. As a result, almost every review process will confront you with comments you don’t like or maybe even don’t understand. Lets again go back to the first paragraph of this acticle – be professional.

Try not to take things personally, even if the comments of the reviewers sound unreasonably critical to you. This is actually one of the hardest parts. Think of the review as a chance to develop and get free different perspectives on your work.

I can think of several times when I thought, “ Man, why does the reviewer want me to do so much extra work? “. For example, when a reviewer asked for additional readers and an inter-rater reliability assessment. However, when I did this for my study, I found that there were variables that were more reliable than others. Having these additional results and being able to include and discuss them in my manuscript greatly strengthened the validity of my study.

But how do you politely face criticism in your rebuttal letter? In the following paragraph, I want to give a few examples.

Useful Phrases for Criticism and Justification in the Rebuttal Letter

• This is an important objection. However, we tried to […]
• We agree with Reviewer 1 that this analysis would be a great suggestion. However, this extents the scope of our study.
• Thank you for this excellent suggestion. Unfortunately, our data do not allow for […].
• This is a great suggestion that needs to be addressed in future studies on this subject.
• We are grateful for this objection and we clarified this matter in […]. However, we were not able to […].

If you are not able to do an additional analysis of a certain type, there is a little “trick” (if you want to call it that) .If a reviewer thinks there’s something missing that would be a great addition to your paper, but you can’t provide it – that’s a limitation. And by realizing that, you can add this point to the limitations section of your manuscript:

• We thank Reviewer 1 for suggesting this additional analysis. However, we were not able to do this with our data. To include this relevant point, we have added it as a limitation in the limitations section.

Additionally, if more than one reviewer expressed the same concern, you can just refer to your respective response:

• Thank you for your suggestion. Since this was also mentioned by Reviewer 1, we have added this information in the XX section. Please also see our response to R1-3.

Helpful Stylistic Additions to Your Rebuttal Letter for Peer Review

Something I always love to see as a reviewer is when the rebuttal letter is not just blocks of plain text. Although I strongly suggest a structured rebuttal letter as shown in this article, you also have your “artistic” or “scientific” freedom in your responses. Every reader loves to read white space , likes to see images and list posts. In this context, a rebuttal letter does not differ too much from blog articles where you need to incorporate theses (SEO) strategies to enable great content .

If you have an additional figure or graph that adds to the discussion, include it in the rebuttal letter. Maybe the reviewer asked for a subgroup analysis – you can show the results and argue why you think it needs to be in the manuscript (or not).

You can also add your arguments or reasoning in list posts. I had a paper where the reviewers did not give much feedback other than that there are similar studies out there. My response was a detailed 10-point list of arguments, why our study adds to the scientific knowledge and how it differs from the previous studies.

That being said, if you have a solid structure in your rebuttal letter, you will also have some freedom to play with and convince the editors and reviewers of the importance of your study.

How to Incorporate the Changes Discussed in the Rebuttal Letter into the Revised Manuscript

Preparing the revised manuscript for your scientific peer review process is a topic in itself. Therefore, we will only briefly discuss some of the relevant points in this paragraph. (I may even write a separate article on this topic.)

Most journals want you to highlight each change in the revised manuscript . The easiest way is, to enable “track changes” in your word processing software (e.g., Microsoft Word). While you write your responses to each one of the reviewer comments, you will also do the respective changes in your manuscript.

And for each (completed) change, you should add a comment. That comment is to indicate which changes have been as a response to which comment. In this matter, useful phrases for comments in your revised manuscript could be:

• In response to R2-5
• Changes made in response to R1-1
• Deleted as suggested in E1-3
• Added/moved in response to R2-1

Not only does this greatly improve the readability and traceability of your change s to reviewers and editors. This also really helps if you´re not the only person working on the revision of your manuscript.

The more clearly you write your answers and annotate your changes, the easier it is for your colleagues to understand and possibly edit your comments and changes. As a result, you will be able to create the best possible rebuttal letter and revised manuscript. This way, your chances of getting your manuscript accepted may increase along with your changes.

Happy writing!

For further information: If you´re publishing in radiology sciences, find an overview of the best radiology journals here.

Some links on this site are affiliate links. If you choose to buy a product using these links, I might get a commision for this purchase. For you, this does not change the price.

