🔬 Research
Response to Reviewers Letter Writer for Journal Manuscript Revisions: Numbered Point by Point Replies, Quoted Reviewer Text, Page and Line Change Locations, Evidence Based Rebuttals, Conflicting Reviewer Requests, and an Editor Cover Note
Write the response letter that goes with a revised manuscript: split every reviewer comment into a numbered item, quote it, answer it with what actually changed and where (page and line in the revised file), decline politely with evidence when you disagree, flag reviewers who ask for opposite things, and open with a short note to the handling editor.
0Reviews
Prompt
Act as a senior academic author and former associate editor who has written and read hundreds of response to reviewers letters, and knows that editors decide fast when every comment has a number, a clear answer, and a location in the revised manuscript. Inputs: - The decision letter and all reviewer comments, pasted as received: [ReviewerComments] - What you changed, with the new text where possible and the page and line numbers in the revised file: [ChangesMade] - Comments you disagree with or cannot address, and your reasons and citations: [Disagreements] - Journal resubmission rules (tracked changes copy, clean copy, word limits, deadline): [JournalRules] - Manuscript title and field: [PaperContext] - Output format: [Format] Generate: 1. A numbered comment list from ReviewerComments: Editor E1, E2; Reviewer 1 as R1.1, R1.2; Reviewer 2 as R2.1 and so on. Split comments that contain more than one request into separate numbers so none gets lost. 2. A triage table: each number, the request in one line, status (done, partly done, declined, editor decision needed), and the ChangesMade item that answers it. Any comment with no matching change is flagged "NO CHANGE RECORDED" for the author to resolve. 3. A response for each item in a fixed pattern: the reviewer's text quoted in italics or indented, then "Response:" with what was done in plain words, then "Change:" with page and line in the revised manuscript and the quoted new sentence when it is short. 4. Respectful rebuttals from Disagreements: agree with the concern behind the request, explain why the change was not made using the author's evidence or citations, and offer a smaller step (a limitation sentence, a sensitivity analysis, a supplementary table) when one exists. 5. Conflicting requests: when two reviewers ask for opposite changes, answer both, state which way the authors went and why, and raise it in the editor note. 6. A summary of new analyses, tables, or figures added, with their numbers in the revised manuscript. 7. A short editor note (under 150 words) for the top of the letter: thanks once, the main changes, any conflicting requests, and confirmation of JournalRules items. 8. A final consistency check: every number answered, every page and line reference marked for re check against the final file, no promise of a change that is not in ChangesMade, and the word count against JournalRules. Constraints: - Never describe a change that is not in ChangesMade, and never invent results, citations, or line numbers; mark gaps [LOCATION NEEDED] or [CITATION NEEDED]. - One thank you in the editor note, not one per comment. No em dashes.
Instructions
Replace every [bracket] with your details before running. Works on ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini.
Generated Output
This image was generated using the prompt above.
Examples
Example Input
PaperContext: "Community health worker home visits and blood pressure control in adults with uncontrolled hypertension", public health ReviewerComments: R1: "The authors should adjust for baseline antihypertensive medication count. Also Table 2 is hard to read." R2: "A randomized design would be needed to support causal claims. The sample size justification is missing." R2: "Please shorten the Discussion." R1: "The Discussion should say more about implementation barriers." ChangesMade: added medication count to the adjusted model as a sensitivity analysis, effect estimate moved from -6.1 to -5.4 mmHg (95% CI -8.9 to -1.9), new Table S3, page 9 lines 201 to 208; Table 2 split into 2A and 2B; replaced "reduced" with "was associated with lower" throughout; added implementation barriers paragraph page 14 lines 310 to 322; cut Discussion from 1,450 to 1,180 words Disagreements: randomization was not possible because the county program enrolled all eligible patients; we used a matched comparison and say so in limitations; sample size was fixed by the program, we can report a detectable effect calculation JournalRules: tracked and clean copies, response letter required, resubmit within 60 days
Example Output
NOTE TO THE EDITOR Thank you for the chance to revise. We added baseline medication count as a sensitivity analysis (Table S3), split Table 2, softened causal language throughout, added an implementation barriers paragraph, and shortened the Discussion from 1,450 to 1,180 words. Reviewer 1 asked for more Discussion on barriers while Reviewer 2 asked for a shorter Discussion; we added the barriers paragraph and cut elsewhere, so the section is shorter overall. Tracked and clean copies are attached. TRIAGE | No. | Request | Status | | R1.1 | Adjust for baseline medication count | Done | | R1.2 | Make Table 2 readable | Done | | R1.3 | Discuss implementation barriers | Done | | R2.1 | Randomized design for causal claims | Declined, language changed | | R2.2 | Sample size justification | Partly done, [LOCATION NEEDED] | | R2.3 | Shorten Discussion | Done | R1.1 > The authors should adjust for baseline antihypertensive medication count. Response: We added medication count to the adjusted model as a sensitivity analysis. The association remained, with a smaller estimate (-5.4 mmHg, 95% CI -8.9 to -1.9, compared with -6.1 mmHg in the main model). Change: page 9, lines 201 to 208; new Table S3. R1.2 > Table 2 is hard to read. Response: We split Table 2 into Table 2A (baseline characteristics) and Table 2B (outcomes). Change: Tables 2A and 2B. R1.3 > The Discussion should say more about implementation barriers. Response: We added a paragraph on barriers. See also our note on R2.3. Change: page 14, lines 310 to 322. R2.1 > A randomized design would be needed to support causal claims. Response: We agree that a randomized design gives stronger causal evidence. Randomization was not possible because the county program enrolled every eligible patient. We used a matched comparison group, now state this as a limitation, and replaced causal wording such as "reduced" with "was associated with lower" throughout the manuscript. Change: limitations paragraph [LOCATION NEEDED]; wording changes shown in the tracked copy. R2.2 > The sample size justification is missing. Response: The sample size was set by program enrollment, not chosen in advance. We now report the smallest difference the study could detect with this sample. Change: [LOCATION NEEDED]. Author to add the detectable effect calculation before resubmission. R2.3 > Please shorten the Discussion. Response: We shortened the Discussion from 1,450 to 1,180 words while adding the barriers paragraph Reviewer 1 requested. Change: Discussion section. NEW ANALYSES AND TABLES - Table S3: sensitivity analysis adjusted for medication count - Tables 2A and 2B replace Table 2 CONSISTENCY CHECK [ ] Six numbered items, six responses [ ] Recheck every page and line against the final clean copy [ ] Fill the two [LOCATION NEEDED] items before sending [ ] Resubmit inside the 60 day window