Build a revision reply that matches the manuscript and completed work

1. Start with the decision and a response register

PLOS One asks revising authors to address reviewer and editor comments and provide both marked and clean manuscript copies. That is a specific journal example. Read the actual revision instructions, file requirements and deadline for your submission before choosing the response format.

Give each editor and reviewer point a stable identifier. Copy the original wording into a protected column, then assign a response owner and a person to check the result. Split a comment with several requests into visible subpoints without changing its meaning. A single “done” status can conceal an answered wording question beside an unperformed calculation; record those tasks separately.

Reference: PLOS One: revising your manuscript

2. Establish the fictional manuscript facts

Assume an invented cross-sectional study invited 120 eligible participants and received 96 responses. Its original table showed 80% without a denominator. In revision R2, the team has checked the source tally and changed Methods, page 4, lines 112–115, and Table 2 to show 96/120 (80%). These locations and completed checks are part of the fictional premise; they are not evidence from a real manuscript.

The team also revised Discussion, page 9, lines 254–257, to describe an association and its design limitations. A planned sensitivity analysis remains unfinished: code has been drafted but not executed, so no output or interpretation is available. The corresponding author is assembling the draft reply, and final contributor approval has not yet occurred. Preserve those facts throughout the letter.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

3. Answer the completed correction precisely

Exact fictional comment R1.1: “State the denominator for the response percentage.” Draft reply: “We have added 96/120 (80%) in Methods, page 4, lines 112–115, and Table 2 of revision R2. The numerator is the number of respondents, and the denominator is the number of eligible participants invited. We checked both against the source tally.” The arithmetic is 96 divided by 120, multiplied by 100, giving 80%.

The answer identifies the change and the meaning of the figures. It does not say that 120 people completed the questionnaire or that all study outcomes use the same denominator. For an actual revision, verify the relevant source, the manuscript table and the response text together. If a different outcome has missing observations, it needs its own appropriate denominator rather than a copied percentage.

4. Explain a reasoned disagreement

Exact fictional comment R1.2: “Describe the association as a causal effect.” Draft reply: “We have retained association language because this cross-sectional design does not establish a causal effect. We revised Discussion, page 9, lines 254–257, to make that limitation explicit. We would welcome clarification if the requested change concerns a particular sentence rather than the overall causal interpretation.”

This response addresses the requested claim without attributing a motive to the reviewer. It records a related improvement and the reason for declining the stronger wording. In a real study, the appropriate interpretation needs the scientific team’s assessment of the design and analysis. A polite disagreement is not a substitute for evidence, and the editor may still request further explanation or decide that the response is insufficient.

5. Leave unfinished work visibly unfinished

Exact fictional comment R2.1: “Provide the planned sensitivity analysis.” Internal draft reply: “This analysis is pending. The code has been drafted but not executed; no result is available to report. We will complete and check the analysis before replacing this working response, or ask the editor about a revised timeline.” This is an internal status statement, not a claim that the promised work has been completed.

Assign the analyst, define the expected output and identify who will review it. If the eventual analysis changes a conclusion, update the manuscript, tables, abstract and reply together. Do not paste “results were unchanged” because the draft code looks plausible. If the analysis cannot be completed, explain the actual limitation through the journal’s process; an extension or alternative approach must not be treated as granted before a response.

6. Reconcile the files before resubmission

Read the response against the clean manuscript, marked copy and current supplements. Check every location, number, new reference, figure replacement and statement of completed work. Confirm that a reviewer comment has not disappeared during consolidation and that each author responsible for a scientific change has reviewed its description. The fictional package here remains pending because R2.1 and final approval are unfinished.

Keep the final submitted bundle and the portal receipt together after an authorised submission. A local file, a completed upload and an editor’s decision are different records. The useful outcome of this workflow is a reply that states what changed, why, where it can be checked and what remains unresolved. Editorial assessment remains with the journal.

Questions for a practical final check

• Original comments preserved exactly.
• Each request has a responsible person.
• Completed changes verified in the named version.
• Disagreement explains its scientific basis.
• Unrun analysis remains pending.
• All files and contributor approvals reconciled before submission.