Board-certified radiologist, blogger, tech enthusiast, and clinician scientist working in Germany.

Share this:

Discover more from rad insights.

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

How to Write a Good Paper Rebuttal

A practical guide, what is a rebuttal, anyway, is it worth working on a paper rebuttal, start positive, focus on major concerns, hack the word limit, but not too much…, make good use of tables, make new experiments, highlight the important points to all reviewers.

The rejection of a research paper is always a tough spot in the life of researchers. Today, many top conferences allow the authors of a rejected paper to submit a so-called “paper rebuttal.” This is a last chance for the authors to defend their work in case the reviewers made obvious mistakes or the arguments supporting the rejection are unclear. In this post, I explain under which circumstances it is worth writing a rebuttal. Moreover, I will cover practical tips to write a good rebuttal in case you decide not to give up on your paper. In this case, the objective is to write a rebuttal that has the highest chance to be read by the PC chairs. If this is what you want to do… keep reading!

A rebuttal is a way for the PC chairs to avoid committing clear unfairness to a paper. Once the authors receive negative reviews of their submission, they can write a response rebuttal to the reviewers’ comments. This response is entirely optional, and there is no requirement to respond or not. It is also enforced to be typically short (between 500 and 750 words), so that the PC chairs can scan it quickly.

“An imperfect but useful metaphor for rebuttals is debate competitions. Yes, we are trying to convince our opponent (and this is where the metaphor is imperfect; reviewers are not our opponents, but hang with us). But more importantly, we are trying to convince the judges, who will ultimately be making the decisions. Thus, all else being equal, it is more important to convince the judges of your arguments than change your opponents’ minds.” – Devi Parikh

The rebuttal must focus on the following:

• Answers to specific questions raised by reviewers (if any)
• Factual errors in the reviews

A rebuttal in academic conferences is not like a response to the reviewers’ comments in a journal. In a journal, you send a response to the reviewers and resubmit the paper for another revision. At a conference, you cannot make further changes in your paper after revision. So, you can only address the reviewers’ comments with arguments in the paper or data that you have that is not in the paper but that is relevant to support your argument.

In theory, each submission in a conference must be judged on its own merits. This means accepting a paper only if there is a general agreement that it meets the standards of the conference. In practice, total consensus and fairness are very difficult to achieve. For example, it can be hard for the organizers to guess who is the best person to review a particular paper. If the topic is too novel or the paper too original, the decision may be biased to the detriment of the paper.

To mitigate unfairness, many top conferences adopt a method called Identify the Champion . For a paper to be accepted, it helps if some PC Member “champions” it. The champion is an expert that is very enthusiastic about accepting a paper. If an expert reviewer really likes the paper, that dramatically increases its chances for acceptance. The champion must be a reviewer from PC Members who is recognized to be an expert (and not only competent) in the domain.

“As a rule of thumb: If there is at least one reviewer that is clearly in favor of accepting your paper (i.e., you have a champion), then you should do the rebuttal.”

If your paper doesn’t have a champion, it is very unlikely you will get it accepted in a major conference. It doesn’t matter how good your rebuttal is. And by the way, working on a rebuttal is hard work. So, assuming that you have a champion, the rebuttal should focus on one single goal: arm the champion!

Your champion will need solid arguments against its detractors in the final discussion, especially strong detractors. Refute every issue the detractors raised to give your champion extra arguments for acceptance. Lower the confidence in the detractors’ reviews by pointing out mistakes. A strong detractor can only be countered by a strong champion. Rather than trying to dissuade a strong detractor, your aim should be on arming the champion. I’ll explain how to do this in the rest of this post.

It is a good practice to start thanking the reviewers for their reviews, and directly pointing to their positive feedback. Thus, use around 50 words to summarize the reviews, highlighting the positive comments that reviewers made about your work. Rebuttals focus mostly on responding to negative points, don’t let everyone forget about the strengths of your work along the way.

Here’s an example:

Notice the conversational nature of the example responses above. The relaxed tone makes it easier for the PC chairs to read it. Remember that the rebuttal should not be perceived as being combative. You’re trying to convince very competent people about the quality of your work. So, don’t miss the opportunity to show your respect for the time they spent reviewing your paper.

