rebuttal in a research paper

Research Communities by Springer Nature

How to write a rebuttal letter.

Share this post

Choose a social network to share with, or copy the shortened URL to share elsewhere

Share with...

...or copy the link.

communities.springernature.com

A well written rebuttal letter is critical in any resubmission. 

Once the initial reaction, be that joy, anger or frustration,  to receiving feedback from editors and reviewers about one’s work has subsided, it’s time for our authors to make one of two decisions:  continue to go after a Nature Method paper  or take their work to another journal.

A realistic look at how the reviewers’ requests can be met will go a long way in helping to determine whether a revision is likely successful and to avoid a futile resubmission.

If authors want to resubmit in cases where the editorial decision was negative, and referees were critical and asked for a lot of additional information, the first step, before embarking on any revision, should be an appeal (see the post on “ How to write an appeal letter ” for more details) and rebuttal letter to the editor to discuss whether a proposed list of additional information is likely to address the referees concerns.

Authors who receive a positive editorial decision and who are confident that they can address the reviewers’ points nevertheless have to submit a rebuttal letter with their revision.

The rebuttal letter is an author’s chance to directly reply to the reviewers, announce plans to improve the work, clear up misunderstandings or defend aspects of the work. How it is written can make a big difference in whether or not an appeal is granted and how the reviewers judge the revision.

• Do acknowledge that the reviewers spent a substantial amount of time looking over the paper – rebuttal letters that thank the referees for their time and comments set a positive tone and ensure that the exchange takes place on a productive footing.
• Do acknowledge that a misunderstanding may be due to poor presentation on your part, not lack of expertise on the reviewers’,  and phrase your reply accordingly,  taking the opportunity to clarify.
• Do copy the full text of each reviewer’s comments in your rebuttal and reply to every concern raised by each reviewer immediately after each point in a concise manner that clearly states how you plan to address it (experimentally or editorially) or point to data that already addresses it which the reviewer appears to have missed.
• If you cannot address a point at all, explain why not.
• Do number the comments or at least break them into paragraphs, and use different fonts or text colors to distinguish the reviewer comments and your reply, rather than write a single reply to an entire review in summary form.
• Do include relevant citations with full references or dois so they can be easily looked up, rather than just cite by First Author et al.
• Do include pertinent new data as embedded figures, tables, or attachments,   indicate where in the manuscript you added the information; give page numbers, figure panels, Supplementary material etc., so editors and reviewers don’t have to go on a search for the new data. If any of this information will not be included in the revised paper explain why not.
• Do be succinct and to the point and avoid epic discourses.  In the case where more than one referee has raised the same concern, it’s best to cite “see response to point 2 from Reviewer #1”, for example.
• Do remember that each reviewer sees all comments and your replies so be equally respectful to all.

The DON’Ts:

• Don’t vent or accuse the reviewers of bias or incompetence. We have read countless times that “ ref 2 is lacking expertise and completely misses the point” etc. and one wonders what the goal of such blanket statements is. They serve no productive purpose and instead potentially bias all referees, even the positive ones, against the work.
• Don’t plead that for personal or monetary reasons critically important experiments can’t be performed. While we hear the plight of underfunded labs we don’t make exceptions for these reasons.
• Don’t ignore specific requests by referees without comment and selectively only answer a few queries.
• Don’t rephrase a referees’ point to give it a slightly different meaning that you can more easily address.

Don’t miss parts 1 and 3 of this series of posts covering cover letters and appeal letters . We encourage questions, comments and feedback below. The editors will do their best to answer any questions you have.

Please sign in or register for FREE

If you are a registered user on Research Communities by Springer Nature, please sign in

Follow the Topic

Recommended content, a chat with kirsten sadler.

Trajectories for single cell data analysis

A chat with Bertie Göttgens

Method of the Year 2016

Glycoscience: a tea party no longer.

We use cookies to ensure the functionality of our website, to personalize content and advertising, to provide social media features, and to analyze our traffic. If you allow us to do so, we also inform our social media, advertising and analysis partners about your use of our website. You can decide for yourself which categories you want to deny or allow. Please note that based on your settings not all functionalities of the site are available.

Further information can be found in our privacy policy .

Cookie Control

Customise your preferences for any tracking technology

The following allows you to customize your consent preferences for any tracking technology used to help us achieve the features and activities described below. To learn more about how these trackers help us and how they work, refer to the cookie policy. You may review and change your preferences at any time.

These trackers are used for activities that are strictly necessary to operate or deliver the service you requested from us and, therefore, do not require you to consent.

These trackers help us to deliver personalized marketing content and to operate, serve and track ads.

These trackers help us to deliver personalized marketing content to you based on your behaviour and to operate, serve and track social advertising.

These trackers help us to measure traffic and analyze your behaviour with the goal of improving our service.

These trackers help us to provide a personalized user experience by improving the quality of your preference management options, and by enabling the interaction with external networks and platforms.

Rebuttal How-To: Strategies, Tactics, and the Big Picture in Research

Demystifying rebuttal writing.

• Hacker News
• Download PDF
• Join the Discussion
• View in the ACM Digital Library

Why Bother Submitting a Rebuttal?

Dynamics of the paper review process, some rebuttal-writing tactics, appeal a decision, the big picture in research.

For the 2023 Individualized Cybersecurity Research Mentoring Workshop (iMentor), 1 I gave a 45-minute presentation on writing conference rebuttals. The insights would benefit others beyond the cybersecurity research community, so I organized my thoughts and shared them with our broader computing community. Submitting rebuttals, also known as the author response period, is a common practice in computing conferences. After reading the reviews, the authors can submit a succinct—for example approximately 700 words—itemized response, within several days. The program committee then discusses the work further to reach the final verdict for the manuscript.

Writing rebuttals energizes me, even though most of my rebuttals do not change the rejection fate of my papers. I genuinely enjoy the opportunity of communicating with experts in the field. This process of intensely reading others’ opinions about my work also helps solidify my own research style. Discussing rebuttal plans is a wonderful team bonding activity, so be sure to analyze reviews together with coauthors. Unconstructive reviews, however, induce impostor syndrome. 13 Therefore, plan rebuttals after you have overcome the initial shock.

However, for junior researchers experiencing job and graduation pressure, this rebuttal process can be rather stressful and confusing. I hope this discussion on rebuttal strategies, tactics, and the big picture of research principles mentioned here are useful for writing itemized author responses for journals, too.

Joan of Arc said, “All battles are first won or lost, in the mind.” Have faith in your work, regardless of the outcome. Authors must think beyond the outcomes of a particular paper. I have also shared some of my rebuttals to help others get familiar with this type of writing. 14

Researchers show 1%–4.4% of papers were positively impacted by rebuttals in five recent conferences. 4 The low statistical impact on papers’ outcomes is also observed by others. 7 I briefly describe three scenarios where writing rebuttals could be immensely useful: major revision competency; refutation to set the record straight; and training critical thinking and question answering.

For conferences that have a major revision (for example, USENIX Security Symposium) or conditional accept option, authors should submit author responses. For USENIX Security, the acceptance rates of major revised manuscripts are very high: 85.7% in 2020 3 and 86% in 2021. 5 However, before handing out the precious major revision verdict, reviewers examine the rebuttal for indicators showing the team’s revision competency. Are the authors willing to conduct the necessary new experiments? Can authors adequately address the requested revision items in a few months? Poorly written rebuttals may indicate low-quality revision down the road. Thus, the rebuttal needs to show strong revision competency and commitment.

I sometimes submit rebuttals even when my paper receives entirely hopeless ratings. The purpose is to refute. This refutation scenario is where authors need to clarify factual errors and serious misunderstandings about their work, for example, regarding novelty, significance, or correctness. You may need to strongly refute reviewers to set the record straight, preparing for future submissions. The paper review circle is small—resubmissions may be assigned to the same, possibly biased, reviewers at later conferences. I experienced this situation in our CryptoGuard work, 11 with reoccurring negative talking points incorrectly insisting that earlier prototypes had already solved the problem of deployment-grade cryptographic API misuse detection. It is unnatural not to feel upset and frustrated—the work is your brainchild, but some experts think it is unworthy. Tap into that energy when writing rebuttals. Such situations also indicate that your research vision and style differ from others—an advantage in the long run.

Lastly, writing rebuttals improves one’s ability to brainstorm and answer questions in a straightforward manner. Mastering these essential skills requires practice. Therefore, even with heartbreaking ratings, completing the rebuttal process has training values.

