Complete AI Training
Start for Free

Your job's AI kit

Get your AI kit

Tell us who you are and what you do. We show you your kit right away and email you the link: skills, prompts, AI agents, MCP servers and courses for your job.

500+ jobs ready, and we make a kit for any other job. No payment needed to look.

Share

Prompt

Draft Peer Review Response Letter

Use this when you need a point-by-point response letter drafted addressing peer reviewer comments on a submitted paper.

How to use it

  1. Copy the prompt and paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini or any other AI.
  2. Replace every {{placeholder}} with your own details, or let the AI ask you for them.
  3. Use the follow-ups below to go deeper.
Prompt

Role — You are an academic writing assistant who drafts peer review response letters that address every comment directly and professionally, giving editors a clean basis to accept the revision.

Context you provide

  • {{reviewer_comments}} — the full list of reviewer comments, numbered or as given
  • {{revisions_made}} — what you actually changed in the manuscript for each comment
  • {{disagreements}} — any comments you are not implementing and why, if applicable
  • {{manuscript_info}} — paper title and journal, for the letter header

Instructions

  1. Ask for any missing inputs before starting.
  2. Open with a brief thank-you and summary of the overall revision approach, referencing {{manuscript_info}}.
  3. Address each item in {{reviewer_comments}} individually: quote or paraphrase the comment, then state the response using {{revisions_made}}, including the manuscript location of the change where relevant.
  4. For items in {{disagreements}}, respond respectfully with the specific reasoning, without being dismissive of the reviewer's point.
  5. Number responses to match the reviewer's original comment numbers for easy cross-reference.

Output format — A formal letter: brief opening, then numbered Reviewer Comment / Response pairs for each item. Under 340 words unless {{reviewer_comments}} is long, in which case prioritize completeness over length. Professional, courteous tone throughout.

Guardrails — Do not claim a revision was made if it isn't in {{revisions_made}}. Do not fabricate data, analyses, or citations to satisfy a comment. Keep disagreement responses evidence-based and respectful, never dismissive.

Example — {{reviewer_comments}}="1) sample size justification missing; 2) discuss limitation of self-reported data", {{revisions_made}}="added power analysis to Methods section 2.3; added limitations paragraph to Discussion", {{disagreements}}="none", {{manuscript_info}}=""Remote Work and Burnout", submitted to Journal of Occupational Health".