cover letter for response to reviewer

Office of Undergraduate Research
Current Students
Online Only Students
Faculty & Staff
Parents & Family
Alumni & Friends
Community & Business
Student Life
Student Assistants
Latest News
What is Research
Get Started
First-Year Scholars Program
Current Research Projects
Involvement Opportunities
Undergraduate Research Space
About to Graduate?
Find Undergraduate Researchers
Request a Classroom Visit
Presenting and Publishing
Workshops and Training
Office of Research

Writing a Cover Letter and Response to Reviewers

Explore the possibilities.

The main purpose of your response to reviewers is to tell the editors how you have revised your manuscript since your initial submission. You should address each suggested revision made by the reviewers and explain how you have chosen to respond. The document should be formatted in such a way that the editors can easily track changes made to your manuscript. It should be organized by reviewer (e.g., Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2) and address the reviews point-by-point. Comments and responses should be clearly distinguishable.

For example:

1.Your manuscript contains grammatical errors. For example, on page 3, you used “their” when you should have used “there.”

We have thoroughly proofread the manuscript and corrected all grammatical errors.

2. The second paragraph of your introduction needs more details about findings by Owl and colleagues (2017). Be sure to explain their operational definition of “school spirit.”

We agree with Reviewer 1’s assessment of this paragraph and have decided to expand upon it. We have provided a more detailed summary of Owl and colleagues’ findings, including the operational definition they used for “school spirit” for their study.

1. On pages 1 and 6, you did not include the year of publication in an in-text citation.

We have included years of publication as they correspond to the sources listed on the references page.

2. Two of the sources in your references lack a hanging indentation.

This error has been corrected; all sources are correctly formatted with hanging indentations.

Unless otherwise specified in the email your received from the editors, you may choose whether or not to make any suggested changes. However, even if you do not change something that has been suggested, you must still address the suggestion in your response, and you must provide a compelling argument for your decision.

1. “Theatre” should be spelled “theater” because “theatre” is not the standard American English spelling. This is a repeating occurrence.

While Reviewer 1 is correct that most Americans do spell the word “theater,” scholars in my field would accept the use of “theatre” in the context in which I use it in this manuscript. Thus, I have chosen not to change this spelling.

Additionally, you should:

Use a professional letter format (i.e., address the correct audience, state your purpose, and be signed by the author(s) of the manuscript) for your cover letter.
Use a professional tone (i.e., use polite wording throughout the cover letter and response to reviewers, including when making your case for choosing not to follow a reviewer’s suggestion).
Make sure you have made any changes both within the manuscript AND described them within your response.
Make all changes and resubmit your manuscript, cover letter, and response to reviewers within the time frame allotted by the editors.

Contact Info

Kennesaw Campus 1000 Chastain Road Kennesaw, GA 30144

Marietta Campus 1100 South Marietta Pkwy Marietta, GA 30060

Campus Maps

Phone 470-KSU-INFO (470-578-4636)

kennesaw.edu/info

Media Resources

Resources For

How to Receive and Respond to Peer Review Feedback

How to Receive & Respond to Reviewer Feedback

A thoughtful, thorough approach to your revision response now can save you time in further rounds of review.

You’ve just spent months completing your study, writing up the results and submitting to your top-choice journal. Now the feedback is in and it’s time to revise. Set out a clear plan for your response to keep yourself on-track and ensure edits don’t fall through the cracks.

Keep Calm and Take Stock

From time to time, you’re going to get frustrating comments. Even though it may sometimes feel like the reviewers haven’t spent enough time with your work, are overly-critical, or lack the right expertise, remember that a lot can get lost in translation. Always start by assuming reviewers have the best intentions.

Bear in mind that the goal of peer review feedback is to verify and strengthen your work so that it is ultimately a more effective communication. Reviewers are a good representation of the journal’s general readership and their reactions can help you craft a better, clearer publication for your audience.

After reviewing your manuscript comments, it might be helpful to take a step back and clear your head. When you come back to it, ask yourself: what are the fundamental issues the reviewer wants me to address?

Set a Plan for Revisions and Response

Don’t lose track of important changes you intend to make. Making a plan for revising and crafting your response to the reviewers can help you organize your steps, get a better idea of what work needs to be done, and make the process run more smoothly.

1. Start a list of essential vs. unessential requests to prioritize your work.

The editor’s note may help you see which edits are required to meet the journal’s standards. Don’t disregard the unessential list, however. While these edits may be “nice to have” rather than “required,” they can strengthen your work for that journal’s typical audience. If you have time and resources to tackle these, do so.

2. Decide whether you’ll need time to conduct additional experiments.

Don’t shy away from providing additional data. If you already have the data requested by the reviewers, but don’t feel it fits the scope of your work, you can include these in your response as a show of good faith, and indicate in your letter why you think they should be left off the published article. If you need extra time for your revision to complete the additional research, make sure you let your editor know.

3. Make sure you have a system for responding to each comment, and demonstrating your changes.

This might sound tedious, but a clear, point-by-point response can save you time in subsequent rounds of review. Use track changes to show your edits and/or indicate line numbers in your response where the requested change can be found in the manuscript.

4. Don’t ignore any comments .

Even if you’ve decided not to make a change, your response to the reviewers should explain why you’ve done so. You may need to provide additional evidence as to why this isn’t relevant. That’s OK. Your goal here is to make sure reviewers have enough clarity of your work to understand your thinking. Without an adequate reason, reviewers may request the same change in subsequent rounds of review.

Tip: Build in a little extra time for a final review

Once you’ve updated and revised your manuscript, give yourself a little lee way—let the paper rest for a day or two and give it another read, checking to make sure that your edits make sense with the rest of the paper. For more tips, visit our guide to editing your work.

Conflicting Feedback

It’s almost inevitable that you will encounter reviewers who disagree on a course of action, or even an editor who disagrees with the reviewers. Here are some tips for navigating each case:

Reviewer vs Edito r

In general, the editor should be able to provide commentary more closely aligned with the journal’s scope and editorial policies. If the editor disagrees on a suggested edit, you should cite the editor’s comments in your response to the reviewers.

Reviewer vs Reviewer

When two reviewers offer conflicting advice, your editor may be able to provide guidance as to the journal’s standards, and which course of action they feel is more appropriate. As before, be sure to cite the editor’s advice in your response.
If the editor hasn’t provided clarity in their response, ask a colleague familiar with your work and check in with your coauthors for a second opinion.
Rely on yourself. Ultimately, the decision to make any change is up to you. Provide a clear and defensible response to reviewers, citing your reasons for complying or not complying with a suggested edit, so that the reviewers and the editor understand your decision.

Writing Your Response

Include a cover letter. Keep this short, but do call out important information about your changes and any points you wish to clarify further. If you found reviewer advice particularly helpful, thank them for their thoughtful commentary! Here’s a quick template you can follow:

Thank you for taking the time to review and comment upon our manuscript, %%Manuscript Number%%, %%Title%%. We found the advice constructive and have incorporated many of the suggestions into our revision… We’ve responded to each comment individually below and would like to draw your attention to…. Thank you again for your thoughtful comments… Sincerely, %%Name%%

You can also find a number of full cover letter examples online for inspiration — like this one from the APA Style blog.

