Guide to Writing a Response to Reviewers' Comments

Guide to Writing a Response to Reviewers’ Comments

A clear and well-structured response to reviewers’ comments is a mandatory component of any revised manuscript submitted to the Nigerian Journal of Orthopaedics and Trauma (NJOT). This document should clearly outline the revisions made and address all issues raised by the reviewers during the peer-review process.

A carefully prepared response assists both the reviewers and the editorial team in assessing the revised manuscript and determining whether the concerns raised have been adequately addressed. It also provides authors with an opportunity to demonstrate the scientific rigour, clarity, and responsiveness of their revisions.

Submissions that do not include a complete, point-by-point response prepared in accordance with this guidance may be returned to authors without further consideration.

How to Structure Your Response

Point-by-Point Responses

The most effective way to address reviewers’ comments is through a point-by-point response. Each reviewer’s comments should be addressed individually and systematically, ensuring that both the reviewer and the editor can clearly see how each concern has been considered and resolved.

General Principles

  • Address Every Comment: All comments raised by the reviewers must be addressed. Omitting any point may delay the review process.

  • Sequential Order: Responses should follow the exact order in which the reviewers’ comments were presented in the editorial decision letter.

  • Completeness: Where a comment cannot be addressed, authors must provide a clear and scientifically justified explanation.

  • Professional Disagreement: Authors may disagree with reviewers’ comments, provided that the response is professional, respectful, and supported by sound scientific reasoning.

  • Brevity and Specificity: Responses should be concise, focused, and specific, avoiding unnecessary verbosity.

Presentation of Responses Using the NJOT Response Table

Authors are required to present their responses using the NJOT Response to Reviewers Table, which is designed to ensure clarity and consistency.

The table consists of four columns, as outlined below:

  • Column 1 – Reviewer Number:
    Indicate the reviewer number (usually Reviewer 1–3). Authors should complete responses to all comments from one reviewer before proceeding to the next.

  • Column 2 – Reviewer’s Comment:
    Reproduce the specific comment made by the reviewer.

  • Column 3 – Author’s Response:
    Provide a clear and direct response explaining how the comment has been addressed or why a change was not made.

  • Column 4 – Location of Revisions:
    Specify the page and line numbers where the changes have been made in the revised manuscript. Authors are expected to use the version of the manuscript provided by the journal, which includes line numbering for ease of reference.

Illustrative Example

Table 1: Example of a Completed Response to Reviewers’ Table

Reviewer No. Reviewer’s Comment Author’s Response Location of Revisions
1 The study design was not clearly described. The Methods section has been revised to provide a clearer description of the study design. Page 3, lines 3–6
2 Please define abbreviations used in Table 1. All abbreviations have now been defined in the table footnote. Page 5, Table 1
3 The caption for Figure 2 is unclear. The figure caption has been revised for clarity. Page 6, Figure 2

Additional Requirements

  • The revised manuscript must be submitted with Track Changes enabled to allow editors and reviewers to verify all modifications.

  • A clean version of the manuscript (with Track Changes accepted) should also be provided where requested.

  • The response table and revised manuscript must be uploaded via the journal’s online submission system.

Adherence to this guidance will facilitate a smooth and efficient review of revised submissions.