A “major revision” is not a rejection — it is an invitation. Most accepted papers went through a good response letter. At this stage, the difference between acceptance and rejection often lies more in the response than in the paper.
Reviewers work for free. One objective sentence of thanks opens the letter; flattery does not.
Point-by-point format: reviewer comment in italics, your response, and the change with page/line. The editor must verify in seconds.
Even suggestions that seem minor. Every “done” brings acceptance closer.
When the reviewer is wrong, answer with references and numbers, respectfully. “We partially agree...” followed by evidence works; irony never does.
Reread the letter as if you were the editor: does every question have an answer? Is every change located in the manuscript?
Present the conflict to the editor neutrally, propose the solution you find best and justify it — the editor decides.
No. But each refusal needs polite technical justification; refusing without argument is the shortest path to rejection.
Proportional to the review: response letters of accepted papers are often as long as the manuscript itself.
Written by Francisco Tustumi, digestive system surgeon (FMUSP), associate editor of ABCD.
Developed by Surya MKT