Assume both the editor and reviewers will see everything that you write. If you’ve submitted to a journal with an open peer review process, your readers could see your comments as well

Keep your responses clear, unemotional, and easy to follow. Respond in-line to every comment, indicating line numbers where a change can be found

Reviewer Comment 1 : Suggestion for additional charts. Response: We have not added an additional chart as the requested data can already be found in Figure 1. Instead, we’ve adjusted the colors and weighting to make this line clearer. Reviewer Comment 2: Suggested clarification or correction. Response : We have made this change in line 44.

Write your response, take a break, and come back to it. Re-read your comments and make sure they come across calm and professional. If you’re struggling to come up with the right way to say something, try these reviewer response examples for inspiration.

The contents of the Peer Review Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

The contents of the Writing Center are also available as a live, interactive training session, complete with slides, talking points, and activities. …

There’s a lot to consider when deciding where to submit your work. Learn how to choose a journal that will help your study reach its audience, while reflecting your values as a researcher…

The peer review process is an essential part of academic publishing, ensuring the quality and rigor of research articles. Authors who submit their work for peer review often receive feedback and comments from reviewers and editors. Writing an effective response letter is crucial to addressing these comments, defending your research, and ultimately getting your manuscript accepted for publication. In this article, we will provide a step-by-step guide on how to write a response letter that effectively communicates with reviewers and editors, improving your chances of a successful publication outcome.

Understand the Peer Review Comments

Before you can start crafting your response letter, it’s essential to thoroughly understand the comments and feedback provided by the peer reviewers and editors. Read their comments multiple times, ensuring you comprehend their suggestions, concerns, and requests for revisions. If you do not understand a comment, ask others if they can provide some insight. If you are still unable to understand the comment, it is acceptable to ask for clarification. To prevent a delay in your response, answer the comment as you have interpreted it and ask the reviewer to confirm that your response actually addresses their comment.

Before addressing the comments, it may be helpful to categorize the feedback into different themes, such as methodologic issues, data analysis, clarity of writing, and references.

Maintain a Professional Tone

Your response letter is an official communication and should be written in a professional and respectful tone. Regardless of the tone of the reviewers’ comments, always maintain a respectful and cooperative attitude in your response. Avoid becoming defensive or confrontational, as this can harm your chances of acceptance.

Structure Your Response Letter

A well-structured response letter is easier for reviewers and editors to navigate and understand. Consider the following structure for your response letter:

Begin with a polite salutation: Start your letter by addressing the editor and reviewers by name (if known) and thanking them for their time and effort in reviewing your manuscript.
Provide a brief summary: Offer a concise summary of your manuscript’s key findings and contributions, reminding reviewers of the importance of your research.
Address each comment individually: Respond to each comment or suggestion made by the reviewers and editors. Number or list the comments for clarity, and address them in the order they were presented in the review report.
Use clear headings: Organize your response letter with clear headings or subheadings corresponding to each comment or group of comments. This makes it easier for reviewers and editors to follow your responses.
Be specific and detailed: When addressing comments, provide specific details about the changes or clarifications you have made in your manuscript. This helps reviewers and editors evaluate the thoroughness of your revisions.

Responding to Different Types of Comments

Acceptance or praise: If reviewers or editors have praised specific aspects of your manuscript, acknowledge their positive comments and express your gratitude.
Minor revisions: For minor revisions, you can briefly mention the changes you’ve made to address the comments and thank the reviewers for their helpful suggestions.
Major revisions: When substantial changes are required, explain how each comment was addressed. Describe the modifications you have made, referring to specific sections of your manuscript.
Disagreements or rebuttals: If you disagree with a reviewer’s comment, provide a well-reasoned and evidence-based response. Be respectful and open to dialogue, but also defend your research and methodology if necessary.

Provide Supporting Information

In your response letter, include supporting information that demonstrates your commitment to addressing the comments effectively. This may include:

Revised manuscript sections: Attach a revised version of your manuscript that incorporates the changes suggested by the reviewers and editors. Clearly indicate the revisions using track changes or colored text.
Explanatory notes: In some cases, you may need to include explanatory notes or comments in the manuscript itself to clarify changes or provide context for specific revisions.
Supplementary materials: If additional data, analyses, or references are needed to address comments, provide these materials as supplementary files.
Citations: Ensure that you’ve incorporated any suggested references or citations into your revised manuscript and list them in your response letter.

Be Concise and Clear

While it’s important to be thorough in your responses, also strive for conciseness and clarity. Reviewers and editors may have limited time to go through response letters, so avoid unnecessary verbosity. Provide clear explanations and justifications.

Proofread and Edit

Your response letter should be free of grammatical errors and typos. Carefully proofread your letter to ensure that it is polished and professional. You want to convey a sense of competence and attention to detail in your communication.

Seek Feedback

Before submitting your response letter, consider seeking feedback from colleagues, mentors, or co-authors. They can provide valuable insights and ensure that your responses are clear and effective.

Express Gratitude

In your closing remarks, express your gratitude once again for the reviewers’ and editors’ time and feedback. Show your appreciation for the opportunity to improve your manuscript through the peer review process.

Submit Your Response Letter

When you are satisfied with your response letter, submit it along with your revised manuscript through the journal’s submission system. Ensure that you follow the journal’s specific submission guidelines and requirements.

Common Phrases to Use in Your Response Letters

To help you craft your response letter, here are some common phrases and templates you can use:

Acknowledging positive comments:

“We are grateful to the reviewers for their positive feedback on our manuscript.”
“We appreciate the reviewers’ recognition of the significance of our research.”

Accepting minor revisions:

“We made the suggested changes to the manuscript as recommended by the reviewers.”
“The suggested revisions were incorporated into the manuscript to improve clarity.”

Addressing major revisions:

“We carefully considered the reviewers’ comments and made substantial revisions to address their concerns.”
“In response to the reviewers’ recommendations, we have conducted additional experiments and analysis, and the results are included in the revised manuscript.”

Disagreeing respectfully:

“While we appreciate the reviewer’s perspective, we respectfully disagree with this suggestion for the following reasons…”
“We understand the concern raised by the reviewer, but our methodology was chosen based on sound scientific principles, as explained in our manuscript.”

Providing clarifications:

“To address the reviewer’s query regarding [specific point], we included additional information in the manuscript.”
“We revised the text to provide a clearer explanation of [concept or method].”

Expressing gratitude:

“Once again, we would like to extend our sincere thanks to the reviewers and editors for their time and valuable feedback.”
“We are grateful for the opportunity to enhance the quality of our manuscript through this peer review process.”

Writing an effective response letter to peer reviewers and editors is an essential skill for authors seeking successful publication in academic journals. A well-crafted response letter demonstrates your professionalism, commitment to improving your manuscript, and respect for the peer review process. By understanding the comments, maintaining a professional tone, providing supporting information, and following best practices, you can navigate the peer review process effectively and increase your chances of acceptance. Remember that peer review is a collaborative process, and your thoughtful responses contribute to advancing knowledge in your field.

