If you have received a "Major Revision" or "Minor Revision" decision from a conference, you are now in a critical stage of the peer-review process.
At this point, a clear and professional revision response (or response to reviewers) can significantly influence the final decision.
This guide provides a practical conference revision response template, examples, and tips to help you reply effectively.
The response letter (also called a rebuttal letter or response to reviewers) is submitted together with your revised manuscript.
It serves three main purposes:
Below is a standard framework used by many researchers to organize their responses. This template is designed to be clear, objective, and professional.
You can use the following conference revision response template:
Dear Program Committee and Reviewers,
We are submitting the revised version of our manuscript titled "[Your Paper Title]" (Paper ID: [Your ID]) for your consideration. We appreciate the time and effort the reviewers dedicated to providing constructive feedback.
We have carefully considered each comment and have implemented revisions to address the concerns raised. Below is a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments.
Reviewer Comment 1: [Verbatim quote of the reviewer's comment]
Response: We acknowledge the reviewer's point regarding [Topic]. To address this, we have [Action taken, e.g., revised the methodology section/added supplementary data]. These changes can be found on Page [X], Lines [Y-Z] of the revised manuscript.
Reviewer Comment 2: [Verbatim quote of the next comment]
Response: [Your objective explanation or description of the update...]
If the reviewer comments are limited and the changes are small, a shorter version may be enough.
You can use the following conference revision response template:
Dear Reviewers and Conference Committee,
Thank you for your helpful comments. We have revised the paper accordingly and addressed each point below.
Comment 1:
[Insert comment]
Response:
Thank you. We revised this section and clarified the wording in Section [X], Page [X].
Comment 2:
[Insert comment]
Response:
We appreciate this suggestion and added the requested explanation in Section [X], Page [X].
Kind regards,
[Author Name]
You do not need to accept every suggestion exactly as written. But if you disagree, the tone matters.
A better approach is:
For example:
Thank you for this suggestion. We understand the reviewer's concern. After careful consideration, we did not make this exact change because it would alter the main scope of the paper. However, we have clarified the relevant limitation in Section X, Page X.
Conflicting Reviewer Comments: If two reviewers provide contradictory advice, it is appropriate to follow the advice you find most scientifically sound and politely explain your reasoning to the other reviewer and the Program Chair.
Requests for Additional Data: If the requested experiments are outside the scope of the paper, clearly define the current study's boundaries and explain why the suggested additions may be more suitable for future research.
A well-written revision response is a key factor in the final decision process. Clear structure, complete answers, and professional tone can significantly improve your chances of acceptance.
For more information on submission deadlines and current academic opportunities, please visit AiScholar.