Strategically, the key mission of rebuttals is twofold: to solidify the champion’s support and to help the champion defend your work or “embolden” the champion. 6 The latter is also known as “arm the champion,” 15 that is, equipping the champion with additional evidence, so they can argue for your acceptance. Champions are reviewers who vocally advocate for your work. 9 Some conference assigns a champion to each paper. 16

The intuitive idea that a rebuttal does not need to carefully address champions’ comments 15 is overly optimistic. Upon seeing weak rebuttals, a champion may declare ending their championing position and lower their rating, which was also reported by other researchers (for example, Morris 8 ). After all, most champions do see your work’s flaws and want to hear your defense and justification. Thus, seriously addressing champions’ comments and concerns is absolutely necessary.

Social psychology experiments have repetitively shown that people have a tendency to conform. a Herd mentality also continues in online spaces. b Most reviewers tend to converge to the majority opinion, as it is the safest. Consider this scenario. There are four initial reviews, including one reject , one weak reject , one weak accept , and one accept. However, the weak accept reviewer — upon seeing the assertive negative reviews — immediately lowers their rating to weak reject . At this point, what does it take for the only positive reviewer to champion this submission? Championing takes energy. It also takes courage, patience, and persistence. The positive reviewer needs to read all reviews, re-read parts of the paper, and initiate the discussion to admit the current deficiencies in the paper, but continue to explain why these deficiencies are somewhat fixable or tolerable. In addition, the champion would need to ask strong detractors whether or not the rebuttal alleviates their concerns. Occasionally, this negotiation may also give the superficial impression that champions may have a lower scientific standard, which is not true at all. Being a champion is exhausting. Therefore, if the champion’s concerns about your work are inadequately resolved, it would be difficult for them to support your work wholeheartedly.

The preceding example involves mixed diverging reviews. If planned well, such controversial cases may present promising outcomes. Another common situation is where all reviewers sound lukewarm and ratings are mostly borderline-level, for example, two weak rejects and one weak accept. The excitement is clearly low. This scenario is more thorny, as the paper is likely to be rejected if there is no further discussion. As authors, you still have hope, as you can organize and interpret the reviews as part of your rebuttal, possibly delivering some degree of enthusiasm via your words. The rebuttal is your last resort to energize reviewers. For most conferences, PC chairs or area chairs also read your rebuttals and attempt to energize the discussion, as others also pointed out. 10 Oftentimes, I found reviewers give low ratings without any serious issues or have unrealistic expectations for research prototypes. For cybersecurity conferences, occasionally my rebuttals had to remind reviewers that security is relative and it is impossible to achieve absolute security.

Here, I highlight some key rebuttal writing tactics with a simple question.

When addressing critical comments, the response needs to be thoughtful and have depth. Brainstorm a little. Share your expert opinions. Let me illustrate using one seemingly innocuous comment: “Will your solution handle situation A ?”

This is not a simple yes-or-no question, if A is a complex scenario and you have not thoroughly discussed it. Trivializing reviewers’ critical comments is a common rebuttal pitfall. Recognize key concerns and address them with thoughtfulness. For cybersecurity work, typically there are several possible options.

To defend your work: Simply stating yes is insufficient. One needs to provide evidence, reasoning, or justification, as well as possible challenges associated with porting your solution to handle A .

To point out that the concern is universal: A is a common challenge (to point out, lack of security ground truth in real-world code), thus not a dealbreaker. However, do thoughtfully discuss how A impacts your work, for example, on precision and recall values and security guarantees.

To point out it is an open problem: No one knows how to handle A well, but you plan to offer good insight in the revision.

To admit true limitations: This response still needs to be thoughtfully worded to provide good insights. For example, A is out of our threat model, but other solutions can be borrowed to handle A. However, the integration may present complications in our setting. After all, it is unreasonable to expect one paper to solve everything everywhere all at once.

A combination of all: For example, A may represent an open problem that is universal to some approaches that your work can potentially handle, but with limitations. Capturing these subtleties helps convey your technical depth.

Paraphrase the reviews and reorder them.

You have full control over what goes into the rebuttal. You can reorder comments by importance. You can paraphrase the comments. Describe their concern in your own words. This process also shows your deep understanding and appreciation of their comments. Most importantly, using consistent terminology in both the question and the answer makes it easy to follow.

Avoid excessively referencing existing sections.

What was already said in the paper clearly is unconvincing; repeating it would be unwise. The rebuttal is a precious space to provide new information, new perspective, new content, and new results (if permitted). Virtually all my rebuttals include new numbers and new experimental data. Running experiments takes time. Thus, the author team needs to meet as soon as possible to devise a rebuttal plan.

Convey your strong willingness to revise and do new work.

A common pitfall in writing rebuttals is the lack of commitment to revision. However, depending on whether the conference offers a major revision or conditional acceptance option, you would write differently. Most reviewers do not feel comfortable conditionally accepting a paper, if the new version will likely look drastically different. Several blog articles also give other great suggestions. 6 , 8 , 10 , 12 , 15

My recent Communications Medicine work on AI digital health fairness 2 was rejected in the initial round of review. Luckily, Nature journals have a streamlined appeal process. Eventually, the editor decided to reverse their decision and send my revised version out again to reviewers. Journal reviewers operate in isolation and thus do not influence each other’s opinion, at least in the initial round of review.

In contrast, appealing is less useful in our conference review systems based on my experience, as outlier reviewers tend to quickly give up and conform to the majority verdict. Thus, even if the PC chair agrees to add a couple more reviewers who like your work, the outcome rarely changes. Here is why—the minute new reviewers see the existing negative ratings, they will likely swiftly reduce their ratings and declare alignment with the existing votes. This behavior is understandable, as championing such a paper is clearly an uphill battle. The authors can always improve their work and resubmit later, so why rush? Regardless of the outcomes, PC chairs and area chairs are instrumental in creating thorough post-response discussion, by asking “Reviewers, does the rebuttal address your concerns? Why not?”

In The Art of War , Sun Tzu wrote “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.” For researchers, doing good work in the first place is the ultimate key. The most brilliant rebuttal could not rescue ill-formed research.

The peer review system has randomness due to the unpredictable nature of the discussion (for example, your champion may be unavailable for discussion due to a medical emergency). The peer review system also has implicit biases. For example, the importance of a research direction is heavily influenced by the reviewers’ own research interests. In my experience with cybersecurity conferences, papers in hot areas tend to receive longer reviews with more excitement, as they address “important and timely problems.” In contrast, work addressing older-but-still-unsolved problems (for example, false positives in deploying anomaly-based intrusion detection) is likely met with dampened enthusiasm and perfunctory lackluster reviews. Non-expert reviewers may also have the incorrect impression that the problem has long been solved. Continuing to diversify program committees, as many conferences are doing, would help reduce such implicit biases.

For researchers, understanding the review mechanism and the dynamics among reviewers would help them navigate the publication process. Keep submitting. Win the battle in your mind.

Submit an Article to CACM

CACM welcomes unsolicited submissions on topics of relevance and value to the computing community.

You Just Read

January 2024 Issue

Vol. 67 No. 1

Pages: 46-47

Advertisement

Join the Discussion (0)

Become a member or sign in to post a comment, the latest from cacm.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About PCs, But Were Afraid to Ask

How CrowdStrike Stopped Everything

Leveraging Computational Thinking in the Era of Generative AI

Shape the Future of Computing

ACM encourages its members to take a direct hand in shaping the future of the association. There are more ways than ever to get involved.

Communications of the ACM (CACM) is now a fully Open Access publication.

By opening CACM to the world, we hope to increase engagement among the broader computer science community and encourage non-members to discover the rich resources ACM has to offer.

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

Rebuttal How-To: Strategies, Tactics, and the Big Picture in Research

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, index terms.

Social and professional topics

Professional topics

Computing education

Computing education programs

Recommendations

Big data analytics, next-generation big data: a practical guide to apache kudu, impala, and spark, talend for big data, information, published in.

Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Check for updates, contributors, other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 2,407 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 2,407
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 195

View options

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

Digital Edition

View this article in digital edition.

Magazine Site

View this article on the magazine site (external)

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

Download Factsheet

Select which journal factsheet to download:

Response Letters

How to write a response letter.

A benefit of publishing your review history is that other scholars, especially early career researchers, now have an example of how to respond to reviewer comments. Along with performing good peer-review, academic rebuttals tend to be things that get left out of traditional graduate school and post-doc training. Being able to read public academic response letters is an immensely valuable resource for this reason.