Want MORE Writing Tips?

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Email (required) *

The Art of Tailored Editing for Grant Applications and Scientific Manuscripts

Discover editing strategies for science grant applications and manuscripts to clearly communicate research and secure funding. 2 min read…

Optimizing Science Document Translations: Elevating Impact Through Post-Translation Editing

Learn the role of post-translation editing, ensuring manuscripts meet the standards of English-language journals for global impact.

Breaking Down Language Barriers: Why Translating Your Research into English Matters (and How to Do It Right)

English translation boosts your research’s visibility, fostering global collaboration, readership, and scientific innovation. 2 min read…

Need Help With Your Writing?

At SciTechEdit, we are committed to delivering top-notch science editing services to enhance the impact and clarity of your research. We understand the importance of effective communication in the scientific community, and our team of experienced editors is here to help you refine and elevate your scientific manuscripts.

SpringerLink shop

Revising and responding

Once you manuscript has come back from reviewers you may be given the opportunity to revise it in accordance with the reviewer comments. You will usually receive a letter from the editor who handled your manuscript outlining the changes they would like you to make and links to the reviewer reports. This letter usually contains information on how to return your revised manuscript including instructions on how to highlight the changes made and when you need to return the revised version.

TIP: journals have different revision deadlines which vary from as little as a few weeks to three months depending on the revisions that need to be made. If you do not think you will be able to return a revised manuscript in the allotted time tell the editor immediately. They should be able to offer you an extension but it is best to discuss this with them as early as possible.

When revising your manuscript and responding to peer review comments you must:

Thank the reviewers and editors for their time and comments.
Address all points raised by the editor and reviewers.
Describe the major revisions to your manuscript in your response letter followed by point-by-point responses to the comments raised.
Perform any additional experiments or analyses the reviewers recommend (unless you feel that they would not make your paper better; if so, please provide sufficient explanation as to why you believe this to be the case in your response letter).
Provide a polite and scientific rebuttal to any points or comments you disagree with. Remember if your manuscript is sent for a second round of peer review the reviewers will see this letter too.
Differentiate between reviewer comments and your responses in your letter.
Clearly show the major revisions in the text, either with a different color text, by highlighting the changes, or with Microsoft Word’s Track Changes feature. This is in addition to describing the changes in your point by point cover letter.
Return the revised manuscript and response letter within the time period allotted by the editor.

The following is an example as to how to respond to a reviewer comment:

Reviewer comment: “In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure fitting function (regression). In my opinion, a simple Gaussian function would have sufficed. Moreover, the results would be more instructive and easier to compare to previous results.

Response in agreement with the reviewer: “We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of the analysis. Our tailored function does make it impossible to fully interpret the data in terms of the prevailing theories. In addition, in its current form, we agree it would be difficult to tell that this measurement constitutes a significant improvement over previously reported values. We have therefore re-analyzed the data using a Gaussian fitting function.”

Response disagreeing with the reviewer: “We agree with the reviewer that a simple Gaussian fit would facilitate comparison with the results of other studies. However, our tailored function allows for the analysis of the data in terms of the Smith model [Smith et al, 1998]. We have added two sentences to the paper (page 3, paragraph 2) to explain the use of this function and Smith’s model.

Note that in both comments (agreeing and disagreeing) the author is polite and shows respect for the reviewer’s opinion. Also, in both circumstances the author makes a change to the manuscript that addresses the reviewer’s question.

Back │ Next

Interlibrary Loan

Ask an Expert

Ask an expert about access to resources, publishing, grants, and more.

MD Anderson faculty and staff can also request a one-on-one consultation with a librarian or scientific editor.

Library Calendar

UT MD Anderson Cancer Center
Ask the Research Medical Library

Q. How should I format a cover letter and response to reviewers?

3 altmetrics
1 BioRender
11 cited references
8 collections
5 Copyright
3 data management
12 databases
1 Editing Services
5 full text
7 impact factors
3 Interlibrary Loan
10 journals
6 NIH Public Access Policy
4 open access
1 Other Libraries
2 peer review
1 plagiarism
19 publishing
41 reference
14 services
12 Systematic Reviews

Answered By: Kelsey Hensler Last Updated: Jun 22, 2023 Views: 39

Editor Name Lastname, Degree Editor in Chief Journal Name Re: Paper [Journal’s tracking number: “Title”]

Dear Dr. Lastname,

On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our paper “Title” (manuscript 1286). [Refer to the manuscript by the number the journal assigned it.] We appreciate the helpful comments from you and the reviewers. We have carefully revised the paper in response. We have addressed all of the comments from you and the reviewers, as detailed on the following pages.

We hereby affirm that [statements of compliance with journal requirements].

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. We thank you again for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our paper, which we hope is now acceptable for publication in Journal .

Best regards, Author

Comment 1 : “The authors should reference the recent review article on this topic published by Smith et al.” Response : We have added a reference to the Smith et al article in the Discussion section (page 12, line 2). Comment 2 : Request for additional studies in a different cell line. Response : We conducted additional experiments in MDA-MB-435 cells. The results, which are presented in Supplementary Data, Table S1, were similar to those obtained in our initial studies.

Major Issues Major Issue 1, Response 1, Major Issue 2, Response 2 Other Issues Reviewer 1 Comment 1, Response 1, Comment 2, Response 2, Comment 3, Response 3.... Reviewer 2 Comment 1, Response 1, Comment 2, Response 2, Comment 3, Response 3....

Links & Files

What should be included in my response to peer reviewers?
What are the characteristics of a good response to reviewers?
How do I show revisions in a manuscript?
Share on Facebook

Was this helpful? Yes 0 No 0

Comments (0)

Chat or Zoom Live with Staff

Text Us: (281) 369-4872

Call Us: +1 (713) 792-2282

View Research Guides

Request an Online Consultation

Expert Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments on Your Research Paper

Introduction

Read the Reviewers' Comments Carefully

Keep your Response Concise

Avoid being defensive or argumentative, thank the reviewers, submit your revised paper, what should i do if a reviewer makes a comment that i disagree with, how should i address multiple comments from the same reviewer.

What is the best way to present revisions in response to reviewers' comments?
Is it appropriate to ask for clarification on a reviewer's comment?

How do I maintain a professional and respectful tone when responding to negative or critical comments from reviewers?

Although completing a research paper is a noteworthy achievement, the process doesn’t finish after the research paper is written. Reviewers will provide criticism of your work, and it’s crucial to effectively address it if you want to enhance it and raise the likelihood that it will be published.

In this post, we’ll examine pro advice and tactics for addressing critiques of your research paper. We’ll talk about how critical it is to read and comprehend the comments, how to respond to each one specifically, how to back up your claims, and how to keep a professional demeanor. Responding to reviewers’ comments in the form of a letter requires good professional email writing skills .

Here are some steps you can take while responding to the reviewer’s comments.

