How to Politely Accept or Disagree with Reviewer Criticism (Examples)

• You’ll receive reviewer criticism on every submission — that’s how peer review works
• The 3-part formula (quote → answer → cite) keeps every response professional
• Disagree in ≤20% of comments to avoid looking “defensive and difficult”
• Write a private “venting draft” first, wait 48 hours, then write the actual response
• When in doubt, compromise: acknowledge the concern, narrow the claim, add a limitation

Receiving reviewer criticism is normal. It’s supposed to happen. Every author gets comments they don’t love — and the goal isn’t to win an argument, it’s to produce a stronger paper through constructive revision. The editors know that reviewers sometimes misunderstand, misread, or simply prefer different approaches. Your job is to respond professionally, whether you agree, disagree, or settle somewhere in the middle.

The 3-part formula that keeps every response professional

Here’s the backbone of every good response to a reviewer comment:

Quote the reviewer’s comment verbatim. Copy and paste it exactly. This shows you read it carefully and aren’t dodging the concern.

Give a direct answer. Open with “We agree,” “We have done as suggested,” or “We respectfully maintain our original approach.” Don’t bury the answer in paragraphs of background.

Cite the specific change. Reference the exact page, line, and quoted text so the reviewer can verify your response without opening your manuscript.

This pattern — quote, answer, cite — repeats across every publisher handbook, from PLOS Computational Biology‘s Ten Simple Rules (Noble, 2017) to Wiley and Taylor & Francis guidelines. It works because it’s easy for the editor to scan, and impossible for the reviewer to accuse you of ignoring their point.

The accept/disagree/compromise decision table

Here’s the centerpiece. Use this table to decide how to handle each comment as you draft your response. Every row contains copyable phrasing you can adapt for your own manuscript.

Notice the pattern: every disagreement starts with acknowledgment, presents evidence, and meets the concern halfway. That’s not a coincidence — it’s what editors expect.

How to accept criticism (3 examples with phrasing)

When a reviewer is right, say so. Don’t hedge. Don’t write two paragraphs of justification for a change you should have made anyway.

Example 1: Minor correction

“We agree with this observation. We have corrected the error as suggested.”

If the typo is in the Methods section on page 8, line 112, add: “The corrected text reads: ‘[corrected sentence]’. This change appears on page 8, lines 110–114.”

Simple. Specific. Done.

Example 2: Major restructuring

“We appreciate this constructive suggestion. We have reorganized the Results section according to the recommended order.”

This is where most authors mess up. They restructure the paper and write “per your suggestion” without quoting the new text. Quote the new paragraph, cite the page and line, and let the reviewer see the change immediately.

Example 3: Additional data requested

“We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have conducted the additional analysis as requested. The new results are presented in Supplementary Table 2, and the interpretation has been updated in the Discussion on page 14, lines 145–152.”

Even when you have to do extra work, acknowledge it positively. Show that you took the suggestion seriously and acted on it.

How to disagree respectfully (3-4 examples)

Disagreeing with a reviewer isn’t career suicide — it’s expected. But it has to be done carefully.

Example 1: Factual error

“We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We respectfully disagree with the statement that ‘no previous studies have examined this protein interaction.’ Our literature search identified three peer-reviewed studies directly investigating this interaction: Martinez et al. (Nature Cell Biology, 2019) demonstrated binding affinity of 2.3 μM using surface plasmon resonance; Chen et al. (Cell, 2020) confirmed the interaction using co-immunoprecipitation assays; and Thompson et al. (PNAS, 2021) showed functional consequences in HEK293 cells.”

Notice what this does: it acknowledges the reviewer, states the disagreement clearly, provides specific evidence with real methods and numbers, and references established sources. That’s the template for factual pushback.

Example 2: Scope misunderstanding

“We appreciate the suggestion to include chronic disease outcomes. While we agree this is an important question for the broader field, our study focuses specifically on acute inflammatory responses. We have clarified this scope boundary in the Discussion and noted this as a direction for future research.”

This works because you’re not dismissing the reviewer — you’re redirecting them to what your paper actually answers.

Example 3: Methodology difference

“We appreciate the suggestion to use [alternative method]. Both approaches are valid for quantifying [X], but we retained [our method] because it allows us to [specific advantage]. We have added a brief discussion comparing both methods (page 9, lines 88–95) so readers understand our choice.”

When reviewers push a preference rather than a necessity, this response holds your ground without sounding defensive.

Example 4: When a request is impossible

“We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful suggestion. The requested experiment would require access to a Bruker 950 MHz NMR spectrometer (estimated instrument time: $12,000) that isn’t available at our institution or through our collaborator network within the revision timeline. We have added a limitation paragraph acknowledging this gap and suggested the experiment as future research.”

Be specific about what’s impossible. Editors understand resource constraints — they just need you to articulate them clearly.

