How to Respond to Reviewer Comments from an Engineering Journal

Answer every comment, in order, in a separate response document — including the ones you disagree with. State what you changed and where, quote the revised text, and give a reason whenever you decline a change. At this engineering journal the revised manuscript is expected back within one week.

This is the stage where publishable engineering journal papers are most often lost, and almost never because the science was wrong. It is lost because the response was vague, incomplete, or defensive.

Before you write anything: read, then wait

The first reading of a critical report is emotional and the reply you draft in that hour should never be sent. Read the comments the day they arrive so you know the scale of the work, then leave them for a day. What looked like an attack usually reads on the second pass as somebody who could not follow your Methods section.

With one week to turn the revision round, that pause has to be short. Read on day one, work on days two to five, and keep the last two days for checking rather than writing.

The response document that works

Number every comment and answer it directly underneath. Three elements per response:

The comment, quoted in full. Do not paraphrase it — the editor is checking that you addressed what was actually said.
What you did. One sentence, specific: what changed and where.
The revised text itself, quoted, so nobody has to open the manuscript to verify it.

Comment 3. The number of specimens tested is not stated.

Response. Added to Section 2.2, page 4. The text now reads: “Five specimens were tested for each of the three fibre loadings, giving fifteen specimens in total.”

That takes twenty seconds to verify. Compare it with “The manuscript has been revised as suggested”, which tells the editor nothing and forces them to hunt.

How to disagree without losing the paper

Sometimes an engineering journal reviewer is wrong, or asks for work that is out of scope. Declining is allowed. Declining silently is not. The pattern that works has three parts:

Acknowledge the point. Show you understood it.
Give the reason. Technical, specific, not defensive.
Offer what you can do instead. Almost always there is something — a caveat added, a limitation acknowledged, a reference cited.

Comment 7. The authors should extend the study to elevated temperatures.

Response. We agree this would strengthen the conclusions. The test rig available to us is limited to ambient conditions, so the additional data cannot be produced for this revision. We have narrowed the claim in Section 4 to ambient conditions only, and added elevated-temperature testing to the further work in Section 5.

Nobody got the extra data. The paper still improved, and the reviewer’s concern is now visible in the text rather than buried in correspondence.

What reviewers most often ask for

Comment	What it usually means	Typical fix
“The methodology is unclear”	They cannot repeat what you did	Name the design, the replication count and the standard
“Statistical analysis is inadequate”	Means with no test, or a test with no significance level	State the test, the software and the p value
“The novelty is not clear”	Your introduction does not say what gap you fill	One sentence at the end of the introduction
“References are outdated”	Too little recent literature	Add recent work and engage with it, do not just cite it
“Conclusions are not supported”	You claimed more than you measured	Narrow the claim to the conditions tested
“Figure quality is poor”	Below 300 dpi, or unreadable at print size	Re-export at 75 or 155 mm width, 300 dpi

Notice how many are reporting problems rather than research problems. Most revisions at an engineering journal are about writing down what you already did.

The four decisions, and what each one is asking for

Decision	What the reviewers concluded	What your response has to do
Minor revision	The science stands; clarify and tidy	Show the change, briefly. Usually a few days of work
Major revision	Something substantive is unresolved	Answer every point in full; this is the decision that rewards effort most
Reject and resubmit	The paper could work but not in this form	Treat it as a new submission with the reports as a free pre-review
Reject	The objection cannot be fixed by rewriting	Fix the substantive objection before sending it anywhere else

“Major revision” is not a soft rejection, however it feels on the day it arrives. It means two independent people read your work and thought it was worth publishing once a real problem was addressed. The response you write is what decides which way it goes.

Handling contradictory reviewers

It happens more than authors expect, and engineering journals rarely warn you about it. Reviewer 1 wants the discussion shortened; Reviewer 2 wants it expanded. Reviewer 1 wants a statistical test that Reviewer 2 thinks is inappropriate for the data.

Do not average them and do not pick one silently. Name the conflict in your response, state which position you have followed, and explain why in one or two sentences. Then let the editor decide — that is precisely what the Subject Editor is there for. An author who spots and flags the contradiction looks careful; one who quietly satisfies one reviewer looks like they did not read the other report.

What to do when the report is thin

Sometimes a review is two lines long and says little. That is frustrating, but it is not an invitation to do nothing.

Answer what is there, however brief, in the same format as any other comment.
Reread the paper as a stranger would. A thin report often means the reviewer skimmed; the parts they skimmed are usually the parts that were hard to read.
Do not ask for a better review. Ask the editor a specific question if something is genuinely ambiguous, but do not challenge the quality of the report itself.

A response document template

Response to reviewers — Manuscript ID [number]

We thank the reviewers for their comments. Each point is addressed below; changed text is quoted, with the section and page given. All changes are marked in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1
1.1 [comment quoted in full]
Response. [what changed, where]. The text now reads: “[revised sentence]”

1.2 [comment quoted in full]
Response. [reason for declining]. We have instead [what you did do], in Section [x].

Reviewer 2
2.1 …

Nothing clever about it. It is verifiable in a couple of minutes, which is exactly what an editor with a queue of manuscripts needs.

Five things that cost people their acceptance

Answering some comments and not others. The commonest reason a major revision becomes a rejection.
Saying “revised as suggested” without saying what changed. Unverifiable, so it does not count.
Arguing rather than explaining. Tone travels, even through an editor.
Missing the deadline without telling anyone. A short email asking for a few more days is almost always fine; silence is not.
Introducing new problems in the revision. Reread the whole section you edited, not just the sentence you changed.

Before you send it back

Every numbered comment has a numbered response
Every response says where the change is
The revised manuscript and the response document are consistent
Any new references are in Vancouver style
Figures still meet 300 dpi after any re-export
You have reread the sections you edited, in full

The revision goes back to the same reviewers, and the Subject Editor takes the final decision — the process is set out on the peer review and publication policy page. Our guide on what peer review involves explains what they were asked to assess in the first place.

Frequently asked questions

How long do I have to respond to reviewer comments?

One week at this journal. That is tighter than most authors expect, which is why the revision stage is where papers stall. Read the comments the day they arrive, even if you start work later.

Do I have to accept every reviewer comment?

No. You have to answer every comment. Where you disagree, say so and give the reason — a reasoned disagreement is normal and is respected. What loses papers is silence.

What if the two reviewers contradict each other?

Say so explicitly in your response, explain which position you have followed and why, and let the editor arbitrate. Editors expect this; quietly following one and ignoring the other does not work.

Should I write a separate response document?

Yes. A point-by-point response document alongside the revised manuscript is what the editor actually reads. Without it, they have to diff two versions of your paper to find out what you changed.

What if a reviewer has misunderstood my paper?

Treat it as a writing problem rather than a reading problem. If one careful reader misunderstood a passage, others will too. Fix the passage, then say in your response that you have clarified it.

Does 'major revision' mean my paper will be rejected?

No. It means the reviewers think the work is worth publishing once a substantive problem is addressed. Papers are lost at this stage through weak responses far more often than through weak results.

Related Guides

How review works, and what a rejection actually means:

Created by Dilbag Singh • 20 Jul 2026