Make every revision decision traceable

Start with the record / Step 01

Comment and identifier

Record reviewer number, comment number, and the full concern in your private working file. Split multi-part requests.

Worked case, fictional

R2.3: The error bars in Figure 2 are not defined. Sub-question: does n refer to samples, experiments, or measurements?

Connect each reviewer or editor comment to a decision, the work actually completed and a precise location in the submitted revision.

Manusights · Sources checked 2026-09-11 · Guide edition 2026.09.11-guide1

Use the worksheet · No account required

Reviewer response worksheet

Turn one reviewer concern into a traceable decision, revision, and response. Repeat for each comment.

Download worksheet PDF Fill it in here

2 pages · Worked example + blank worksheet · Version 1.0

Use and limits. A coordination worksheet, not a promise of acceptance. Follow the editor's instructions. Do not place confidential reviewer text in shared examples or public documents.

Read the worked example

Fictional reviewer concern: a figure legend does not explain its error bars. All wording and manuscript locations below are illustrative.

1. Comment and identifier: R2.3: The error bars in Figure 2 are not defined. Sub-question: does n refer to samples, experiments, or measurements?
2. Decision and rationale: Clarify. The plotting code uses standard deviation, and the experiment log identifies 24 independent cultures. The original legend did not define either.
3. Work, owner, and status: Completed: analysis lead checked the plotting code and experiment log; corresponding author revised the legend. The figure itself was unchanged.
4. Exact change and location: Figure 2 legend, revised lines 218 to 221: "Points represent 24 independent cultures; bars show the mean and error bars show one standard deviation."
5. Response to the reviewer: We agree the legend was incomplete. We added: "Points represent 24 independent cultures; bars show the mean and error bars show one standard deviation" (revised lines 218 to 221).
6. Consistency check and sign-off: Completed in this fictional revision: Figure 2, its legend, Methods, and response letter use the same definitions. The second author checked the resubmission files.

Your worksheet

Your entries stay in this tab and are lost on reload. Save them before leaving. Do not enter participant identifiers, passwords, or other sensitive information. Field contents are excluded from analytics capture.

1. Comment and identifier

Record reviewer number, comment number, and the full concern in your private working file. Split multi-part requests.

2. Decision and rationale

Choose change, clarify, or respectfully disagree. Explain how the decision addresses the scientific concern.

3. Work, owner, and status

Name the necessary analysis or text change, responsible role, and verification step. Distinguish planned from completed work.

4. Exact change and location

Record revised section, figure/table, and line numbers from the version being resubmitted. Include the changed wording.

5. Response to the reviewer

Answer directly, describe completed changes, and point to the location. If declining, give evidence and explain limitations.

6. Consistency check and sign-off

Check response, manuscript, supplement, and tracked changes agree. Assign the final reviewer of the response package.

0 of 6 fields contain notes. This is a progress count, not a quality assessment.

Before you use the result

Every part of the comment has an answer, including requests declined.
The response describes completed work and points to the submitted revision.
Disagreement addresses the scientific issue, not the reviewer's motives.

Source guidance and reuse

Worksheet source check: 2026-09-11. This date applies to this worksheet, not a full re-review of the surrounding guide. Manusights' examples and fields are original teaching aids, not publisher or institutional endorsements.

Noble (2017): Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers
Point-by-point responses, explicit changes, and making the revised text easy to locate.

Original worksheet licensed CC BY 4.0. You may adapt it for a class or lab: credit Manusights, link to this page and the license, and identify changes. Third-party sources retain their own terms. Report a correction.

Step 1

Turn the decision letter into a work record

Begin with the editor's decision and deadline. Group comments for planning, but keep their original identifiers so the response remains traceable.

Split compound requests: Separate a request for an analysis from a request for clearer reporting. For each part, record the issue, owner, action and evidence needed to close it.
Resolve uncertainty early: Ask the editor for clarification when requirements conflict, a request is unclear or an essential change is infeasible. An extension must be requested, not assumed. There is no standard revision deadline in this guide.

Step 2

Show what changed, and what did not

For each comment, state the decision, describe completed work, give the result where relevant and point to the final revision. These are Manusights workflow recommendations; adapt the presentation to the journal.

When you make a change: Give the section, page or line reference from the version being submitted. Explain the scientific consequence rather than saying only 'done'. Update the response when the manuscript moves.
When you disagree or cannot comply: Address the underlying scientific concern. Explain the evidence or constraint, any alternative action and the limitation that remains. Do not speculate about the reviewer's motives or claim that disagreement itself has resolved the concern.

Step 3

A citation is not a substitute for validation

Fictional example: a reviewer requests an independent validation cohort, but none is available. Citing another group's validation does not validate this study's model.

Describe the actual situation: State that no independent cohort was added. Explain the constraint and identify any justified analysis completed on the existing data, without presenting it as independent validation.
Change the claim if needed: Limit the conclusion to the evidence available, mark the remaining uncertainty in the manuscript and ask the editor whether the revision is sufficient for further consideration. Do not fabricate data to make the response appear complete.

Step 4

Close the loop on files and deadlines

PLOS ONE's revision guidance asks for a response addressing reviewer and editor comments, a marked manuscript and a clean copy. It directs authors to email the journal to request an extension; it does not promise approval.

Audit the package together: Check that the response, clean file, marked file, figures, tables and supplements describe the same revision. Recheck moved page references and corrected values.
Keep private material private: Use approved project storage. Before sharing confidential review text or unpublished work with an external tool, establish that you have permission and that the journal's and institution's requirements allow it.

Check the source

PLOS ONE: revising your manuscript · Response to reviewers; Manuscript file; Submission deadline

Common questions

How many days do I have to revise?

Use the deadline in the decision letter or submission system. If you need more time, ask the journal before the deadline and wait for confirmation.

Do I have to agree with every comment?

You should address each substantive issue, but a justified disagreement may be appropriate. Explain the reasoning and any unresolved limitation; the editor decides whether the revision is sufficient.

Can I describe an analysis that is still planned?

Label planned work as planned during coordination. A submitted response should not claim an analysis or change was completed unless it appears in the actual revision or accompanying material.

Sources and evidence

These checked sections support the specific statements identified below. The workflow and fictional examples are Manusights teaching material, not publisher instructions or evidence of institutional review. The check date is not a policy effective date.

PLOS ONE: revising your manuscript
Supports the PLOS ONE file requirements and extension-request route, not an approval guarantee or standard deadline.
Section: Response to reviewers; Manuscript file; Submission deadline. Checked 2026-09-11.

What changed in this edition?

2026-09-11: Removed invented revision windows, extension guarantees and acceptance implications. Added a decision-to-manuscript audit and a worked example of an unresolved validation request. The underlying worksheet PDF was not revised in this guide edition.

Recheck destination requirements before relying on them. Report a correction with the page, disputed statement and supporting source. Original Manusights educational text is available under CC BY 4.0 reuse terms; third-party material retains its own terms.

Cite this resource

Citation formats

Free to use and cite, with attribution. See the reuse policy for what you may republish.

APA: Manusights. (2026). Make every revision decision traceable (Version 2026.09.11-guide1). https://manusights.com/resources/responding-to-reviewers
MLA: Manusights. "Make every revision decision traceable." Research Library, version 2026.09.11-guide1, Sep 11, 2026, https://manusights.com/resources/responding-to-reviewers.
Vancouver: Manusights. Make every revision decision traceable [Internet]. Version 2026.09.11-guide1. 2026 Sep 11. Available from: https://manusights.com/resources/responding-to-reviewers