Is the response generator free? What are the limits?

Free with a ProofreaderPro account: 2 runs a day, and each run accepts up to 500 words: one reviewer comment plus your notes. Each run calls a language model on our servers, so the account requirement and daily cap keep it free. Paid plans share a pool of 50 runs a day across all the AI checker and generator tools on this site.

What happens to the reviewer comments I paste?

Your text is sent to our server and used once to produce the draft response. A daily usage count is recorded against your account, which is how the daily limits work.

What input format works best?

The pattern in the example: the reviewer comment, then "What I did:" followed by your actual changes, or your reasons if you are pushing back. The draft is built from your notes, so specific notes produce a specific response. One comment per run keeps each reply sharp; responses that answer three comments at once satisfy none of them.

Will the draft claim changes I have not made?

No, and this is the tool's firmest rule. It states only the revisions your notes describe, naming a section only if you named it. If you gave no notes, the draft acknowledges the point and leaves a [bracketed placeholder] where your revision belongs, because a response letter that overclaims is checked against the manuscript by the one person guaranteed to notice: the reviewer who raised the point.

Free Response to Reviewers Generator

Draft your peer review responses one comment at a time. Paste the reviewer's comment and what you changed, and get an 80 to 180 word reply in the polite-firm register editors respect: point acknowledged, substance engaged, revision stated. It claims only the changes you actually told it about.

Paste one reviewer comment, then what you changed or want to say

Paste or type your text, then run the tool. Results appear below in seconds.

0 / 500 words

Create a free account to run it Sign inFree accounts include 2 runs a day

Confident, never defensive, never overclaiming2 free runs a day with a free account

Academic researcher using ProofreaderPro.ai

84,000+

International Researchers

4.8

Average Rating

Trusted by researchers publishing in

How to draft a reviewer response in three steps

01

Paste one comment and your notes

The reviewer's comment, then what you changed or why you disagree. The draft is built from your notes, so the response is only as specific as what you did.

02

Check the claims and tone

Confirm every stated change matches your revised manuscript, fill any [bracketed] placeholder, and read once for tone: confident should never shade into curt.

03

Assemble the letter

Repeat per comment, then compile the responses under each quoted comment in order, reviewer by reviewer. Complete coverage, every comment answered, is what editors check first.

Why researchers use this response generator

Claims only your changes

The draft states the revisions your notes describe; missing specifics become bracketed placeholders for you to fill in.

Disagreement done properly

When your notes push back, the reply acknowledges the concern, gives your reason and offers your compromise, without conceding anything you did not concede.

The polite-firm register

A clause of acknowledgment, then substance. No groveling, no sarcasm, no wounded pride, the tone that survives being read by reviewer and editor alike.

One comment, one response

Single-comment drafting keeps every reply specific and checkable, and the 80 to 180 word length respects the reviewer's time as well as yours.

The response letter is where revisions are won

A revise-and-resubmit is the most winnable position in publishing: the editor has already decided the paper could belong in the journal, and the question is only whether the revision satisfies the reviewers. The response letter is the document that decision is made on. Reviewers routinely read it before rereading the manuscript, checking their own comments first, and an editor weighing a split verdict reads it as evidence of how seriously the authors engaged.

The two ways letters fail are mirror images. Defensive letters treat every comment as an attack and win arguments while losing the paper. Overcompliant letters accept every suggestion, including contradictory ones, and produce a revision with no spine. The professional middle, the polite-firm register, takes each comment on its merits: real problems fixed and said so plainly, misreadings answered with evidence and a compromise where one exists. Writing in that register while your pride is still bruised is genuinely hard, which is where a drafting tool that never gets defensive earns its place.

There is also an integrity line specific to this document: the letter is checked against the manuscript by the person who wrote the critique. That is why this generator will not claim a change you did not report making. The same discipline runs through the journal cover letter generator that opened the correspondence, and if the revision itself needs a language pass before resubmission, the grammar checker covers excerpts on the spot.

For the revised manuscript itself, the ProofreaderPro editor proofreads the complete document with tracked changes you approve one by one, so the resubmission is cleaner than the submission.

Example: one reviewer comment, one measured reply

Paste the comment and say what you actually changed; the generator drafts the reply in the register peer review expects.

You paste

Reviewer comment: "The sample size (n = 40) seems too small to support these conclusions." What I did: added a power analysis to the Methods; softened the claim in the Discussion.

You get back

We thank the reviewer for raising this point, and we agree that the modest sample size calls for caution. In response, we have added a power analysis to the Methods section and softened the corresponding claim in the Discussion so that our wording matches the strength of the evidence. We hope the revised text addresses the concern.

The shape is the peer-review standard: agreement handled in a clause rather than a paragraph of thanks, then the two changes with their locations (power analysis in Methods, softened claim in Discussion), then a close that points the reviewer back to the revised text. Run without the "what I did" notes, the reply carries a bracketed "[describe the change you made, and where]" for you to fill; with disagreement notes, the same structure holds and your stated reason takes the place of the changes.

Response to reviewers generator FAQs

How should a response-to-reviewers letter be structured?

Point by point: every reviewer comment quoted or paraphrased, each followed by its own response stating what you changed and where, or why you respectfully did not. Editors and reviewers check the letter against the manuscript, so completeness matters more than eloquence; a skipped comment reads as evasion. This tool drafts one response at a time, which keeps each reply specific and lets you assemble the full letter in order.

What tone should I use with reviewers?

Professional, specific and unhurried: the polite-firm register. Acknowledge the point in a clause, not a paragraph of thanks; groveling reads as anxious and wastes the reviewer's time. Then engage the substance. Never sarcasm, never wounded pride, never "as we already clearly stated", even when the reviewer plainly missed something; the reviewer who missed it will read your reply, and so will the editor deciding your paper's fate.

How do I disagree with a reviewer without sinking my paper?

Disagreement is legitimate and often succeeds when it is evidence-focused: acknowledge the concern is reasonable, give your specific reason, and offer a middle path where one exists, such as adding a limitation or a supplementary analysis. What fails is dismissiveness. The pattern this generator applies: concern acknowledged, reason stated, compromise offered if you named one, and it never concedes a point you did not concede in your notes.

Should I respond to every comment, even minor ones?

Yes, every single one, including the ones that say "typo on page 4". A one-line "Corrected" is a complete response to a minor point. The letter's job is to demonstrate that every concern was heard and handled, and reviewers notice gaps faster than they notice anything else. Batch the trivial fixes briskly and spend your words on the substantive points.

Responses drafted. Now perfect the revision they describe.

The ProofreaderPro editor proofreads your revised manuscript with tracked changes you accept or reject line by line, so the resubmission reads cleaner than the original. Free to try.

Proofread my revision

More free tools:Title Generator Thesis Statement Generator Research Question Generator Hypothesis Generator Abstract Generator Keywords Generator Plain Language Summary Generator Essay Outline Generator Journal Cover Letter Generator Essay Checker Grammar Checker Sentence Shortener All Free Tools AI Proofreader

From our blog:How to Write a Response-to-Reviewers Letter (with AI Help)Reviewer 2 Tone: How to Edit Defensive Language Out of Your Rebuttal How to Write a Journal Cover Letter (Template + AI Editor)