Separate the comment into decisions
A reviewer comment may contain a question, requested analysis, wording issue, and broader concern. Break it into answerable points. For each point, decide whether to revise, clarify, add evidence, explain an existing choice, or disagree. Respond to the concern before describing cosmetic edits.
We revised [section and location] to clarify [specific issue]. The revised text now states [bounded summary of change].
Document changes precisely
Quote only the necessary revised text and provide page, line, section, table, or figure references that match the final manuscript. If an analysis was added, state the method and where the result appears. If the requested work cannot be done, explain the constraint and revise any claim affected by that limitation.
We agree that [shared concern] required clarification. Because [methodological reason], we did not [requested action]; instead, we [bounded revision] and now state [remaining limitation].
Disagree on methodological grounds
Professional disagreement is legitimate. Identify the point of agreement, give the evidence or design reason, and explain the manuscript change that prevents misunderstanding. Avoid appeals to preference when a verifiable standard, citation, analysis, or reporting guideline is available.
Use the Phrase Explorer for acknowledgement, revision, and bounded disagreement patterns.