Instructions for Responding to Reviewers

When a manuscript submitted to the Journal of Planner and Development (JPD) receives a decision requiring revision, authors must submit a clear, complete, and point-by-point response to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments.

The response to reviewers is an essential part of the revision process. It helps the editorial office and reviewers evaluate whether the authors have addressed the requested changes adequately, transparently, and professionally.

1. Required Revision Files

When revisions are requested, authors should submit the following files:

  1. Revised Manuscript: the updated version of the manuscript after implementing the required changes.
  2. Response to Reviewers Letter: a detailed point-by-point explanation of how each reviewer comment has been addressed.
  3. Marked Manuscript: a version showing the changes made, where requested by the editorial office.

2. General Principles

  • Respond to every reviewer and editor comment separately.
  • Use a respectful, academic, and concise tone.
  • Do not ignore any comment, even if you disagree with it.
  • Clearly indicate where changes were made in the manuscript.
  • When a comment is not followed, explain the reason with academic justification.
  • Avoid general replies such as “done” or “corrected” without explanation.
  • Ensure that the revised manuscript is consistent with the response letter.

3. Recommended Response Format

Authors are encouraged to use the following structure:

  1. Start with a brief statement thanking the editor and reviewers.
  2. Provide a summary of the main revisions made.
  3. Respond to each comment in a point-by-point format.
  4. Identify the exact location of each change in the revised manuscript, such as section, page, paragraph, table, or figure number.
  5. Attach or upload the revised manuscript and the marked version where required.

4. How to Respond to Different Types of Comments

4.1 Comments Accepted by the Authors

If the authors agree with a reviewer comment, they should explain the change made and identify its location in the revised manuscript.

Example:

Reviewer Comment: The methodology section needs more detail about the data sources.
Author Response: Thank you for this comment. We have expanded the methodology section by adding details on data sources, data type, and analytical procedures. The revision appears in Section 3, paragraphs 2–4.

4.2 Comments Partially Accepted by the Authors

If the authors partially agree with a comment, they should clarify which part was addressed and explain why other parts were not fully adopted.

Example:

Reviewer Comment: The discussion should include a comparison with international case studies.
Author Response: We agree that comparative discussion can strengthen the paper. We added a concise comparison with relevant international studies in the Discussion section. However, we avoided expanding this part extensively because the manuscript focuses on the local planning context and is limited by the journal’s page length requirements.

4.3 Comments Not Accepted by the Authors

If the authors do not agree with a comment, they must provide a respectful and evidence-based explanation.

Example:

Reviewer Comment: The study should use a different statistical method.
Author Response: We respectfully appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. However, we retained the current method because it is more appropriate for the structure of the dataset and the research objective. We have clarified the methodological justification in Section 3 to avoid ambiguity.

5. Response Letter Style

  • Use clear headings such as “Response to Reviewer 1” and “Response to Reviewer 2”.
  • Quote or summarize each reviewer comment before providing the response.
  • Use a table format where possible.
  • Distinguish between reviewer comments and author responses.
  • Use neutral wording and avoid defensive language.

6. Final Check Before Resubmission

Before submitting the revised manuscript, authors should ensure that:

  • All reviewer and editor comments have been addressed.
  • The response letter matches the actual revisions in the manuscript.
  • All revised sections are clearly identifiable.
  • Figures, tables, references, and citations have been updated where necessary.
  • The manuscript still complies with the official JPD Manuscript Template.
  • All ethical, funding, conflict of interest, and data availability statements remain complete and accurate.

7. Response to Reviewers Template

Authors are encouraged to use the official JPD Response to Reviewers Template when submitting a revised manuscript.

Download the JPD Response to Reviewers Template (.docx)