Read the Reviewers’ Comments Carefully

It is crucial to take your time reading the reviewers’ remarks and comprehending the criticism they have made. This can entail going over the comments several times, going over the pertinent passages in your article again, and, if required, discussing the remarks with your co-authors or supervisor.

The context of the manuscript and the general objectives of the research should be taken into account while evaluating the reviewers’ comments. Consider whether a change is required for the article to accomplish its objectives, for instance, if a reviewer suggests one that would affect the focus of the paper.

It’s also critical to take the reliability of the input into account. Despite their good intentions, some remarks might not be well-informed. You may decide not to make the suggested adjustment in such circumstances or to ask the reviewer for clarification.

Even if the reviewers’ recommendations are challenging to put into practice or differ from how you originally envisioned the article, it is crucial to retain an open mind and be prepared to take them into account. Keep in mind that the reviewers are professionals in their fields, and their comments might help your research become more impactful and of higher quality.

Address each Comment Individually

It is crucial to be precise about how you have addressed the input in your edits when responding to each comment separately. This entails responding to each criticism in a straightforward manner, documenting the changes you have made, and describing how these changes resolve the reviewer’s issues.

Consistency in your responses to the reviewers is also crucial. Make sure the section has been updated if you indicate that a certain point has been covered in a particular section.

To structure your responses to the reviewers’ remarks, use a table or bullet points. You should also number your responses to match the particular comment you are addressing. This makes it simple for the reviewers to see your revisions and how you responded to their comments.

Additionally, bear in mind that the reviewer will read both the original manuscript and your response side by side. Therefore, whether it is a single page, line, or paragraph, it is crucial to be precise about where in the manuscript the modifications have been made.

You must keep in mind that the reviewers may have varying levels of knowledge and viewpoints, so you may need to modify your response accordingly.

Additionally, I suggest you to use, some professional grammar-checking software tool to correct any grammatical errors so that you should lose the impression of the reviewer.

I hope these examples provide some guidance on how to address each comment from a reviewer separately. Remember to thank the reviewer for their feedback and show that you are taking their suggestions into consideration as you make revisions to your paper.

Be Specific About Revisions

Be specific and succinct when addressing any objections you may have to the reviewers’ comments.

If you disagree with a comment or believe that a suggested modification might have a negative effect on the paper, it is crucial to respectfully and clearly explain why.

For instance, if a reviewer offers a modification that you feel will materially shift the paper’s focus or take away from the primary conclusions, you might wish to explain why you think the change is unnecessary or why it would lower the paper’s overall quality.

It’s critical to back up your concerns with evidence. This may entail citing more research from the literature or offering information.

Furthermore, it is critical to be open and honest about any study limitations, including any related to sample size or study design. These limits may occasionally be brought up by reviewers, but there are instances when it is preferable to address them proactively.

It’s also crucial to respond diplomatically and refrain from arguing or defending yourself. Keep in mind that the reviewers’ suggestions are meant to enhance the calibre of your work, and that an open debate can result in a stronger finished paper.

Here are some examples of how to respectfully and clearly explain why you disagree with a comment or believe that a suggested modification might have a negative effect on the paper:

I hope these examples provide some guidance on how to respectfully and clearly explain why you disagree with a comment or believe that a suggested modification might have a negative effect on the paper. Remember to explain your reasoning clearly and acknowledge the reviewer’s feedback while still maintaining the integrity of your research.

Explain any Concerns

It’s crucial to be succinct and clear when outlining your response to the reviewers’ comments in the cover letter. This entails summarising the key adjustments you have made to the revised article, emphasizing the key ideas, and describing how the modifications answer the reviewers’ feedback.

In the event that the reviewers haven’t seen the work in a while, it’s also critical to clearly explain the context of the modification. You may, for instance, remind the reviewers of the paper’s core research question, main findings, and main contributions.

It’s also important to mention any unresolved issues you still have with the manuscript or any part of the study that you believe needs further research, it’s an opportunity to convey your understanding and plans for the future.

It’s also a good idea to thank the reviewers for their time and work and to say that you hope the changes have enhanced the article.

Making a solid first impression is crucial because the cover letter is frequently the first thing the reviewers will read. A strong cover letter can improve communication with the reviewers and raise the likelihood that the manuscript will be approved for publication.

It is crucial to make sure that your amended manuscript adheres to the journal’s formatting requirements when you submit it along with your answer.

Making sure the paper complies with the journal’s requirements for length, format, and style is part of this. Additionally, it entails making sure the paper is error-free and that all of the figures and tables are of good quality.

Additionally, it’s crucial to confirm that the work is finished, suitable for publishing, and that all necessary adjustments have been completed. This indicates that every modification has been recorded, and every reviewer’s opinion and recommendation have been taken into consideration.

In order for the reviewers to quickly access your response while reading the revised manuscript, it is crucial to submit both your response and the amended manuscript as separate documents.

A copy of the initial submission, the reviews, and your response should all be kept for your records.

Last but not least, it’s critical to adhere to the journal’s submission requirements and deadlines. If you don’t, your paper might get rejected or postponed.

To maximize the likelihood that your paper will be approved for publication, the key is to be systematic, accurate, and professional.

It’s crucial to refrain from being defensive or argumentative in your responses to reviewers’ comments. This entails holding back from attacking someone personally or reacting unduly emotionally.

It’s critical to keep in mind that the reviewers are subject matter experts who are offering criticism to help your research become better. They are not your adversaries, and their remarks are not directed at you specifically.

Consider their viewpoint and the remarks as helpful criticism that can help you better your paper rather than getting defensive.

Additionally, it’s crucial to refrain from saying anything that could be interpreted as condescending or dismissive. Use of terms like “that’s not a problem” or “that’s not significant,” for instance, can come out as dismissive and may irritate the reviewers.

Additionally, it’s critical to refrain from blaming the original paper’s mistakes or omissions for your study’s limitations or other flaws. Instead, in the amended work, admit the shortcomings and describe the efforts you have done to resolve them.

You may keep a good rapport with the reviewers and raise the likelihood that your work will be accepted for publication by responding in a respectful and professional manner.

When responding to the reviewer’s comments, it can be helpful to incorporate some of the principles of yoga to help maintain a sense of equanimity and avoid becoming overly reactive or defensive.

One way to do this is to take a few deep breaths and focus on the present moment before beginning to read the comments. This can help to quiet the mind and promote a sense of calmness, which can make it easier to approach the feedback with an open mind and a willingness to learn and grow.

Additionally, it can be helpful to view the feedback as an opportunity for growth and improvement, rather than as a criticism of your work. This mindset shift can help to cultivate a sense of curiosity and openness, which can make it easier to receive feedback with grace and composure.

I have written a book on UNLOCK YOUR RESEARCH POTENTIAL THROUGH YOGA: A RESEARCH SCHOLAR’S COMPANION for the benefit of researchers.

I also suggest you to read one more book The Art Of Saying NO by Damon Zahariades . This will help you to learn how to respond and say things you want without being argumentative.