It's also important to keep in mind what a journal's editorial criteria are, and whether both the reviewers and authors have respected those boundaries. A response is an opportunity to review the editorial policies. Learn more about PeerJ's editorial criteria .

Continuing with the reviews of the PeerJ paper on the review benefits page, let's look at how the author, Associate Professor Rob Edwards , handled his response to some of the reviewer comments (or download the full response ).

We'll go over two aspects of writing a response letter:

• Structure or Format

Cover letter (Structure)

In each sample the review comments are in blue, while the author response is in yellow (add by us for emphasis, not the author).

Line-item responses and readability (Structure)

We're showing just one snippet above, but the author has copied all of the reviewer comments (reviewers 1 and 2) and pasted them into a new document. He has then addressed each point line by line. Also notice the reviewer comments have been italicized (or could have been bolded) and the author responses are non-italicized. This greatly helps the reviewers and academic editor to quickly scan the response letter making their volunteered job easier and hopefully a little more enjoyable!

Professional and Civil Responses (Content)

It doesn't hurt to remain civil, no matter how dramatic a reviewer may have been in their comments. Remember, the academic editor will also see the reviewer comments and know when they're being tough, but correct or just being plain uncivil. So, keep your author responses polite as well. In this case Dr. Edwards explicitly adds "Agree. Therefore I ..." or "Of course, you're right, so I've added..." and similar throughout his response. This is professional and the right way to respond to feedback.

Handling reviewer questions/confusion (Content)

There are two reasons a reviewer may be confused about something. Either they read it too quickly, or they were genuinely confused (by the writing style, the method chosen, etc). As an author you'll never know which of course, but it's likely that readers will be doing the same as well. Rather than debate that confusion, this may be an opportunity to expand the manuscript's discussion section. If the discussion is already lengthy then an explanation of the reason to the reviewer may be sufficient along with a short explanation of why you feel the longer discussion should not be added to the actual manuscript.

Responding to the 'additional experiments needed' request (Content)

The dreaded "I believe more experiments are required" reviewer request. The initial gut reaction is to scream expletives and shout out loud at the reviewer. Go ahead and do that. Go on, we'll wait for you. Now that you've got that out of your system you can proceed to how to respond in writing.

In this case there is no magical formula, you may actually need to perform additional validating experiments or similar. The main thing to check is - "Do your conclusions truly follow from the experiments and results previously performed? If not then you have two choices: 1) perform the additional experiments or 2) re-write your conclusions to be in line with the thresholds of experimental validity. Sometimes that could mean the paper is no longer worthy of publishing, in which case you've learned something. Hopefully a simple re-write or explanation of why an additional experiment is not needed or impossible is enough though.

Stay polite, remain professional

The most effective rebuttals are respectful and professional. Address the reviewers as you would like to be addressed yourself (no matter how much you might be tempted to 'get personal'!). For example, even if you think you have identified a recalcitrant anonymous reviewer never call out their name in your responses (especially as this document may become public via our open peer review program).

The key thing to remember in your responses is that a little politeness, consideration for confusion, and short explanation is usually all that is needed to satisfy publishing requirements. Editors and reviewers are just as busy as you, and everyone appreciates getting clear respectful answers to alleviate a busy schedule. For authors this usually translates into a more pleasurable peer-review process and almost guarantees a faster turn-around decision time.

In case you missed it, do check out the benefits of optional open review at PeerJ and how to perform a good peer-review .

• Benefits home
• Excellent reputation
• Broad audience
• Feature comparison
• High quality peer review
• Indexing and Impact Factor
• Early career researcher benefits
• Senior researcher benefits
• Fast publishing
• Reduced cost publishing
• Open review
• Response letters

Guide to Prepare a Perfect Rebuttal Letter

After an author or researcher submits their work for publication, they write a rebuttal letter in response to the comments of reviewers and editors. A manuscript that has been submitted for publication with no requested amendments is rare. A superb academic rebuttal letter can help you persuade reviewers and editors that your paper is excellent and should be published in that journal. During the peer review process, this is often your last chance to underline the quality of your work. So, before you write a rebuttal letter, you should carefully study the reviewer’s remarks and identify the nature of the suggested adjustments and how you should respond to them.

When writing a rebuttal letter, there are a few things to bear in mind. Below are the points:

• Appreciate the feedback from the reviewer

Consider the reviewer’s suggestions as a way to improve your work. You must acknowledge that the reviewers have a deeper awareness of the guidelines that authors must follow in order to have their work published.

• Express thanks to all of the reviewers

The way you draft your rebuttal letter can have a significant impact on how editors and referees evaluate your revision. They will most likely read the rebuttal letter before actually reading your amended work, therefore if you want them to be on your side, you should not be too brief in your comments, as it may appear rude. As an author, you should be grateful that the reviewers took the time to go over your work before pointing out the adjustments you need to make. Begin your response letter on a positive note, thanking your reviewers for their input.

• Respond to all of the editor’s and reviewers’ concerns

Copy every single comment in your rebuttal letter and write your response in a clear and straightforward manner directly after each point. Ensure that none of the reviewers’ or editor’s concerns go unanswered. Even if you disagree with a point or have not implemented the suggested change, please state your position and explain why.

• Respond to each question with a point-by-point response

Number the points raised by the reviewers and answer them in order. In the original and updated manuscripts, highlight the corresponding changes in the document or refer to the line numbers. Always keep in mind that editors and reviewers are frequently very busy, so make sure your comments are concise and clear. You should also try to address the referees’ concerns as best you can, but do so succinctly and immediately, with no unnecessary explanations or protracted speeches.

• Make a note of the changes you’ve made

When resubmitting your world, you must provide enough information about the changes you’ve made so that reviewers can easily identify the changes you’ve made to your manuscript. If two or more reviewers have made similar comments, direct them to the response.

• Complete citations should be included

In your citations, avoid utilizing the first author’s name and the initials et al. Include complete references so that the reviewers may search them up.

• Select the Appropriate Finish

Your letter should end on a positive note, letting the referees know that you have done your best to improve the manuscript in light of their suggestions—and that you are willing to make more changes if necessary (if necessary). Furthermore, reviewers and editors should get the impression that you appreciate their efforts and the time they spent rewriting your article.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• 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 (2024)

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.

• 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

• GradPost Blog

Writing a rebuttal letter for an academic journal

Career & Tools

How do you respond to reader feedback to ​show ​how you ​have improved your manuscript or that you (umm, politely) disagree with their point-of-view?

Here are a couple links to ​some great advice on how to write ​a cover letter and ​​your point-by-point rebuttal.

​ How to Write a Great Rebuttal Letter

How to Write a Rebuttal Letter

​ ​Cover Letter and Rebuttal Letter

Combined Letter (pdf)

• [email protected]

How to Write a Rebuttal Letter After Paper Rejection – Examples and Tips

• Close to 90% of submissions to prestigious journals are rejected initially.
• The global average acceptance rate for scholarly journals is approximately 17-30%.
• The rebuttal letter is often the last opportunity to emphasize the quality of your work.
• A well-written rebuttal can persuade editors and reviewers to reconsider your manuscript.
• Maintaining a respectful tone and directly addressing major concerns are crucial.
• Providing additional data, experiments, and revisions can strengthen your case.

In academic publishing , close to 90% of papers sent to top journals get rejected . The big reason is that editors choose not to send them for review by other experts. This fact shows how tough it is for researchers to get their work published. Here, writing a good rebuttal letter is key.

A rebuttal letter is your chance to answer the comments of the reviewers, clear up any confusion, and explain and suggest how to better the work. This crucial letter can change whether your updated paper gets another look for publishing . Or, it ends up not being reconsidered at all.

Good vs. Bad Practices in Responding to Reviewer Comments

Understanding the Rebuttal Letter

Authors get a response from editors after sending their paper to a journal. This response tells them why their article wasn’t accepted right away. It also points out what they need to work on before they can send it again.

A rebuttal letter is a crucial document that allows authors to directly reply to reviewers’ comments, potentially resulting in their paper being accepted for publication .

It lets researchers talk about their proposed

improvements

, clear up any misunderstandings, and explain why certain parts of their work were questioned by

Example of Point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments

Dear Editor,

Thank you for considering our manuscript titled “Novel targeted therapy for glioblastoma using a dual-action nanoparticle delivery system” for publication in Nature Medicine. We greatly appreciate the insightful comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have carefully addressed each point raised by the reviewers and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments.

