A “revise and resubmit” letter is sent to a journal editor. It’s your response after receiving feedback on your submitted work. It shows you’ve addressed the editor’s comments.
This article gives you examples of these letters. We offer templates and samples. Use them to craft your own letter easily.
These examples make writing your response simple. They’ll help you write a professional and effective letter.
Sample Letter to Editor for a Revise and Resubmit
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email]
[Your Phone Number]
[Date]
Dr. [Editor’s Name]
Editor, [Journal Name]
[Journal Address]
Dear Dr. [Editor’s Name],
Thank you for considering our manuscript, “[Manuscript Title],” for publication in [Journal Name]. We appreciate the reviewers’ insightful comments and suggestions. Their feedback has been invaluable. We have carefully addressed each point raised.
The revised manuscript incorporates all suggested changes. We have significantly expanded the discussion section to clarify the limitations of our study. This addresses Reviewer 1’s concerns regarding generalizability. We also completely reworked Figure 3, as requested by Reviewer 2, to better represent the data. We believe these revisions strengthen the manuscript considerably. We have included a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments as a separate document. This response directly addresses all critiques and clarifies our changes.
We are confident that the revised manuscript now meets the journal’s standards for publication. We’ve strived to incorporate all feedback effectively and efficiently. It is a much-improved paper, thanks to the reviewers’ diligence. We eagerly await your decision.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
How to Write a Sample Letter to Editor for a Revise and Resubmit
Understanding the “Revise and Resubmit” Verdict
Receiving a “revise and resubmit” decision from a journal isn’t a rejection; it’s an invitation to refine your work. Consider it a testament to your research’s potential, albeit requiring further elucidation. This necessitates a carefully crafted letter to the editor, articulating your revisions and demonstrating your responsiveness to the reviewers’ critiques.
Acknowledging Reviewer Comments: A Measured Approach
Directly address each point raised by the reviewers. Avoid obfuscation; instead, employ a forthright and transparent style. For each comment, explicitly state the changes implemented. Quantify your responses whenever possible; for instance, “We have expanded the discussion of X by 25% to address reviewer 2’s concerns regarding Y”. Use precise language, eschewing vague platitudes.
Demonstrating Substantive Revisions: Beyond Superficial Changes
Mere cosmetic alterations are insufficient. Your revisions must demonstrably enhance the manuscript’s rigor and clarity. Substantive changes, such as incorporating new data, refining the methodology, or restructuring arguments, are crucial for a successful resubmission. The letter should highlight these pivotal improvements.
Crafting a Persuasive Narrative: The Art of the Resubmission Letter
The letter shouldn’t merely list changes; instead, it should narrate the iterative improvement process. Present your responses as a cohesive narrative, showcasing your engagement with the reviewers’ suggestions and highlighting the enhanced quality of the revised manuscript. Think of this as a concise yet potent argument for publication.
Maintaining a Professional Tone: Respect and Clarity
Maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the letter. Even if you strongly disagree with a specific critique, express your disagreement politely and professionally, justifying your stance with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Remember, a combative tone undermines your credibility.
Structuring Your Letter for Maximum Impact: A Template for Success
A well-structured letter is essential for effective communication. A typical structure includes: a formal salutation, a concise summary of the revisions, a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, a statement regarding any remaining discrepancies, and a concluding paragraph expressing your hope for favorable reconsideration.
Polishing Your Prose: The Final Steps
Before submitting, meticulously proofread your letter. Grammatical errors and stylistic inconsistencies are distracting and detract from your overall argument. Seek feedback from a colleague or mentor to ensure clarity and conciseness. A polished letter demonstrates attention to detail and reinforces your commitment to scholarly excellence. A final proofread is paramount.
FAQs about sample letter to editor for a revise and resubmit
Submitting a revised manuscript after receiving feedback from a journal editor requires careful communication. Here are some common questions authors have about crafting a compelling letter.
What should I include in my letter to the editor accompanying my revised manuscript?
Your letter should concisely summarize the revisions made in response to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments. Specifically, mention each point raised and explain how you addressed it. Refer to specific page and line numbers where changes were made for clarity. Maintain a professional and respectful tone throughout.
How formal should the tone of my letter be?
Maintain a formal, professional tone. Avoid being overly familiar or defensive. Acknowledge the editor’s and reviewers’ time and expertise. Express gratitude for the feedback and clearly articulate how you’ve incorporated the suggestions.
Should I reiterate my key arguments in the letter?
While you don’t need to repeat the entire paper’s content, briefly restating the manuscript’s main points and their significance can be helpful, especially if substantial revisions were made. Focus on how these points have been strengthened by the revisions.
How long should my letter to the editor be?
Brevity is key. Aim for a concise letter, typically no more than one page. Focus on efficiently communicating the implemented changes and their impact on the manuscript’s quality and clarity. A well-organized letter is more effective than a lengthy one.
What if I disagree with some of the reviewers’ comments?
Respectfully address any points of disagreement. Explain your rationale clearly and provide evidence to support your counterarguments. However, avoid being confrontational; focus on explaining your choices and how they improve the manuscript’s overall quality and coherence. If you choose not to implement a suggestion, clearly explain why.
Related: