Keep Every Comment Accounted For
Organize replies by reviewer and comment, including multi-part concerns. The response format makes missing answers easier for authors and coauthors to spot.
Response to Reviewers Generator
Paste the reviewer comments and your actual revisions or reasons for disagreement. Choose a response format and generate a point-by-point draft. You do not need to write a prompt. Verify every claimed change and manuscript location. File uploads are not supported.
Prompt Guide
Model
Document
Sample
Illustrative example — fictional reviewer comment and author-confirmed revision.
Reviewer 1 · Comment 1
“Please clarify how participants were recruited.”
Response
Thank you for pointing out this omission. We have clarified the recruitment process in the Methods section.
Change made
“Participants were recruited through the university mailing list and took part voluntarily.”
Location
Revised manuscript, Methods — Recruitment; page [confirm], lines [confirm].
Author check
Replace the location placeholders after final pagination and confirm that the quoted sentence matches the revised manuscript.
Answer Every Comment. Show What Actually Changed.
Use the response to reviewers generator to pair each concern with a direct answer, the revised wording and a location you can verify. Build a letter your coauthors can review without losing difficult comments or overstating progress.
Why Use This Response to Reviewers Generator?
Connect the Reply to the Revised Manuscript
Pair each confirmed change with the exact revised wording and its section, page or line reference. Leave placeholders visible when locations are not final.
Separate Disagreement From Unfinished Work
Use a reasoned rebuttal when evidence supports your position, or an internal plan when analysis is pending. Avoid claiming a new result before the work is done.
Illustrative Author Feedback
Fictional scenarios for draft review, not verified customer testimonials.
★★★★★
The comment-response-change structure gives our coauthors a clear checklist for reviewing the letter.
EElena Park
★★★★★
The disagreement preset helps me explain a design limitation without making the reply sound personal.
SSamuel Ortiz
★★★★★
Keeping the unfinished analysis in an internal plan prevents it from being mistaken for a completed revision.
AAisha Bennett
Response to Reviewers Generator FAQ
It helps turn academic peer-review comments and your confirmed revisions into a structured reply. A useful output identifies the comment, provides a direct response and shows the corresponding manuscript change. This response to reviewers generator is for research manuscripts, not Google reviews or customer complaints.
Provide the complete comments, your position on each issue, completed changes, exact revised passages and manuscript locations. Include the editor’s instructions and identify unfinished work. PLOS guidance recommends responding to every point and making the response self-contained; the author still needs to verify completeness.
Yes. Supply the evidence or methodological reason for your position, and ask for a respectful, direct explanation. Acknowledge the concern and describe any clarification you have actually made. The tool should not invent citations, criticize motives or claim that a rebuttal guarantees acceptance.
Those capabilities have not been confirmed for this workspace. It produces an editable text draft from the material you paste. Reconcile the letter with your manuscript in your own editor, finalize page and line references, and format the files according to the journal’s instructions.
The enabled document model currently shows one eligible trial use; check the terms shown for your account. Share reviews or unpublished manuscripts only when permitted by the journal, institution, coauthors and applicable service terms. The response to reviewers generator does not establish permission to disclose confidential material.