Provide a Clear and Concise Cover Letter

It’s crucial to be precise and succinct when summarising your response to the reviewers’ concerns in the cover letter. This means that you need to give a brief explanation of the key changes you’ve made to the revised manuscript and how they respond to the reviewers’ comments.

The most significant adjustments and how they improved the paper should be highlighted in the summary. It’s crucial to be detailed and to provide instances wherever you can. You may, for instance, point out a particular area of the manuscript that you have edited and explain how it responds to a reviewer’s issue.

Include any restrictions or unresolved problems you still see with the manuscript, as well as your plans for resolving them in the future.

The summary should be succinct—generally, one or two paragraphs will do—and simple to comprehend. Additionally, it’s crucial to check your cover letter for spelling and grammar issues, since these could give the reviewers the wrong impression.

Overall, the reviewers can better comprehend the modifications you have made and how they have enhanced the paper if you provide a brief and clear explanation of your response in the cover letter.

It also helps to demonstrate your understanding of the reviewers’ feedback and your commitment to improving the quality of your research.

It’s crucial to thank the reviewers for their time and suggestions before submitting your updated work and response to the journal. You can either mention this in the cover letter or in a separate note that is sent with the application.

It’s critical to keep in mind that the reviewers are subject matter experts who have given up time from their hectic schedules to read and comment on your article. They have offered insightful advice that will assist you to increase the quality of your research.

If your paper is accepted for publication and you need to work with the reviewers again in the future, having a good relationship with them now will benefit you in the future.

Saying something like, “Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript,” or “We appreciate the insightful criticism supplied by the reviewers, which allowed us to improve the quality of our paper,” might be used to show your appreciation.

Additionally, it’s critical to keep in mind that the reviewing process is a two-way street and that input is intended for both authors and reviewers.

Thus, expressing gratitude will demonstrate that you appreciate their criticism and that you are aware of the significance of the reviewing process.

In summary, expressing gratitude to the reviewers in a professional and sincere way can help to establish a positive relationship with them and demonstrate your appreciation for the time and effort they have invested in your research.

It is crucial to make sure your updated work and response are thorough and adhere to the journal’s submission requirements when submitting them to the journal. This entails delivering all necessary files, such as the updated manuscript, the reviewers’ comments, the cover letter, and any supplementary files like figures or tables.

It’s also crucial to make sure the work is formatted correctly and adheres to the length, style, and formatting standards established by the journal. This can entail checking that the document is double-spaced, contains proper citations, and has excellent figures and tables.

The title of the paper, the names of the authors and their connections, and any potential conflicts of interest should all be included in the cover letter.

Additionally, it’s crucial to adhere to the journal’s submission requirements and deadlines. This entails submitting the paper on schedule and using the correct procedures. If you don’t, your paper might get rejected or postponed.

A copy of the initial submission, the reviews, and your response should all be kept for your records. This can come in handy if there are any problems with the submission or if you ever need to refer back to the reviews.

The reviewing process can take some time, and it’s not unusual for amendments to be asked several times before an article is accepted for publication. As a result, it’s crucial to have patience.

Overall, you may raise the likelihood that your work will be approved for publication by sending a full and well-organized package, adhering to the journal’s standards, and remaining patient and professional throughout the process.

Handling Contradictory Suggestions

Contradictory recommendations from reviewers are a regular occurrence for researchers during the publication process. Reviewers’ differing viewpoints and assessments of a research article may result in contradictory suggestions for modifications. However, researchers can successfully negotiate these competing ideas and enhance their article for publication by taking a thorough and methodical approach to the situation.

In this discussion, we’ll look at the approaches researchers can use to deal with conflicting reviewer recommendations, including carefully reading and comprehending the comments, identifying the main issues, assessing the recommendations, coming to a decision and clearly communicating it, addressing any unresolved issues, remaining open to further discussion, and seeking advice from the editor or other subject-matter experts.

The following points need to be considered while dealing with contradictory observations made by the reviewers.

Read and understand the comments: Carefully read and understand the comments and suggestions made by both reviewers.
Identify the key issues: Identify the key issues or concerns raised by both reviewers and try to understand their different perspectives.
Evaluate the suggestions: Evaluate the suggestions made by both reviewers and consider their validity and potential impact on your research.
Make a decision: Based on your evaluation, make a decision on which suggestions to incorporate into your paper.
Communicate your decision: Clearly communicate your decision to the reviewers and provide evidence or reasoning for your choice.
Address any remaining concerns: Address any remaining concerns or issues raised by the reviewers in your response.
Be open to further discussion: Be open to further discussion and willing to consider any additional feedback or suggestions provided by the reviewers.
Seek guidance: If you are unable to make a decision, seek guidance from the editor or other experts in the field.

Here’s an example response that addresses both reviews while remaining respectful to both reviewers:

If a single reviewer makes contradictory views, it can be confusing and difficult to address. Here is an example response that addresses contradictory feedback from a single reviewer:

It’s critical to remember that the goal is to strengthen the manuscript and make it more publishable. Ensure that you have enough evidence to back up your choice, and be prepared to continue the conversation if necessary.

Few Conferences and Journals expect you to submit the final copy with corrections as suggested by reviewers in the form of a Camera Ready Copy(CRC). I have written an article on The Ultimate Guide to Preparing a Perfect Camera-Ready Copy (CRC) . Please refer the article to get further insights on preparing Camera Ready Copy(CRC).

In conclusion, it is critical to the publication process that you address the critiques received on your research work. You can effectively address the reviewers’ observations and enhance your paper by carefully reading and interpreting the comments, responding to each one individually, providing support, and adopting a professional tone. The likelihood of publishing can also be increased by adding adjustments based on reviewers’ comments and showing appreciation for their time and effort. You may successfully traverse the review process by using these tips and techniques, which will ultimately result in the success of your research work. Consider the reviewers’ comments as an opportunity to enhance your work and increase its effect. Consider it an opportunity to improve your paper so that it is stronger and publication-worthy.

Frequently Asked Questions

It’s important to address the reviewer’s comment and provide evidence or reasoning for why you disagree. Maintain a professional and respectful tone, and consider the comment as an opportunity to improve your work.

Respond to each comment individually and clearly, and make sure to address all the concerns raised by the reviewer. If the comments are related, you can group them together and respond accordingly.

What is the best way to present revisions in response to reviewers’ comments?

Clearly indicate the revisions you have made in response to the reviewers’ comments, and provide a summary of the changes made in the manuscript. It is helpful to use “Track Changes” feature in word processor to indicate the changes made.

Is it appropriate to ask for clarification on a reviewer’s comment?

Yes, it is appropriate to ask for clarification if you are unsure about the meaning of a reviewer’s comment. Maintain a polite and professional tone when asking for clarification.

It’s important to maintain a professional and respectful tone when responding to negative or critical comments. Avoid getting defensive or argumentative. Instead, focus on addressing the concerns raised by the reviewer and providing evidence or reasoning for your responses. Express gratitude for the reviewers’ time and effort in reviewing your paper.