Choose your comments wisely. Make sure to put the answers to the expert reviewers at the beginning of your rebuttal. Identify the major concerns of the detractors, especially the ones where the reviewer assumes you may not be able to improve the paper. If one of the reviewers’ negative comments is clearly wrong, then you should point at it only if it is significant for understanding the novelty of the paper.

“You do not need to convince the reviewer that you’re able to fix typos, straight-forward presentation issues, language issues, or anything else that can be fixed by simple proofreading. This is taken for granted.” – Andreas Zeller

A major concern is one that:

• Mistrusts the scientific contribution of the paper (its novelty, significance, etc.)
• Raise doubts about the scientific methodology employed (validation protocol, dataset, the model employed, etc.)

Sometimes, one primary concern that a reviewer spot is, on the other hand, considered a valuable contribution by another reviewer. In this case, use part of the arguments of the supportive reviewer in your favor without using her comment as the argument. The goal is to select the most relevant questions to answer, not encourage a conflict of opinions among reviewers.

As mentioned, the word limit (typically 750 words) is a strict limitation. You can use underscores ( _ ) or dashes ( - ) to concatenate two words for the less important things, such as the questions from reviewers.

Here is an example:

*NOTE: Be cautious not abusing of this method, otherwise you may be at risk that PC chair will just delete your rebuttal.

Most rebuttal handling systems are Markdown compatible. In Markdown format, one row is counted as one word. Therefore, using a table saves you word limits!

For example, the following table presents new data to the reviewers without significantly affecting the word count:

Note how there is a link to an external repository. Yes, adding links to data and experiments is a good idea in a rebuttal.

Adding new experiments to support the rebuttal is incredibly valuable. This ensures that the “lack of this experiment in the paper” is not the rejection reason. Also, if the results are valuable and convincing, it is clear that you have done a lot of work for the reviewers. Most people respect when somebody is working hard. So, adding new experiments will make your rebuttal considered more seriously by the PC chairs.

Always give the details of the methodology used in the experiment and the data to support your claim. Rather than argue with the reviewers, give them data and stats to back your claim up. These can be statistics analyses based on new data or results. Or the results of additional experiments you run to respond to their concern (if allowed by the venue).

Never claim that the reviewer has no idea what she is talking about, even if that is the case. It would be best if you were respectful and polite to the reviewers. Thank them for their suggestions and suggest fixing whatever is fixable even if you think nothing is wrong Every time you find yourself having a different opinion than the reviewer, ask if you can establish that with data. You can always provide intuitive arguments after settling the issue with data and new experiments.

Acknowledge good suggestions made by the reviewer. If those suggestions are easy to fix, say they are fixable and will be fixed in the final version. Don’t be afraid of emphasis: “Row 2 in Table 4 shows exactly that.” “We do NOT need a human-in-the-loop at test time.” Notice that many of the responses above are not just direct, but also have emphasis (in tone if not formatting of text).

At the end of the rebuttal, consolidate all the common concerns. You can also save space by responding to multiple reviewers at once if they share related concerns. This is important to help the reviewers understand other reviewers’ concerns!

If some reviewers’ comments do not make sense, you can showcase them here to discuss with all reviewers. In case a reviewer’s suggestion makes no sense or is not valid, explain why the argument is invalid. However, you should acknowledge that your paper might have a problem if all the reviewers did not get it right. Promise to clarify those issues for the final version.

Only go for a rebuttal if at least one reviewer supports the paper (i.e., you have a champion). The rebuttal should be thorough, direct, and easy for the reviewers to follow. If a reviewer really doesn’t like your paper, then it’s unlikely you can change his mind during the rebuttal phase. However, it’s just an excellent opportunity to address some particular concerns.

Keep your answer factual, polite, and constructive. For example, if a reviewer asks: “Isn’t your approach undecidable?,” then you can answer “yes/no,” and “we can include the proof in the final version of the paper” and link to a research report where the proof is already written. Or if a reviewer wrote: “this problem was already solved 20 years ago by Einstein,” then you can answer: “We released one of Einstein’s assumptions, that we believed was too strong for this particular context.” Always be confident in your work.

If there is a chance, catch it and do not give up. Conference rebuttal, journal response, rejection, and acceptance are all part of the research game. And you better learn how to play it well 😀.

• ← Previous Post
• Next Post →

Related Posts

How i peer review research papers, empirical software engineering research is harder than you think, shortening the distance between academia and industry.