Extended definition
A response to reviewers (also rebuttal letter or point-by-point response) is the technical document accompanying the revised version of a manuscript after the first or second round of peer review. Standard structure: for each reviewer comment, present (1) literal quotation of the comment, (2) clear description of the modification made in the manuscript (with section, paragraph, page indication), (3) concise justification, and when there is disagreement, (4) technical argument based on evidence or literature. It is a separate document from the revised manuscript, written as a letter addressed to the editor, with reviewers referred to in the third person or as “Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2”. Provenzale (2010) articulated ten canonical principles for revision; Annesley (2011) offered the most cited guide for rebuttals in biomedical sciences. Response quality is often decisive for the editor’s final decision — a technically sound manuscript can be rejected if the response is disorganized, defensive, or incomplete.
When it applies
It applies whenever a manuscript receives a “major revision” or “minor revision” decision. It is also good practice in resubmissions after rejection (when the journal allows and new editors will be involved) — although in that case the response is part of a reformulated cover letter, not a standard rebuttal. It applies in editorial disagreement situations: when the author believes the report contains factual error or systematic bias, formal escalation to the editor is foreseen in the workflow, and the rebuttal structure is the instrument. It applies in top-tier computer science conferences (NeurIPS, ICML, ACL) where the rebuttal is a formal phase of the process, with a short deadline (5-7 days) and word limit.
When it does not apply
It does not apply in immediate-acceptance decisions (rare) — no comments to respond to. It does not apply in direct rejection without review (desk rejection) — the rebuttal phase was not reached. It does not apply as an instrument to rewrite the original manuscript: substantive changes in research question, scope, or method are incompatible with revision; in those cases, resubmission as a new manuscript is the alternative. It does not apply as space for rhetorical criticism of the reviewer: tone is technical and professional even when there is disagreement — attacking the reviewer is a safe path to rejection.
Applications by field
— Health and biomedical sciences: rebuttals can run 10-30 pages in major revisions of top journals; formal structure required. — Social sciences: revisions often require multiple rounds; synthetic but analytically complete rebuttals. — Computer science: limited rebuttal (1-2 pages) in conferences; conciseness is a critical value; support with additional experiments when feasible. — Humanities: rebuttals often argumentative, defending interpretive position; but even here, point-by-point is the standard structure.
Common pitfalls
The first pitfall is defensive tone: an effective rebuttal acknowledges the reviewer’s valid point even when disagreeing — starting with “We thank the reviewer for their careful reading…” is an empty formula, but demonstrating that the comment was understood is essential. The second is responding selectively: ignoring comments or grouping vague responses makes the editor question the author’s care. The third is not indicating exact location of changes: the reviewer should be able to verify in seconds where the alteration was made. The fourth is disagreeing without evidence: “we disagree based on clinical experience” is weak; “we disagree based on [Smith 2020] and data in Table 3” is strong. The fifth is leaving it to the last minute: a rebuttal written under pressure produces inconsistencies between the document and the revised manuscript, and the reviewer notices immediately.