Reviewer 1:

In vivo toxicity assessment: We have now included additional data on the in vivo toxicity assessment of our nanoparticle delivery system. Histological analyses of major organs (liver, kidney, spleen, and brain) from treated mice showed no signs of toxicity or adverse effects (Fig. S5).

Comparison with current standard of care: As suggested, we have expanded the discussion to include a comparison of our targeted therapy with the current standard of care for glioblastoma (temozolomide and radiation therapy). Our approach demonstrates improved survival and reduced tumor burden compared to the standard of care in our preclinical model (Fig. 6).

Mechanism of action: We have provided further details on the mechanism of action of our dual-action nanoparticle system. The nanoparticles selectively target glioblastoma cells via the overexpressed transferrin receptor and deliver a combination of siRNA targeting the oncogenic protein BCL-2 and a chemotherapeutic agent (doxorubicin) to induce apoptosis (Fig. 3).

Reviewer 2:

Sample size and statistical analysis: We have now clearly stated the sample size for each experiment in the figure legends and methods section. Statistical analyses were performed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Long-term survival data: As recommended, we have included long-term survival data for our in vivo glioblastoma model. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrates a significant improvement in overall survival for mice treated with our targeted nanoparticle therapy compared to control groups (Fig. 7).

Clinical translation potential: We have expanded the discussion to address the potential for clinical translation of our targeted therapy. While further studies are needed, our approach offers several advantages, including reduced systemic toxicity, improved blood-brain barrier penetration, and targeted delivery to glioblastoma cells. We have also outlined the next steps for preclinical development and potential clinical trial design.

Reviewer 3:

Nanoparticle characterization: As requested, we have included additional data on the characterization of our nanoparticle delivery system. Dynamic light scattering and transmission electron microscopy analyses confirm the uniform size distribution and morphology of the nanoparticles (Fig. S1).

In vitro efficacy in primary glioblastoma cells: We have now included data demonstrating the efficacy of our targeted therapy in primary glioblastoma cells derived from patient samples. Our nanoparticle system significantly reduced cell viability and induced apoptosis in these primary cells (Fig. S3).

Biodistribution and pharmacokinetics: We have added data on the biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of our nanoparticle system in the revised manuscript. Fluorescently labeled nanoparticles showed preferential accumulation in the brain tumor, with minimal distribution to other organs (Fig. S4). The plasma half-life of the nanoparticles was determined to be approximately 6 hours.

We hope that the revised manuscript, along with our point-by-point response, adequately addresses the concerns raised by the reviewers. We believe that our study provides a novel and promising approach for the targeted treatment of glioblastoma and has the potential to significantly impact patient outcomes. We thank you for your consideration and look forward to your decision.

Sincerely, [Editverse]

What is a Rebuttal Letter?

A rebuttal letter definition labels it as a formal response from authors to reviewers’ concerns. During the journal submission , authors get to explain their work, take in valid criticisms, and plan how to make their manuscript better. Writing a convincing rebuttal boosts the chance of getting their research published.

Importance of a Rebuttal Letter in Academic Publishing

The significance of a rebuttal letter in scholarly publishing is huge. High-rated journals might reject about 90% of submissions. Some papers don’t even make it to review due to not fitting the journal’s focus or weak research methods. An effective rebuttal can turn an initial rejection into an acceptance.

Good reviewer feedback can ask for small or big changes to the paper. It may suggest adding new data. In both cases, the rebuttal letter is key. It helps authors deal with the feedback better. It clarifies things and shows why their study is important, increasing their shot at getting published.

It’s important for authors to be polite when they respond to reviewers. They should thank them for the effort and consider their critiques. Putting together a well-thought-out rebuttal , with solid evidence, can make their work more likely to be published in a top academic journal .

Journal Submission Process Overview

Getting a research paper published can be tough, with many facing rejection in academic publishing . Yet, knowing how the submission process works and using smart tactics can help get your work accepted.

The Bad News About Journal Submission

Getting a paper accepted right away, with only minor edits, is very rare. This is true even for top journals, which say no to almost 90% of what they get. Often, papers get turned down before even being reviewed. This might happen if the topic doesn’t fit the journal’s needs at the time or if the study’s methods are not clear enough.

Top science journals say no to about 80% of papers at first. They only publish around 7% of what’s submitted. Even in less crowded areas like biomaterials, the odds aren’t much better, with about 14.7% making it in.

The Good News About Journal Submissions

Despite the challenges, there’s still a chance to get published. By following the journal’s rules, creating strong studies, and writing in a way that grabs the readers, you can improve your paper’s chances.

Some journals, like PLOS ONE and BMJ Open, have better odds, accepting about 45% and 40% of entries. If they ask you to make changes, it’s a chance to show you can improve the paper. This might get your work accepted in the end.

Even if your paper is rejected at first, it doesn’t mean you can’t publish later. Listening to feedback and making changes can turn the situation around. It might take time, but with effort, you can still get your research out there.

Getting feedback requesting changes is good news. It means you have a chance to adjust your work for a better shot at getting published. The rebuttal letter aims to convince the editors to give your paper another look. This can be just for minor tweaks or big revisions, depending on what’s needed.

It might seem tough, but nearly 90% of submissions to big journals face rejection first. Many times, papers don’t even get reviewed. This happens because they might not fit the journal’s focus or their research methods weren’t strong enough. However, if you write a strong rebuttal letter, you could turn those odds in your favor.

Your rebuttal should tackle each comment from the reviewers directly. Explain clearly how you plan to fix their concerns. This might involve new experiments, more analysis, or changes in how you present your data. Tailor your approach to different cases. Remember, the goal is to appreciate the feedback and solve any key issues rather than just argue.

Rebuttal letters can only be 500-750 words long, so being clear and concise is key. Using tables or providing links to extra data can help fit in more information without going over the limit.

To write a successful rebuttal letter, keep a professional tone. Address the main concerns shared by the reviewers. Back up your points with strong methodology and data. These steps can greatly boost your paper’s chances of being accepted.

• Make sure to cover big concerns about your research’s value or methods.
• Point out any positive comments and thank the reviewers for their insights.
• Having a colleague support your paper can also help.

Responding to Reviewer Feedback

The review process is key in getting academic work out there. Responding to reviewer feedback is vital for authors wanting their work to be accepted. It’s important to be polite and recognize the reviewers’ knowledge in our responses. Even if we don’t agree with all the feedback, a respectful tone is a must.

Do’s and Don’ts for Responding to Reviewers

When responding, it’s good to follow best practices to improve your chances of acceptance. Let’s go over do’s and don’ts :

• Do thank the editors and reviewers for their time and insights to start positively.
• Do answer each comment thoroughly and clearly.
• Do accept valid criticism and suggest improvements in your rebuttal.
• Don’t blame or criticise the reviewers, even if you don’t agree with them.
• Don’t fight back or be rude in your responses; stay professional.
• Don’t overlook serious feedback on your work’s value and correctness.

Following these guidelines shows our dedication to quality work. It improves our standing in the peer review process .

If you can’t address some feedback for practical or scientific reasons, explain why. This keeps communication clear and shows you’re open to discussion. It’s important to handle these situations with transparency.

Responding to reviewers is a chance to make our work stronger and clearer. It shows we’re serious about good science.

Considering and responding well to feedback makes our work better and more likely to be accepted. Yet, avoiding common mistakes is crucial to not hurt our credibility.

Structuring the Rebuttal Letter

After your paper is rejected, writing a good rebuttal letter is key. The way you organize your response can help get your paper published. Using a good strategy will make all the difference.

Starting the Rebuttal Letter

Start by thanking the reviewers and noting their positive points. This sets a positive tone. Then, answer the most important comments first, especially those from experts.

Addressing Major and Minor Comments

Look carefully at the big issues raised, especially if they question your work’s value, methods, or new ideas. These are key reasons for rejection and need clear answers. Don’t forget about the smaller comments though, like on how data is shown, or if you made any mistakes in citing sources.

Using Tables and Links Effectively

Use tables and links to share more data and evidence in your letter. Tables are great for sharing complex information in an easy way. And, adding links to extra materials can make your argument stronger but not too long.

Providing Additional Data and Experiments

If the reviewers ask for more experiments or data, listen to them. Adding new proof can make your response stronger and your paper better. But, be smart about what extra information you share. It should directly answer their big concerns.