The compromise option — partial agreement with limitation

Sometimes a reviewer is partly right but overreaches in their suggested solution. The compromise move is powerful here.

Acknowledge the valid piece. Narrow the claim. Add a limitation.

“While we agree that additional controls would strengthen this conclusion, the suggested experiment is beyond the scope of this particular study. We have therefore added a discussion of this limitation and suggested it as a direction for future research.”

This is what Cushman (2023) describes as the “soft concession” strategy — and it’s exactly what editors look for. You meet the reviewer halfway without compromising your core findings.

The P-values Table 1 case study from Cushman (2023) is a published-editor example of this approach. She wrote four layered arguments against adding P-values to a baseline characteristics table, then added: “However, we can add the P-values to the table at the discretion of the Editor.” That’s how you refuse with a concession attached.

The “venting draft” technique — why you need it

Here’s something I wish someone had told me when I was learning peer review: never draft your response immediately after reading the comments.

William Stafford Noble (2017) explicitly recommends this sequence: write a private “venting draft” first, wait 48–72 hours, then write the actual response. The venting draft is where you put all your frustration, your defensiveness, your “this reviewer clearly didn’t read our paper.” You don’t send it anywhere. It stays in a private file. Then, a day or two later, you write the real response — calm, specific, evidence-based.

This works because it separates emotion from evidence. You still get to process the frustration (most people need that), but you don’t carry that energy into your manuscript revision.

The mistake people usually make here is copying phrases from the venting draft into the actual response. Don’t do it. The venting draft is a psychological safety valve, not a writing tool. If a phrase from the venting draft still sounds right after you’ve cooled off, it belongs in the response. If it sounds like you’re fighting rather than explaining, it belongs in the trash.

The ≤20% disagreement self-check

Manusights (April 2026) surfaces an under-reported editorial heuristic that I’d recommend every author keep in mind: disagree with no more than 20% of your reviewer’s comments.

If you push back on 60% of their points, the editor sees a pattern — defensive and difficult. That’s not a judgment call; it’s what the editor sees when they read your response. Most reviewers raise 5–10 points. Pushing back on 2–3 of them is reasonable. Pushing back on 6 or more of them is a red flag.

Think of it this way: your paper’s core contribution would be compromised by accepting a reviewer’s comment, disagree. If it’s just extra work that strengthens your argument, do the work. When you’re crafting your response, remember that editors read these exchanges carefully — they’re looking for professionalism, evidence-based reasoning, and constructive dialogue.

A quick mental check before you finalize the letter: how many of the comments are you refusing, and why? If fewer than one in five, you’re in the green zone. If more, you need to reconsider your strategy.

Checklist before submitting

Here’s the checklist I’d run before pressing any resubmit button:

• Every editor and reviewer comment has its own numbered row. Silence on any point reads as avoidance.
• Each reply opens with a direct answer. “We agree,” “We have done as suggested,” or “We respectfully maintain.” Don’t bury the answer.
• Every declined request has a reason backed by evidence. Not opinion — a citation, a reporting guideline, your study design.
• Page and line numbers match the file the editor will open. Don’t add them until the text is frozen.
• Marked-up and clean files are both uploaded, as the letter instructs.
• Changed results are updated in the abstract, tables, and Discussion too. If you change a result in the body, don’t leave it unchanged elsewhere.
• All co-authors have read and approved the revision and the response.

Summary + What Comes Next

You’ll receive criticism on every submission. That’s the job. The goal isn’t to win arguments — it’s to produce the best possible version of your research while maintaining the integrity of your scientific contribution.

The pattern is simple: quote the comment, give a direct answer, cite the change. Accept what you can do. Disagree when the comment would compromise your paper. Compromise when the reviewer is partly right. Write a venting draft, wait 48 hours, then write the real response. And check that you’re pushing back on less than 20% of their comments.

If you want more detail on the full response process — the cover letter, the decision letter, tracking changes, handling conflicting reviewers — the next steps are straightforward. Our guide on the complete peer review process covers the full workflow. Our student guide walks through responding from scratch, and our response letter template gives you a ready-made structure to fill in.

Related Guides

• The Complete Peer Review Process Guide for Students — full workflow from submission to acceptance
• How to Respond to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Student’s Guide — step-by-step for first-time authors
• How to Respond to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Complete Guide — journal-level focus with sample template
• Writing for Peer-Reviewed Journals: Student Guide — broader context on publication

What Comes Next

Once you’ve submitted the revision, the cycle continues. The editor may accept it, send it back for another round, or decline. Keep the timeline in mind — most decision letters specify a revision window, and missing it means a full resubmission. If you need an extension, write the editor before the deadline passes.

And if you’d like help crafting diplomatic responses to challenging reviewer comments, or need a peer review of your response letter before submission, our team can help.