Upcoming Events

Visit the Upcoming International Conferences at Exotic Travel Destinations with Travel Plan
Visit for Research Internships Worldwide

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Free Example Letter

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Free Example Letter Responding to the comments peer reviewers offer when they assess your research paper can be as challenging as writing the original manuscript, especially when the necessity of revising your paper to resolve problems is considered as well. How you respond to the criticism you receive can have a significant impact on whether your paper will ultimately be published or not, so getting your letter right is imperative. Although the process of responding, revising and perhaps responding and revising yet again can be frustrating and time consuming, it is important to remember that you, the journal editor with whom you are communicating and the peer reviewers who are assessing your writing and research are all working toward the same goal – the timely publication of an excellent research paper. A professional collegial approach that adopts a courteous and objective tone to deal clearly and thoroughly with every detail and issue will make the work of the editor and reviewers more efficient and the publication cycle as a whole smoother and more successful. Your prose should, of course, be formal and correct in every way, so do read and polish your response until every sentence is as clear, accurate and precise as you can make it. Since each response letter to reviewer comments is unique, the letter below can only serve as a constructive example as you craft your own response. The names, titles, contact information and publishing situation used in this letter are entirely fictional, but the principles and procedures are realistic and sound. The complete date and full mailing addresses are used in the style of a traditional business letter despite the assumption of an email format. You may or may not want to adopt this approach, but do be sure to provide your current contact information and the name of the editor you are addressing (normally the editor who sent you the decision letter), his or her title and the title of the journal. The subject line above the salutation is not strictly necessary unless requested in the editor’s or journal’s instructions, but if the journal has given your manuscript a number or another form of reference, do include it. The way in which changes should be made and the revised manuscript submitted vary among journals and proofreaders. This letter assumes that the authors have been asked to mark changes by using red font and resubmit their revised manuscript with their response via email, but do check guidelines and the decision letter you received for the requirements for your responses and revised manuscript, including any information on deadlines. PhD Thesis Editing Services Keep in mind as you write that not just the editor but all of the reviewers may end up seeing everything you have written. Editors may cut and paste and share your responses as they see fit to achieve the results they envision for your paper, so be prepared for this possibility. You should definitely address each of the reviewers individually as you respond to his or her comments, aiming for a layout that makes it absolutely clear which comment you are responding to at any given moment and exactly what you have changed in your manuscript. Some authors use different fonts and colours to distinguish reviewer comments from author responses and changes, but do be aware that these features can be lost in online formats, so a Word document or pdf file would be a more reliable choice for such formatting. Do not hesitate to repeat information as necessary, incorporating small adjustments geared at the person you are addressing in each case (the discussion of Table 1 in the letter below is an example of this), but remember not to write anything to one reviewer that you would not want another one to read. If there are matters of a particularly sensitive nature that you wish to communicate to the editor only, be sure to discuss them in a separate document that is clearly not intended for reviewer eyes. Finally, do not neglect to thank the editor and reviewers for their observations and comments. Their time is precious and many comments on your manuscript mean that they have dedicated a significant portion of it to help you improve your work. Be careful not to overstate your gratitude, however, and risk the impression of hollow flattery. Thoughtful attention to each of the observations and suggestions your reviewers offer will repay their efforts far more effectively.

A Sample Response to the Comments of Peer Reviewers

Edward Researcher Palaeography Institute 1717 Writer’s Lane South River, MI, USA, 484848 734-734-7344 [email protected]

Dr Helen Wordsmith Assistant Editor Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society 717 Reader’s Row London, UK, SW6 9DE [email protected]

November 14, 2017

Subject: Revision and resubmission of manuscript JSMS 17-N6688

Dear Dr Wordsmith,

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to revise our paper on ‘Hidden Treasure: Scribal Hands in the Notorious Brigantine Manuscript.’ The suggestions offered by the reviewers have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your insightful comments on revising the abstract and other aspects of the paper.

I have included the reviewer comments immediately after this letter and responded to them individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The changes are marked in red in the paper as you requested, and the revised manuscript is attached to this email message. Most of the revisions prompted by the reviewers’ comments are minor and require no further explanation than what appears in my responses below, but I did want to bring Table 1 to your attention. This table lists, locates and briefly describes each of the hands we have separated from the many found in the Brigantine Manuscript, dated at least approximately and, in the case of the Pantofola di Seta ’s first mate, identified with certainty. It does not list hands and scripts about which we remain uncertain, and for this reason Reviewer 1 suggests that it be removed and the descriptions of hands that it contains used to lengthen the descriptions in the main text of the paper. Reviewer 2, on the other hand, would like to see the table longer, with all possible hands and scripts included and tentative dates provided wherever possible. We considered both solutions and finally decided on a longer table as a tool that sets the information out clearly and comparatively. Our assumption is that readers will more readily return to a table when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. This allowed us to shorten and simplify the discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text of the paper, but it has resulted in a larger table, so we are eager to know your perspective on the matter. Although comments from both reviewers suggest that our original approach was not as successful as we would have liked, the table could easily be removed as per Reviewer 1’s advice and the text lengthened instead if that would be preferable. In fact, we tried the revisions that way at first and would be happy to send that version along as well if it might be helpful.

In response to your comments on the abstract, we have toned down the codicological and palaeographical terminology aimed at manuscript specialists and played up the new certainty that this book belonged to real pirates and was treated as the Pantofola di Seta ’s log by a first mate who was very proud of the crew’s achievements. Those opening sentences you mentioned now read: ‘Like the pirates whose barbaric activities it celebrates, the Brigantine Manuscript slipped off into the fog in the early fourteenth century, finally emerging in 2015. It had been miraculously preserved for 700 years in a hidden chamber carved into the keelson of a recently excavated Mediterranean brigantine named Pantofola di Seta (the Silk Slipper ). Extensive examination of the book’s contents and scripts has now lifted more of that fog, revealing at least five distinct hands writing over a period of more than 80 years and one of them a rather gifted first mate – Benutto Nero – who logged daily entries in passable Latin for almost six years from 1282 to 1288.’ We hope you agree that this opening is much more engaging, particularly for non-specialist readers, but we are certainly happy to make further changes to the abstract.

Regarding more minor matters, we have now changed our spelling and phrasing patterns from American to British English. I apologise for neglecting that requirement in the author instructions when we originally submitted the manuscript. We have also made good use of the two articles you mentioned. Susan Goodorder’s paper did indeed help us refine the subsections and their headings in the discussion section of our manuscript, and General Saltydog’s glossary of nautical terms enabled us to use more appropriate language when discussing ships and seamanship – ‘ropes,’ for instance, are now ‘lines’ throughout and we are much clearer on terms such as ‘leeboard,’ ‘starboard’ and ‘sheet.’ We hope the revised manuscript will better suit the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society but are happy to consider further revisions, and we thank you for your continued interest in our research.

Edward Researcher

Edward Researcher Professor of Medieval Latin Palaeography Institute

Reviewer Comments, Author Responses and Manuscript Changes

Comment 1: ‘Hidden Treasure: Scribal Hands in the Notorious Brigantine Manuscript’ was an engaging and informative read and the authors’ assessment of hands and scripts clear and accurate. The paper is perfect for the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society . I am uncertain that Table 1 is necessary and I have discovered one grammatical error which unfortunately appears throughout the manuscript and must be repaired, but beyond that I have very little helpful commentary to offer.