Maintaining a Professional Tone

When you’re writing a rebuttal to review feedback, keeping professionalism in rebuttal letters is key. Also, focus on a respectful writing style for reviewers . Authors should thank the reviewers for their time and insights. This shows gratitude for their efforts and respect for their expertise. It helps start a civil communication with peer reviewers , leading to positive outcomes.

Avoid getting into arguments. Aim for an academic tone for rebuttals that’s both casual and professional. You want to convince them of your research’s quality without attacking their skills. Answering each comment briefly and clearly is important for a strong rebuttal.

We shouldn’t hint at reviewer bias or incompetence. Doing so might damage the talk’s productivity and our manuscript’s chances.

For rejections, keep the polite language for rejections . Note the reviewers’ valid points and say you’re open to addressing them through edits or new experiments, if possible. A respectful and positive tone can lead to better discussions and a re-evaluation of your work in a good light.

• Express gratitude for reviewers’ time and insights
• Use polite, professional language
• Avoid combative or dismissive statements
• Acknowledge valid points and willingness to address concerns

Consolidating Common Concerns

In our rebuttal letter’s closing, we should address issues that many reviewers mentioned. This saves words and lets us consider the feedback from different angles. Doing so uses our space wisely and ensures we touch on all major points. We make it easier for reviewers to see the big picture around those important topics.

Summarize the major points you are focused on resolving to get the reviewers’ support for acceptance.

We’ll briefly summarize the main concerns critical for gaining approval. This strategy highlights our focus on shared critiques. It strengthens our argument for the paper to be accepted. By addressing common feedback, we present a strong, to-the-point response within set word limits.

Analyze reviewer comments to spot themes, contradictions, or agreements. This helps us target our responses effectively. Shared concerns from multiple reviewers are addressed this way. Such a method improves our rebuttal’s organization and shows our determination to address critical concerns.

To succeed, we need to summarize reviewer feedback in rebuttals and tackle key issues. This approach makes our response more focused, enhancing its impact on reviewers. It boosts our chances of acceptance.

Checklist Before Submitting Rebuttal

As we get ready to send our rebuttal letter, it’s key to check it well. We should use a checklist for rebuttal letter preparation . This helps make sure we cover everything, giving us a better shot at success.

• Express gratitude and maintain a respectful tone towards the reviewers throughout the letter.
• Verify that all major concerns, especially those questioning the methodology, findings, or novelty, have been clearly addressed.
• Consolidate common feedback from multiple reviewers and provide a persuasive closing summary.
• Ensure adherence to all formatting requirements, such as word limits.

A thorough rebuttal completion steps checklist can really boost your rebuttal letter’s power. It improves how you respond to the reviewers, leading to a better outcome.

By simply checking off this rebuttal submission checklist , our letter will be top-notch. It will be detailed, organized, and convincing, which could lead to a good result.

Take help of www.editverse.com for effective manuscript writing

Looking for professional manuscript editing to make sure your research paper is top-notch for academic publishing support ? Editverse has expert scholarly editors who focus on editing for researchers . They offer editverse academic editing services just for you.

Their team is very good at fine-tuning research writing , making arguments stronger, and keeping papers in line with academic standards. Services from Editverse fix language and grammar mistakes. They also make your writing better and sort out how you list things and quotes.

If you need help getting your work ready for publication, Editverse is here for you. They can help make your writing clearer and correct its style. With their editing, your work will be all set for publishing, and mistakes won’t hold you back.

Editverse is dedicated to following the ethical guidelines of important groups like the Committee on Publication Ethics. They make sure their academic publishing support is top-notch. Their clients love how focused they are on the details and their knowledge of what top journals need. Plus, they’re praised for their essential technical editing expertise .

“Editverse’s services have been invaluable in ensuring my research meets the rigorous standards of academic publishing . Their editors’ keen eye for detail and deep understanding of journal requirements have greatly improved the quality and readability of my manuscripts.” – Dr. Sarah Thompson, Molecular Biology Researcher

Whether it’s help with publication editing or just a thorough manuscript editing , Editverse is here for you. They’re known for their expert scholarly editors . They’re committed to taking your work to the next level.

Making a strong rebuttal letter is key in the academic world. It lets you tackle reviewers’ worries and boost your publishing chances. Even top journals hardly accept works the first time because around 90% of submissions are turned down . But, by answering major concerns well and adding more proof, you can up your manuscript’s chances. Stay professional to show you’re serious.

Carefully structure your rebuttal to cover big issues about your methods, findings, or new ideas. Editors might say no if your work doesn’t meet their journal’s focus or if they doubt the research . That’s why it’s crucial to explain your choices clearly. Depending on the feedback, you might just need a few tweaks or perhaps, big changes or new data.

It’s smart to group common worries, use visuals and links, and end with a strong wrap-up. Reviewers often suggest a closer look if they find your responses convincing . And if the editor is happy with how you addressed the peer reviews, you may get a green light. So, a well-done rebuttal can change a rejection into a publication win.

What is a rebuttal letter?

Why is a rebuttal letter important in academic publishing, what is the bad news about journal submissions, what is the good news about journal submissions, what are some dos and don’ts for responding to reviewers, how should i start the rebuttal letter, how can i use tables and links effectively in a rebuttal letter, how can i maintain a professional tone in the rebuttal letter, how can i consolidate common concerns in the rebuttal letter, what should i check before submitting the rebuttal letter, how can editverse help with effective manuscript writing, source links.

• https://www.editverse.com/manuscript-editing-services/
• https://www.editverse.com/manuscript-submission-checklist-for-paper-acceptance/
• ← Rationale for Research: Writing Tips & Examples
• Effective Use of Active and Passive Voice in Scientific Manuscripts →

Privacy Overview

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.

Tips on Manuscript Resubmission: How to Write a Good Rebuttal Letter

Following from ‘ Five Tips for Writing a Good Rebuttal Letter ’, we revisit the theme of manuscript resubmission to academic journals. The initial feedback from editors and reviewer’s about one’s work can trigger a variety of reactions based on its analysis. While authors seek positive feedback in general, the more realistic expectation is to address the reviewer’s requests for revision. Methods of writing a rebuttal letter can determine if manuscript revision is likely to be successful or a futile attempt at resubmission. Should the editorial outcome be negative with equally critical referees, the recommendation is to provide an appeal letter first. However, authors who receive positive feedback can revise in compliance with comments, and submit revisions along with a rebuttal letter.

A Writing Guide – Do’s and Don’ts

A rebuttal letter offers authors an opportunity to address reviewer’s concerns directly, defend aspects of work, and eliminate contextual misunderstandings. This stepwise breakdown of writing a rebuttal letter aims to assist authors during the revision to ensure grant of appeal.

Step 1: Say Thank You

Acknowledge the reviewers time, comments and expertise. Thanking the reviewers sets a positive tone to begin with, providing the basis for an ongoing amicable exchange. Do not insinuate reviewer bias or incompetence. Prudent statements from the author cannot result in a positive re-evaluation of the work.

Step 2: Be Modest

Acknowledge any misunderstandings on your part including a poor presentation that may have led to reviewer’s confusion. Do not imply reviewer incompetence or lack of expertise in the phrasing of your rebuttal. Be clear, avoiding ambiguous and blank statements.

Step 3: Keep it Short

Respond to each reviewer’s individual comments, by copying the full text within your rebuttal letter . Strive to keep answers brief, succinct and well versed. Explain how you intend to revise the concerns either experimentally or editorially. Do not plead for reconsideration based on lack of funding as one of the reasons surrounding your inability to complete key experiments. Original scientific articles require the full spectrum of research, and the inability to meet reviewer requests experimentally is not viable.

Step 4: Explain Everything

If data required is available as a supplementary article, which the reviewer may have missed, explain this in your rebuttal for clarity. If you are unable to address a point raised in the reviewer comments, explain your reasons for evasion. Do not blatantly ignore reviewer comments, while selectively answering a few.

Step 5: Major Comments and Minor Comments

Often authors receive feedback on their manuscript from the editorial and reviewers as ‘Major’ and ‘Minor’ comments. If reviewer comments deviate from the typical format, categorize the comments provided relative to your work, as major and minor:

• Major comments: delineate major comments based on its relevance to the integral scientific or academic content of your manuscript.
• Minor comments: concern data presentation, table formatting, suggested changes to figures and citation errors, including comments on syntax errors.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Old Webinars
• Webinar Mobile App

How Academic Editors Can Enhance the Quality of Your Manuscript

Avoiding desk rejection Detecting language errors Conveying your ideas clearly Following technical requirements

Common English Translation Mistakes in Academic Writing

Language and Grammar Rules Accurate word choice Maintaining factual correctness Optimizing sentence structure

How to Best Avoid Journal Rejections: 10 Tips for Successful Submission!

