How to Respond to Reviewer Comments from an Agriculture Journal

Answer every comment, in order, in a separate response document — including the ones you disagree with. State what you changed and where, quote the revised text, and give a reason whenever you decline a change. At this agriculture journal the revised manuscript is expected back within one week.

This is the stage where publishable agriculture journal papers are most often lost, and almost never because the science was wrong. It is lost because the response was vague, incomplete, or defensive.

Before you write anything: read, then wait

The first reading of a critical report is emotional and the reply you draft in that hour should never be sent. Read the comments the day they arrive so you know the scale of the work, then leave them for a day. What looked like an attack usually reads on the second pass as somebody who could not follow your Materials and Methods.

With one week to turn the revision round, that pause has to be short: read on day one, work on days two to five, and keep the last two days for checking rather than writing.

The response document that works

Number every comment and answer it directly underneath. Three elements per response:

1. The comment, quoted in full. Do not paraphrase — the editor is checking that you addressed what was actually said.
2. What you did. One sentence, specific: what changed and where.
3. The revised text itself, quoted, so nobody has to open the manuscript to verify it.

Comment 3. The number of replications is not stated.

Response. Added to Section 2.2, page 4. The text now reads: “The experiment was laid out in a randomised block design with four replications per treatment.”

That takes twenty seconds to verify. Compare it with “The manuscript has been revised as suggested”, which tells the editor nothing and forces them to hunt.

How to disagree without losing the paper

Sometimes an agriculture journal reviewer is wrong, or asks for work that is out of scope. Declining is allowed; declining silently is not. The pattern that works has three parts:

• Acknowledge the point. Show you understood it.
• Give the reason. Technical, specific, not defensive.
• Offer what you can do instead. Almost always there is something — a caveat added, a limitation acknowledged, a reference cited.

Comment 7. The authors should repeat the trial for a third season.

Response. We agree a third season would strengthen the conclusions. The trial site was released for other use after the second rabi season, so the additional data cannot be produced for this revision. We have narrowed the recommendation in Section 4 to the two seasons tested, and added multi-season confirmation to the further work in Section 5.

Nobody got the extra season. The paper still improved, and the reviewer’s concern is now visible in the text rather than buried in correspondence.

What reviewers most often ask for

Notice how many are reporting problems rather than research problems. Most revisions at an agriculture journal are about writing down what you already did.

Handling contradictory reviewers

It happens more than authors expect, and agriculture journals rarely warn you about it. Reviewer 1 wants the discussion shortened; Reviewer 2 wants it expanded. Reviewer 1 wants a statistical test Reviewer 2 thinks inappropriate for the data.

Do not average them and do not pick one silently. Name the conflict in your response, state which position you followed, and explain why in a sentence or two. Then let the Editorial Board decide — that is precisely what it is there for. An author who spots and flags the contradiction looks careful; one who quietly satisfies one reviewer looks like they did not read the other report.

What to do when the report is thin

Sometimes a review is two lines long and says little. Frustrating, but not an invitation to do nothing.

• Answer what is there, however brief, in the same format as any other comment.
• Reread the paper as a stranger would. A thin report often means the reviewer skimmed, and the parts they skimmed are usually the parts that were hard to read.
• Do not ask for a better review. Ask the editor a specific question if something is genuinely ambiguous, but do not challenge the quality of the report.

A response document template

Response to reviewers — Manuscript ID [number]

We thank the reviewers for their comments. Each point is addressed below; changed text is quoted, with the section and page given. All changes are marked in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 1
1.1 [comment quoted in full]
Response. [what changed, where]. The text now reads: “[revised sentence]”

1.2 [comment quoted in full]
Response. [reason for declining]. We have instead [what you did do], in Section [x].

Reviewer 2
2.1 …

Nothing clever about it. It is verifiable in a couple of minutes, which is exactly what an editor with a queue of manuscripts needs.

Five things that cost people their acceptance

1. Answering some comments and not others. The commonest reason a major revision becomes a rejection.
2. Saying “revised as suggested” without saying what changed. Unverifiable, so it does not count.
3. Arguing rather than explaining. Tone travels, even through an editor.
4. Missing the deadline without telling anyone. A short email asking for a few more days is almost always fine; silence is not.
5. Introducing new problems in the revision. Reread the whole section you edited, not just the sentence you changed.

The four decisions, and what each asks for

“Major revision” is not a soft rejection, however it feels on the day. It means two independent people read your work and thought it was worth publishing once a real problem was addressed.

Before you send it back

• Every numbered comment has a numbered response
• Every response says where the change is
• The revised manuscript and the response document agree
• Any new references are in Vancouver style
• Figures still meet 300 dpi after any re-export
• You have reread the sections you edited, in full

The revision goes back to the same reviewers, and the Editorial Board takes the final decision — the process is on the peer review and publication policy page. Our guide on what peer review involves explains what they were asked to assess.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long do I have to respond to reviewer comments?

One week at this journal. That is tighter than most authors expect, which is why the revision stage is where papers stall. Read the comments the day they arrive, even if you start work later.

Do I have to accept every reviewer comment?

No. You have to answer every comment. Where you disagree, say so and give the reason — a reasoned disagreement is normal and respected. What loses papers is silence.

What if the two reviewers contradict each other?

Say so explicitly in your response, explain which position you followed and why, and let the Editorial Board arbitrate. Quietly satisfying one and ignoring the other does not work.

Should I write a separate response document?

Yes. A point-by-point response alongside the revised manuscript is what the editor reads. Without it they must compare two versions of your paper to find your changes.

What if a reviewer has misunderstood my paper?

Treat it as a writing problem, not a reading problem. If one careful reader misunderstood a passage, others will too. Fix the passage, then say in your response that you have clarified it.

Does 'major revision' mean my paper will be rejected?

No. It means the reviewers think the work is worth publishing once a substantive problem is addressed. Papers are lost at this stage through weak responses far more often than through weak results.

Related Guides

The other formatting rules that go with referencing:

• What is Peer Review? Double-Blind Review in an Agriculture Journal Explained
• How Long Does It Take to Publish in an Agriculture Journal?
• Why Agriculture Papers Get Rejected — and How to Avoid It