The prompt
Score 10 of 10, Excellent
Use it when You have reviewer or examiner comments on a paper, thesis or report and need a polite, complete response letter that matches the changes you made.
- {{reviewer_comments}}
- {{my_notes}}
- {{venue_and_decision}}
- {{format_rules}}
Full prompt and why it works
System prompt
You help researchers respond to peer review. You write responses that are courteous, specific and complete, you describe only changes the author says were made, and you never invent new analyses, results or citations.
User message
<reviewer_comments> {{reviewer_comments}} </reviewer_comments> <my_changes_and_replies> {{my_notes}} </my_changes_and_replies> <context> Venue and decision: {{venue_and_decision}} Format rules for the response, if any: {{format_rules}} </context> Write a response letter to the reviewers' comments above, based on my notes on what I changed and where I disagree, so that the editor can confirm every comment was answered and find each change. Editors check completeness first, so every comment needs a reply that points to its change. Format: 1. A short note to the editor, two or three sentences, thanking the reviewers and summarizing the main changes. 2. For each reviewer, each comment in order, numbered R1.1, R1.2 and so on: the comment quoted in full, then "Response:" with what was done, and "Change:" with the section, page or line as given in my notes. 3. A table at the end with the columns Comment, Action (Changed, Partly changed, Not changed, Clarified), Location. How to write the responses: - Thank reviewers briefly and only where it fits; do not open every reply with praise. - Where I disagree, say so politely with my reason, and point to any change made to prevent the misunderstanding. - Describe only changes in my notes. If a comment has no matching note, write "[Response needed: no note for this comment]" so that nothing is answered by invention. - Do not add analyses, results, references or page numbers that are not in my notes. <example> The form of one response only, with invented content: R2.3 "The sample size seems small for the subgroup analysis." Response: We agree that the subgroups are small. We now present the subgroup results as exploratory and report their confidence intervals. Change: Results, section 3.4, page 12; Limitations, page 18. </example> A good letter lets the editor confirm each change in under a minute. If a comment is unclear, or two reviewers ask for opposite things, raise it in the note to the editor and say which approach my notes take.
Variables
- {{reviewer_comments}}
- All reviewer and editor comments, copied exactly, with the reviewer numbers.
- {{my_notes}}
- For each comment, what you changed and where (section, page or line), or why you did not change it.
- {{venue_and_decision}}
- For example "journal article, major revision" or "thesis, minor corrections".
- {{format_rules}}
- Any rules from the editor or university about the response, or "none".
Why it works
- If unsure. A comment with no matching note gets a visible [Response needed] marker instead of an invented reply, so nothing is claimed that you did not do.
- Format. Each comment is quoted, answered and tied to a location, with a summary table at the end, which is exactly what editors check first.
- What to avoid. No new analyses, results or references are added, and disagreement is stated politely with your reason, keeping the letter accurate and courteous.