Reasons for manuscript rejection Tips for manuscript submission Publication ethics Online submission system

• Manuscript Preparation
• Publishing Research

Top 5 Key Differences Between Methods and Methodology

While burning the midnight oil during literature review, most researchers do not realize that the…

How to Avoid Rejections Due to Language Mistakes

Common language errors Application of English grammar Importance of professional editing Enago services for ESL…

10 Common Statistical Errors to Avoid When Writing Your Manuscript

Why Are Manuscript Revisions Necessary?

Finished Submitting a Journal Manuscript: What’s Next?

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.

• Reporting Research
• Industry News
• AI in Academia
• Promoting Research
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• 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:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Organizing Your Argument

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

How can I effectively present my argument?

In order for your argument to be persuasive, it must use an organizational structure that the audience perceives as both logical and easy to parse. Three argumentative methods —the  Toulmin Method , Classical Method , and Rogerian Method — give guidance for how to organize the points in an argument.

Note that these are only three of the most popular models for organizing an argument. Alternatives exist. Be sure to consult your instructor and/or defer to your assignment’s directions if you’re unsure which to use (if any).

Toulmin Method

The  Toulmin Method  is a formula that allows writers to build a sturdy logical foundation for their arguments. First proposed by author Stephen Toulmin in  The Uses of Argument (1958), the Toulmin Method emphasizes building a thorough support structure for each of an argument's key claims.

The basic format for the Toulmin Method  is as follows:

Claim:  In this section, you explain your overall thesis on the subject. In other words, you make your main argument.

Data (Grounds):  You should use evidence to support the claim. In other words, provide the reader with facts that prove your argument is strong.

Warrant (Bridge):  In this section, you explain why or how your data supports the claim. As a result, the underlying assumption that you build your argument on is grounded in reason.

Backing (Foundation):  Here, you provide any additional logic or reasoning that may be necessary to support the warrant.

Counterclaim:  You should anticipate a counterclaim that negates the main points in your argument. Don't avoid arguments that oppose your own. Instead, become familiar with the opposing perspective.   If you respond to counterclaims, you appear unbiased (and, therefore, you earn the respect of your readers). You may even want to include several counterclaims to show that you have thoroughly researched the topic.

Rebuttal:  In this section, you incorporate your own evidence that disagrees with the counterclaim. It is essential to include a thorough warrant or bridge to strengthen your essay’s argument. If you present data to your audience without explaining how it supports your thesis, your readers may not make a connection between the two, or they may draw different conclusions.

Example of the Toulmin Method:

Claim:  Hybrid cars are an effective strategy to fight pollution.

Data1:  Driving a private car is a typical citizen's most air-polluting activity.

Warrant 1:  Due to the fact that cars are the largest source of private (as opposed to industrial) air pollution, switching to hybrid cars should have an impact on fighting pollution.

Data 2:  Each vehicle produced is going to stay on the road for roughly 12 to 15 years.

Warrant 2:  Cars generally have a long lifespan, meaning that the decision to switch to a hybrid car will make a long-term impact on pollution levels.

Data 3:  Hybrid cars combine a gasoline engine with a battery-powered electric motor.

Warrant 3:  The combination of these technologies produces less pollution.

Counterclaim:  Instead of focusing on cars, which still encourages an inefficient culture of driving even as it cuts down on pollution, the nation should focus on building and encouraging the use of mass transit systems.

Rebuttal:  While mass transit is an idea that should be encouraged, it is not feasible in many rural and suburban areas, or for people who must commute to work. Thus, hybrid cars are a better solution for much of the nation's population.

Rogerian Method

The Rogerian Method  (named for, but not developed by, influential American psychotherapist Carl R. Rogers) is a popular method for controversial issues. This strategy seeks to find a common ground between parties by making the audience understand perspectives that stretch beyond (or even run counter to) the writer’s position. Moreso than other methods, it places an emphasis on reiterating an opponent's argument to his or her satisfaction. The persuasive power of the Rogerian Method lies in its ability to define the terms of the argument in such a way that:

• your position seems like a reasonable compromise.
• you seem compassionate and empathetic.

The basic format of the Rogerian Method  is as follows:

Introduction:  Introduce the issue to the audience, striving to remain as objective as possible.

Opposing View : Explain the other side’s position in an unbiased way. When you discuss the counterargument without judgement, the opposing side can see how you do not directly dismiss perspectives which conflict with your stance.

Statement of Validity (Understanding):  This section discusses how you acknowledge how the other side’s points can be valid under certain circumstances. You identify how and why their perspective makes sense in a specific context, but still present your own argument.

Statement of Your Position:  By this point, you have demonstrated that you understand the other side’s viewpoint. In this section, you explain your own stance.

Statement of Contexts : Explore scenarios in which your position has merit. When you explain how your argument is most appropriate for certain contexts, the reader can recognize that you acknowledge the multiple ways to view the complex issue.

Statement of Benefits:  You should conclude by explaining to the opposing side why they would benefit from accepting your position. By explaining the advantages of your argument, you close on a positive note without completely dismissing the other side’s perspective.

Example of the Rogerian Method:

Introduction:  The issue of whether children should wear school uniforms is subject to some debate.

Opposing View:  Some parents think that requiring children to wear uniforms is best.

Statement of Validity (Understanding):  Those parents who support uniforms argue that, when all students wear the same uniform, the students can develop a unified sense of school pride and inclusiveness.

Statement of Your Position : Students should not be required to wear school uniforms. Mandatory uniforms would forbid choices that allow students to be creative and express themselves through clothing.

Statement of Contexts:  However, even if uniforms might hypothetically promote inclusivity, in most real-life contexts, administrators can use uniform policies to enforce conformity. Students should have the option to explore their identity through clothing without the fear of being ostracized.

Statement of Benefits:  Though both sides seek to promote students' best interests, students should not be required to wear school uniforms. By giving students freedom over their choice, students can explore their self-identity by choosing how to present themselves to their peers.

Classical Method

The Classical Method of structuring an argument is another common way to organize your points. Originally devised by the Greek philosopher Aristotle (and then later developed by Roman thinkers like Cicero and Quintilian), classical arguments tend to focus on issues of definition and the careful application of evidence. Thus, the underlying assumption of classical argumentation is that, when all parties understand the issue perfectly, the correct course of action will be clear.

The basic format of the Classical Method  is as follows:

Introduction (Exordium): Introduce the issue and explain its significance. You should also establish your credibility and the topic’s legitimacy.

Statement of Background (Narratio): Present vital contextual or historical information to the audience to further their understanding of the issue. By doing so, you provide the reader with a working knowledge about the topic independent of your own stance.

Proposition (Propositio): After you provide the reader with contextual knowledge, you are ready to state your claims which relate to the information you have provided previously. This section outlines your major points for the reader.

Proof (Confirmatio): You should explain your reasons and evidence to the reader. Be sure to thoroughly justify your reasons. In this section, if necessary, you can provide supplementary evidence and subpoints.

Refutation (Refuatio): In this section, you address anticipated counterarguments that disagree with your thesis. Though you acknowledge the other side’s perspective, it is important to prove why your stance is more logical.  

Conclusion (Peroratio): You should summarize your main points. The conclusion also caters to the reader’s emotions and values. The use of pathos here makes the reader more inclined to consider your argument.  

Example of the Classical Method:  

Introduction (Exordium): Millions of workers are paid a set hourly wage nationwide. The federal minimum wage is standardized to protect workers from being paid too little. Research points to many viewpoints on how much to pay these workers. Some families cannot afford to support their households on the current wages provided for performing a minimum wage job .

Statement of Background (Narratio): Currently, millions of American workers struggle to make ends meet on a minimum wage. This puts a strain on workers’ personal and professional lives. Some work multiple jobs to provide for their families.

Proposition (Propositio): The current federal minimum wage should be increased to better accommodate millions of overworked Americans. By raising the minimum wage, workers can spend more time cultivating their livelihoods.

Proof (Confirmatio): According to the United States Department of Labor, 80.4 million Americans work for an hourly wage, but nearly 1.3 million receive wages less than the federal minimum. The pay raise will alleviate the stress of these workers. Their lives would benefit from this raise because it affects multiple areas of their lives.