Response: Thank you! We found your comments extremely helpful and have revised accordingly.

Comment 2: Table 1 does not contain all the scripts and hands discussed in the paper, so it seems incomplete. I preferred the lengthier descriptions in the main text and would recommend that the table be removed and the descriptions of the more certain hands it contains be used to lengthen those descriptions in the main text.

Response: Both you and the other reviewer commented on this table, so we are grateful to know that our current approach requires some rethinking. Unfortunately, your suggestions differ, with the second reviewer asking that Table 1 be lengthened to include all hands and scripts in the manuscript. We have considered both solutions and decided to keep Table 1, but we have also asked the assistant editor, Dr Wordsmith, for her feedback on this issue and are certainly willing to remove the table as you suggested if that proves best for the paper and the journal.

Changes: We lengthened the table by adding the rest of the hands and scripts we have detected in the manuscript, describing each briefly and offering an approximate date. We believe this sets the information out clearly and comparatively and is a format that readers will readily return to when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. We have not removed the descriptions of hands and scripts that you found useful in the main text, but lengthening the table has allowed us to shorten and simplify the overall discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text of the paper. The changes in both table and text appear in red type in the revised paper.

Comment 3: Grammar and sentence structure is adequate for the most part, but dangling modifiers are a problem throughout the paper and at times obscure the authors’ meaning. For example, this sentence appears on p.6: ‘With his entrails already tumbling out on the deck, the oarsman gave his victim a last kick and lopped his head off.’ I’m almost certain that the intention here is to suggest that the victim, not the attacking oarsman, is suffering loss of entrails, but that is not what the sentence says. Here and elsewhere corrections are required. Response: Thank you so much for catching these glaring and confusing errors, which we have now corrected.

Changes: We have gone through the entire manuscript carefully and adjusted every relevant sentence to avoid dangling modifiers and clarify our meaning. For example, the sentence you noted now reads: ‘The oarsman waited until his victim’s entrails were tumbling out on the deck before he gave him one last kick and lopped his head off.’ This and other revised sentences are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 1: It is clear that the authors know a good deal more about medieval manuscripts than about seamanship, but the manuscript is worthy of publication provided the following matters are addressed. Response: Thank you for your assessment. We are indeed manuscript specialists who are learning more about ships and the sea via our studies of the Brigantine Manuscript.

Comment 2: There seems to be some confusion in the paper about the meaning of ‘leeboard’ and ‘starboard’ and more generally I’d like to see more accurate nautical terminology used. I wouldn’t recommend the more obscure vocabulary of vessels and seamanship which the authors are unlikely to need in any case, but the most common applicable terms should certainly be used. ‘Ropes’ should be ‘lines,’ ‘back’ of the boat should be ‘stern’ and so on.

Response: We agree that better use of nautical terminology would be more accurate and precise and have taken your advice.

Changes: We consulted the nautical glossary compiled by General Saltydog that was recommended by the assistant editor, Dr Wordsmith, and improved or corrected every ambiguous or inaccurate term we detected. Each changed word is marked in red in the revised paper, and we would be happy to make further alterations.

Comment 3: Table 1 seems too selective. It is obviously easier to include only those hands that the authors are certain about, but I would like to see a complete list of hands and scripts along with the authors’ best guesses at possible dates. I suspect many of the journal’s readers, especially those who are not manuscript specialists, would prefer this information in an effective tabular format. Response: Thank you for reminding us how important it is to present complex material like details of hands and scripts in a concise and readily accessible way. We agree that the table would be better if it included all hands in the manuscript and have made the following changes.

Changes: We lengthened the table by adding the remaining hands and scripts, describing each briefly and offering an approximate date. We believe this sets the information out clearly and comparatively and is a format that readers will return to when seeking information on the manuscript’s scribes and production. We have not entirely removed the descriptions of hands and scripts from the main text of the paper, but lengthening the table has allowed us to shorten and simplify the overall discussion of scribal characteristics in the main text. The changes in both table and text appear in red type in the revised paper.

Comment 4: The formatting of the discussion section seems inconsistent with the preceding sections of the manuscript and the journal’s guidelines. The discussion itself follows a logical line of reasoning for the most part and presents persuasive interpretations and conclusions, but it is a little complex at times, so more divisions and a more defined system of organisation would be helpful. Response: Thank you for this excellent observation. The discussion section is a little dense at times and could use more structure and clear guidance for the reader.

Changes: We have added a number of subsections with informative headings that summarise key points in the discussion. We used as a model an article published by the Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society and recommended by Dr Wordsmith, and we believe that the argument is clearer as a result, but we would welcome comments on particular sections and headings if you have further concerns. The new material is marked in red in the revised paper.

Why Our Editing and Proofreading Services? At Proof-Reading-Service.com we offer the highest quality journal article editing , phd thesis editing and proofreading services via our large and extremely dedicated team of academic and scientific professionals. All of our proofreaders are native speakers of English who have earned their own postgraduate degrees, and their areas of specialisation cover such a wide range of disciplines that we are able to help our international clientele with research editing to improve and perfect all kinds of academic manuscripts for successful publication. Many of the carefully trained members of our expert editing and proofreading team work predominantly on articles intended for publication in scholarly journals, applying painstaking journal editing standards to ensure that the references and formatting used in each paper are in conformity with the journal’s instructions for authors and to correct any grammar, spelling, punctuation or simple typing errors. In this way, we enable our clients to report their research in the clear and accurate ways required to impress acquisitions proofreaders and achieve publication.

Our scientific proofreading services for the authors of a wide variety of scientific journal papers are especially popular, but we also offer manuscript proofreading services and have the experience and expertise to proofread and edit manuscripts in all scholarly disciplines, as well as beyond them. We have team members who specialise in medical proofreading services , and some of our experts dedicate their time exclusively to PhD proofreading and master’s proofreading , offering research students the opportunity to improve their use of formatting and language through the most exacting PhD thesis editing and dissertation proofreading practices. Whether you are preparing a conference paper for presentation, polishing a progress report to share with colleagues, or facing the daunting task of editing and perfecting any kind of scholarly document for publication, a qualified member of our professional team can provide invaluable assistance and give you greater confidence in your written work.

If you are in the process of preparing an article for an academic or scientific journal, or planning one for the near future, you may well be interested in a new book, Guide to Journal Publication , which is available on our Tips and Advice on Publishing Research in Journals website.

Guide to Academic and Scientific Publication

How to get your writing published in scholarly journals.

It provides practical advice on planning, preparing and submitting articles for publication in scholarly journals.

PhD Success

How to write a doctoral thesis.

If you are in the process of preparing a PhD thesis for submission, or planning one for the near future, you may well be interested in the book, How to Write a Doctoral Thesis , which is available on our thesis proofreading website.

