Peer Review Response
Professional response to reviewer comments on scientific submissions
Prompt template
Help me write a professional and persuasive response to the following reviewer comments. **Journal / Conference**: [NAME] **Manuscript Title**: [TITLE] **Decision**: [MAJOR REVISION / MINOR REVISION / RECONSIDER AFTER REVISION] **Reviewer Comments**: Reviewer 1: [INSERT COMMENTS] Reviewer 2: [INSERT COMMENTS] For each comment, please provide: 1. **Summary of the Criticism**: Restate the reviewer's concern in one sentence. 2. **Response Text**: Draft a polite, factual, and solution-oriented reply. Thank the reviewer for the feedback and explain what changes were made or why a change was not made. 3. **Manuscript Changes**: Describe specifically what was changed and where in the manuscript (page, paragraph, or line number). 4. **Overarching Strategy**: Add a brief opening that thanks the reviewers for their effort and explains the overall revision logic. Tone: academic, constructive, respectful — but clear in its reasoning.
Replace placeholders in [square brackets]: [NAME][TITLE][MAJOR REVISION / MINOR REVISION / RECONSIDER AFTER REVISION][INSERT COMMENTS]
How to use this template
Copy the prompt, replace the placeholders in square brackets with your details and paste it into the AI assistant of your choice. The more precise your details, the better the result.
Tips for better results
- Thank reviewers sincerely for every comment, even those you disagree with — it sets a constructive tone.
- Justify rejections of reviewer suggestions with literature or methodological arguments, not personal preference.
- Use a numbered table (Comment / Response / Change) if the journal does not prescribe a specific format.
Suitable open models
The selection names current open models as a starting point for your own tests. It is not a measurement for this template.
Keywords: #peer-review #gutachter #revision #publikation #manuskript