Refutation (Refuatio): There is some evidence that raising the federal wage might increase the cost of living. However, other evidence contradicts this or suggests that the increase would not be great. Additionally,   worries about a cost of living increase must be balanced with the benefits of providing necessary funds to millions of hardworking Americans.

Conclusion (Peroratio): If the federal minimum wage was raised, many workers could alleviate some of their financial burdens. As a result, their emotional wellbeing would improve overall. Though some argue that the cost of living could increase, the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks.

How to Write a Rebuttal Letter: 5 Practical Tips for You

Master the art of writing a rebuttal letter with 5 tips. Learn how to respond to reviewer comments effectively and increase your chances of publication success.

Kate Windsor

Jun 25, 2024

Mastering the Art of Academic Rebuttal: 5 Essential Tips for Success

In the competitive world of academic publishing, knowing how to write a rebuttal letter is a crucial skill that can significantly impact your success rate. Whether you're a seasoned researcher or a budding scholar, mastering this art can be the key to turning a "revise and resubmit" into a coveted acceptance.

This guide will walk you through five practical tips to craft an effective rebuttal letter, helping you navigate the peer review process with confidence and professionalism.

The Critical Role of Rebuttal Letters in Academia

Before diving into the tips, it's essential to understand the significance of rebuttal letters in the academic landscape. A rebuttal letter, also known as a response letter, is a formal document addressing reviewers' comments and concerns about a submitted manuscript. It serves as a bridge between your initial submission and the revised version, demonstrating your willingness to engage in scholarly dialogue and improve your work.

The importance of a well-crafted rebuttal letter cannot be overstated. It not only showcases your dedication to your research but also your ability to accept and incorporate constructive criticism. A strong rebuttal can turn the tide in your favor, convincing editors and reviewers of the merit and potential impact of your work.

Now, let's explore the five essential tips that will help you write a compelling rebuttal letter.

Tip 1: Maintain a Professional and Respectful Tone

The cornerstone of an effective rebuttal letter is maintaining a professional and respectful tone throughout your response. Remember, the peer review process is not a personal attack but a mechanism to ensure the quality and reliability of academic publications.

When addressing reviewers' comments:

• Remain objective: Focus on the scientific merits of your work rather than getting defensive about criticisms.
• Avoid emotional language: Steer clear of phrases that might convey frustration or anger, even if you disagree with a comment.
• Use diplomatic language: Phrases like "We appreciate the reviewer's insight" or "Thank you for bringing this to our attention" can set a positive tone.

By maintaining professionalism, you demonstrate your maturity as a researcher and your commitment to the scientific process.

Tip 2: Organize Your Response Systematically

A well-organized rebuttal letter makes it easier for editors and reviewers to follow your responses and assess the changes you've made. Here's how to structure your letter effectively:

• Start with a brief introduction thanking the reviewers for their time and effort.
• Address each comment point by point, using the reviewer's numbering system if provided.
• Use clear headings or subheadings to separate responses to different reviewers or major points.

This systematic approach ensures that no comment goes unaddressed and demonstrates your thoroughness in responding to feedback.

Tip 3: Provide Substantial Evidence and Reasoning

When responding to critiques or suggestions, it's crucial to back up your arguments with solid evidence and clear reasoning. This approach not only strengthens your position but also shows that you've carefully considered the reviewers' feedback.

Consider the following strategies:

• Cite relevant literature to support your claims or methodologies.
• Include new data or analyses if they help address a reviewer's concern.
• Explain the rationale behind your research decisions, especially if you're maintaining your original approach.

For instance, if a reviewer questions your choice of methodology, you might respond:

" We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to use Method X. However, we believe Method Y is more appropriate for our study due to [specific reasons]. This approach is supported by [citation], who demonstrated its effectiveness in similar contexts. "

By providing substantial evidence, you build a stronger case for your research and increase the likelihood of acceptance.

Tip 4: Acknowledge Valid Criticisms and Make Improvements

A crucial aspect of how to write a rebuttal letter is knowing when to concede and make changes. Acknowledging valid criticisms and implementing suggested improvements shows that you value the peer review process and are committed to enhancing the quality of your work.

When addressing valid criticisms:

• Clearly state the changes you've made in response to the feedback.
• Explain how these changes have improved your manuscript.
• Thank the reviewer for their insightful comments that led to these improvements.

For example:

" We thank Reviewer 2 for pointing out the limitation in our sample size. We have addressed this by including an additional 50 participants, which has strengthened our statistical power (see revised Methods section, page 4). "

This approach not only improves your paper but also builds goodwill with reviewers and editors.

Tip 5: Clarify Misunderstandings Effectively

Sometimes, reviewers may misinterpret aspects of your work. When this happens, it's crucial to clarify these misunderstandings tactfully and effectively.

To address misunderstandings:

• Politely point out where the misinterpretation occurred.
• Provide a clear explanation of your original intent or meaning.
• Suggest revisions to your manuscript that could prevent similar misunderstandings in the future.

For instance:

"We apologize if our description of the experimental setup was unclear, leading to this misinterpretation. To clarify, [provide correct interpretation]. We have revised this section (page 6, paragraph 2) to make this point more explicit. "

By addressing misunderstandings head-on, you ensure that your research is accurately evaluated and understood.

Putting It All Together: Crafting Your Rebuttal Letter

As you compose your rebuttal letter, keep these key elements in mind:

• Start with a concise and appreciative introduction.
• Address each comment systematically, following the tips outlined above.
• Conclude with a professional and forward-looking statement, expressing your willingness to make further revisions if necessary.

Remember, the goal is not just to defend your work but to engage in a constructive dialogue that ultimately improves the quality and impact of your research.

As you navigate the rebuttal process, consider leveraging AI tools and resources like Grammarly and Hemingway Editor to assist in refining and polishing your writing.

Beyond the Rebuttal: Continuous Improvement in Academic Writing

The process of writing a rebuttal letter is an opportunity for growth and learning. Each review cycle can provide valuable insights into improving your research and writing skills. Consider attending an academic writing workshop to further enhance your abilities in scholarly communication.

Moreover, as the academic landscape evolves, it's essential to stay informed about emerging trends and technologies. For instance, understanding the role of AI in education can provide valuable context for your research and writing processes.

The Path to Publication Success

Mastering how to write a rebuttal letter is a critical step on the path to publication success. By following these five tips, you'll be well-equipped to navigate the peer review process and increase your chances of getting your work published.

Remember, the journey doesn't end with publication. As you progress in your academic career, you might consider how to publish your dissertation or expand your research into broader academic discourse.

In conclusion, writing an effective rebuttal letter is both an art and a science. It requires a delicate balance of assertiveness and humility, backed by solid evidence and clear communication. By mastering this skill, you not only improve your chances of publication but also contribute to the advancement of knowledge in your field.

Embrace the process, learn from each experience, and continue to refine your academic writing skills. Your future publications will thank you for it.

Easily pronounces technical words in any field

publication tips

responding to reviewers

manuscript revision

peer review

academic writing

rebuttal letter

Recent articles

What is an Individualized Education Plan (IEP)?

Aug 1, 2024

Individualized Education Plan

Special Education

IEP Process

Learning Disabilities

Assistive Technology

Noam Chomsky's Theory of Language Acquisition

Aug 5, 2024

What are the Responsibilities of a Cosigner in a Student Loan?

Aug 6, 2024

Financial Aid

College Funding

Cosigner Responsibilities

Student Loans

10 Best Productivity Books

Aug 13, 2024

Productivity Books

Time Management

Efficiency Tips

Self Improvement

Goal Setting

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Eliyahu Rips, Who Claimed to Find Secret Codes in the Torah, Dies at 75

His work provided the basis for the worldwide best seller “The Bible Code,” but he later rejected the book as unscientific.

By Clay Risen

It sounds like a headline ripped from a supermarket tabloid: In 1994, three Israeli researchers claimed to have found a secret code embedded in Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament.

But this wasn’t junk science. The paper in which they revealed their findings appeared in an esteemed, peer-reviewed journal. And the academic reputations of the three authors — Eliyahu Rips, Yoav Rosenberg and Doron Witztum — were unimpeachable, especially that of Dr. Rips.

A math prodigy born to Holocaust survivors in Latvia, he had received his doctorate from, and spent his career at, Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he became known for his work in a field called geometric group theory.

He had also become convinced that statistical tools and newer, more powerful computers that were becoming available in the 1980s could be used to identify hidden meaning within the Bible, and he teamed up with his two partners to discover them. Their biggest finding was the names of 32 Jewish scholars in the text, along with their birth or death dates; several of the scholars had lived thousands of years after Genesis was written.

