Peer review response
A thoughtful response to every substantive comment.
Organize the decision letter, distinguish wording changes from scientific work, and prepare a response that makes each revision easy to follow.
Request a quote using the article type, number of reviewer comments, journal deadline, and the kind of support required.
Illustrative revision structure
Comment. Action. Response.
- Reviewer comment
- Please clarify the eligibility criteria.
- Planned action
- Ask the authors to confirm the criteria and the relevant methods section.
- Response principle
- Describe the confirmed change and its actual location after revision.
Teaching example, not a real decision letter.
A scope that fits the work.
Map the decision letter
Separate editorial requests, reporting clarifications, analysis questions, and new work. Assign each item a clear next step.
Make the response easy to verify
Use a point-by-point format and match each response to the actual manuscript change. Authors confirm the accuracy of scientific explanations.
Keep additional work visible
A request for new analyses or a new literature search changes the scope. Agree on those tasks and the revised timing before they begin.
Questions before you begin.
Can you work to my journal deadline?
Can you write that a change was made if it was not?
Start with a clear scope.
Tell us where the work stands and what you need next. Confirm the deliverables and the final quote before commissioning support.