Their results, reported in the journal Statistical Science, set off a tempest in the worlds of biblical scholarship and statistical analysis. In 1997, Michael Drosnin, a journalist, used the team’s tools to write “The Bible Code,” a global best seller that claimed to find not just rabbis’ birthdays but also predictions about world events, including the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the prime minister of Israel, in 1995, all embedded in the Torah, or the first five books of the Old Testament. ( Mr. Drosnin died in 2020 .)

The book put Dr. Rips in an international spotlight. Magazine and newspaper profiles proliferated; with his Gandalfian white beard and wide-brimmed hat, he seemed to embody the intersection of science and Jewish mysticism.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

How should I write rebuttal?

I contributed to a conference. I just received feedback from reviewers. I need to write a rebuttal. But I am limited to 800 words.

Three reviewers pointed out some writing problems. For example, the picture did not explain clearly. The layout is unreasonable. But they all give a weak accept.

A reviewer completely misunderstood the concept, and he directly gave me 1 point for all items. The other two reviewers asked a lot of questions and gave Accept and weak reject respectively. How should I organize my rebutal?

If I answer the questions one by one, it seems that it cannot be limited to 800 words at all. If I only answer part of it, would it seem disrespectful? And some reviewers asked the same question. How should I layout?

Can I directly point out that the reviewer misunderstood?

But there seems to be some misunderstandings here.

Does this seem disrespectful? The reviewer who misunderstood the concept mistakenly regarded the two advantages of the paper as major flaws.

• paper-submission
• peer-review

• You probably need to clarify your question. Is this for a journal article? 'My master', means? Is this your supervisor or Master degree? You don't need to give a point-by-point response. E.g., 'We have addressed all writing errors' or 'We have revised the paper to improve its presentation'. Misunderstanding is normal, especially if your English is weak. Just note that the reviewers' comments relate to misunderstanding blah. Then simply point reviewers to the corrected/revised parts of the paper. –  Prof. Santa Claus Commented Oct 3, 2021 at 23:05
• Thank you! I corrected it. –  Yujie Commented Oct 4, 2021 at 1:17
• Maybe have a look at this blog post - it was helpful for me to get an initial understanding. Only as a comment, as this is not mine, thus copying is out of the question, and just a link is no actual answer. –  Sim Commented Oct 4, 2021 at 13:16

3 Answers 3

Disclaimer: I have not read the linked blog post , that may contain better advises than mine.

I pretty much always structure my answers the same way:

• Thank the reviewers. Honestly. They spent time reading and assessing your paper, take the time to thank them for their comments.
• Rephrase. They generally show they understood your paper by re-phrasing its abstract, do the same. Briefly restate what the reviewers thought of your paper. It will help them gaining confidence in the fact that you actually read and understood their comments, which is important.
• Answer some questions . If they asked questions, answer some of them briefly. If they are vague, simply defer to point 5.
• Get the easy to fix out of the way. If there are discussion on presentation or typo, briefly comment on how you plan on addressing them. If you have a pre-print on-line, you can even update it to prove your good faith.
• Discuss the difficult points. Address the genuine concerns that your reviewers raised. If there are misunderstanding, apologize for not having written your paper in a clearer style, and clarify the difficult points precisely. Don't hesitate to "play the reviewers once against the other": if R1 claims that Theorem 1 is wrong but R2 defends it as ingenious, explain that maybe R1 missed the argument and could consult R2's comment to get a better perspective.
• Thank again. Explain that you value the feedback and that they will make your paper so much better, that you regret not answering all their questions (if you did not) but that they will help you make a better presentation / paper / future research.

I would start by writing down everything you want to say , and then edit it until you reached the word limit.

There is a PLoS Computational Biology paper (Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers) by William Stafford Noble ( https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730 ) that contains excellent ten easy to follow "rules" (note that they are not rules per se). I will list the points from the paper here (and a one sentence summary) but would recommend reading this short article for more insight.

As with most things, take your time to go through these and formulate your own thoughts about it. While these are general markers that can help along the way, this is not a rule book (don't get misled by the word "rule") and not everything works/applies in all situations.

• Rule 1: Provide an overview, then quote the full set of reviews

Provide a summary of changes, along with new data, additional figures, etc, followed by interleaved comment+response.

• Rule 2: Be polite and respectful of all reviewers

"Keep in mind that if the reviewer failed to understand something, the fault likely lies, at least in part, with you for not making the point clear enough." - enough said!

• Rule 3: Accept the blame

"In general, even if the requested change seems unnecessary, it is usually better to go ahead and revise with the goal of showing the reviewer that they were listened to and understood."

• Rule 4: Make the response self-contained

Try, for example, a tactic like original and revision comparison style

• Rule 5: Respond to every point raised by the reviewer

"In some cases, the reviewer may disagree with your response, but you should not try to avoid a difficult point by simply ignoring it"

• Rule 6: Use typography to help the reviewer navigate your response

I find it easy to color code the comments along with keeping the comment in a fixed width font while my responses are in regular Times New Roman black

• Rule 7: Whenever possible, begin your response to each comment with a direct answer to the point being raised

"Your goal is to show the reviewer that you took their comments seriously, and you should quickly convey what you did in response to their critique."

• Rule 8: When possible, do what the reviewer asks

"If the reviewer asks for 10 things, and you say that 9 out of 10 of them fall outside the scope of your work, then you are not likely to satisfy the reviewer."

• Rule 9: Be clear about what changed relative to the previous version

" In your response, refer explicitly to the previous and revised versions of your manuscript and explain what changes have been made."

• Rule 10: If necessary, write the response twice

"In practice, it is often helpful to write the "venting" version of the response first, wait a while, and then begin working on the "real" response several days later, perhaps after you have done some of the work to address the critiques raised by the reviewer."

Edit With respect to fitting it all in a given word limit, try and see if multiple reviewers have similar comments/concerns; then you could answer them together rather than individually replying to all. Additionally, in this case, summarizing all changes in the response document will clearly not work.

OP also asked how to respond to a reviewer who clearly misunderstood something (while the other reviewers did not complain about it ); well I think the options are:

(1) Apologize and clarify: "I apologize for any confusion; I should have been more clear on the ... ".

(2) Straightly saying "There seems to be a misunderstanding about ...".

(3) Or a combination of (1) and (2): "I am sorry for the confusion, there seems to be a misunderstanding about ..".

Some may argue that apologizing here may mean admitting that something was indeed missing, which can be viewed as a weakness of the author. However, I would use (3).

• "Some may argue that apologizing here may mean admitting that something was indeed missing": well, clarity may have been missing… –  Clément Commented Oct 4, 2021 at 17:46
• @Clément For a rich paper; many authors run into the space limit, so they use their best judgment to omit some of what they think is obvious to the reviewers (even if that is not so obvious for the typical readers). So, clarifying everything may not always be possible. –  Ra.Sh. Commented Oct 4, 2021 at 17:55
• Avoid specifically "I apologize for any confusion" because it is a common phrase in AI generated answers. Say it in your own way instead. –  Criggie Commented Jun 11 at 2:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged paper-submission peer-review ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• Gomoku game 5 in a row. Javascript simple game Canvas
• printglossary doesnt work if czech symbols are in the glossary
• How is message waiting conveyed to home POTS phone
• How did Oswald Mosley escape treason charges?
• How to count mismatches between two rows, column by column R?
• AM-GM inequality (but equality cannot be attained)
• Can you give me an example of an implicit use of Godel's Completeness Theorem, say for example in group theory?
• What unique phenomena would be observed in a system around a hypervelocity star?
• What is the highest apogee of a satellite in Earth orbit?
• Stuck on Sokoban
• Many LaTeX packages missing after upgrading from 22.04 to 24.04.1
• Which hash algorithms support binary input of arbitrary bit length?
• Journal keeps messing with my proof
• 1960s Stylesheet/Format for working Physics problems
• If the Hom-space of finite length modules is generated by single elements, must the elements be conjugate?
• How much easier/harder would it be to colonize space if humans found a method of giving ourselves bodies that could survive in almost anything?
• How does the summoned monster know who is my enemy?
• What prevents a browser from saving and tracking passwords entered to a site?
• Felt VR40 - 2020
• What happens when touching a piece which cannot make a legal move?
• Overstayed Schengen but can I switch to US passport?
• How can one be honest with oneself if one IS oneself?
• Why is there no article after 'by'?
• Why are complex coordinates outlawed in physics?