PhD Success: How to Write a Doctoral Thesis provides guidance for students familiar with English and the procedures of English universities, but it also acknowledges that many theses in the English language are now written by candidates whose first language is not English, so it carefully explains the scholarly styles, conventions and standards expected of a successful doctoral thesis in the English language.

Why Is Proofreading Important?

To improve the quality of papers.

Effective proofreading is absolutely vital to the production of high-quality scholarly and professional documents. When done carefully, correctly and thoroughly, proofreading can make the difference between writing that communicates successfully with its intended readers and writing that does not. No author creates a perfect text without reviewing, reflecting on and revising what he or she has written, and proofreading is an extremely important part of this process.

如何回应reviewer？给科研小白的论文返修模板：cover letter 和 response

这是把reviewer都感动了的返修模板! 一起来GET吧！

Reviewer：... Clearly the authors have spent much time and effort in improving the work and the paper. The reviewer is happy with the revision and to suggest acceptance to the work.

不管是大修还是小修，只要没有拒都有希望！都要对reviewer和Editor In Chief 心怀感恩。

最近和师兄合作的论文被某IF>9的一区IEEE接收了。当时看到返修意见的时候，我觉得回复还是挺麻烦的，有的还需要补实验。但师兄四两拨千斤的就把问题解决了。还给了一个堪称教科书式的模板。下面是我看了response之后给的评论。

response写的太好了吧，引起极度舒适，堪称教科书！

本文，将分享该模板，祝大家投稿必中，返修必中！

给编辑的cover letter

August 15, 2020

Re: Response for manuscript xxx-xx-xx “Title of the manuscript”

Dear Dr. XXX,

Thanks for providing us with this great opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript. We appreciate the detailed and constructive comments provided by the reviewers. We have carefully revised the manuscript by incorporating all the suggestions by the review panel.

We hope this revised manuscript has addressed your concerns, and look forward to hearing from you.

The Authors

Encl. Responses to the comments from Reviewer 1, 2, and 3.

给reviewer的response

Reply to Reviewer #1

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you very much for your time involved in reviewing the manuscript and your very encouraging comments on the merits.

Comments: （这里引用reviewer对论文的整体评价）

“This paper presents a novel statistical framework model xxx. By using the rigorous framework, the authors xxx.”

We also appreciate your clear and detailed feedback and hope that the explanation has fully addressed all of your concerns. In the remainder of this letter, we discuss each of your comments individually along with our corresponding responses. (对整体评价的回应。)

To facilitate this discussion, we first retype your comments in italic font and then present our responses to the comments. （表示接下来要逐条回应）

Some writing issues, in terms of grammar: plural and singular of verbs (e.g., “xxxx"). This manuscript should be proofread. (很对论文都会遇到语法问题)

Response 1:

Thank you for the detailed review. We have carefully and thoroughly proofread the manuscript to correct all the grammar and typos.

The paper needs to add xxx. (要求加东西)

Response 2:

Thanks for your great suggestion on improving the accessibility of our manuscript. We have added xxx. The relevant contents are provided below as a screen dump for your quick reference. （加了，并且把对应的论文截图直接放到回应里面，免得reviewer去大论文里面找着费劲）

Response 3:

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for all your time involved and this great opportunity for us to improve the manuscript. We hope you will find this revised version satisfactory. (最后总结回应reviewer)

-----End of Reply to Reviewer #1------

类似的格式和模板再分别回应reviewer2 和3.

Donald Trump

Read the Full Transcripts of Donald Trump’s Interviews With TIME

Read our full cover story on Donald Trump here . You can also read the transcript of the interviews here and a full fact check here .

Former President Donald Trump sat down for a wide-ranging interview with TIME at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla., on April 12, and a follow-up conversation by phone on April 27.

Over the course of the interviews, Trump discussed his agenda for a second term, which includes deporting millions of people , cutting the U.S. civil service, and intervening more directly in Justice Department prosecutions than his predecessors. He also discussed his thinking on other issues, including abortion, crime, trade, Ukraine, Israel, and the prospects for political violence in this election cycle.

Read More : How Far Trump Would Go

Below is a transcript, lightly edited for clarity, of the interviews between Trump and TIME National Politics Reporter Eric Cortellessa. Click here to read our fact-check.

Let’s start with Day One: January 20, 2025. You have said that you will take a suite of aggressive actions on the border and on immigration—

Donald Trump: Yes.

You have vowed to—

Trump: And on energy.

Yes, yes. And we'll come to that, certainly. You have vowed to launch the largest deportation operation in American history. Your advisors say that includes—

Trump: Because we have no choice. I don't believe this is sustainable for a country, what's happening to us, with probably 15 million and maybe as many as 20 million by the time Biden's out. Twenty million people, many of them from jails, many of them from prisons, many of them from mental institutions. I mean, you see what's going on in Venezuela and other countries. They're becoming a lot safer.

Well, let's just talk—so you have said you're gonna do this massive deportation operation. I want to know specifically how you plan to do that.

Trump: So if you look back into the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower, he's not known for that, you know, you don't think of him that way. Because you see, Ike, but Dwight Eisenhower was very big on illegal immigration not coming into our country. And he did a massive deportation of people. He was doing it for a long time. He got very proficient at it. He was bringing them just to the other side of the border. And they would be back in the country within a matter of days. And then he started bringing them 3,000 miles away—

What’s your plan, sir?

Trump: We will be using local law enforcement. And we will absolutely start with the criminals that are coming in. And they're coming in in numbers that we've never seen before. And we do have a new category of crime. It's called migrant crime. It's, ugh, you see it all the time. You see it in New York City where they're having fistfights with police. And far worse than that. You see it all the time. And you're seeing it in all of the cities, especially the Democratic-run cities, which is a lot of the big ones, but you're seeing it in Chicago, you're seeing it in New York and L.A. and getting worse than in other places.

Does that include using the U.S. military?

Trump: It would. When we talk military, generally speaking, I talk National Guard. I've used the National Guard in Minneapolis. And if I didn't use it, I don't think you'd have Minneapolis standing right now, because it was really bad. But I think in terms of the National Guard. But if I thought things were getting out of control, I would have no problem using the military, per se. We have to have safety in our country. We have to have law and order in our country. And whichever gets us there, but I think the National Guard will do the job. You know, had Nancy Pelosi used the National Guard. You know, I offered them whatever they wanted, but I often—

You would use the military inland as well as at the border?

Trump: I don't think I'd have to do that. I think the National Guard would be able to do that. If they weren't able to, then I’d use the military. You know, we have a different situation. We have millions of people now that we didn't have two years ago.

Sir, the Posse Comitatus Act says that you can't deploy the U.S. military against civilians. Would you override that?

Trump: Well, these aren’t civilians . These are people that aren't legally in our country. This is an invasion of our country. An invasion like probably no country has ever seen before. They're coming in by the millions. I believe we have 15 million now. And I think you'll have 20 million by the time this ends. And that's bigger than almost every state.

So you can see yourself using the military to address this?

Trump: I can see myself using the National Guard and, if necessary, I'd have to go a step further. We have to do whatever we have to do to stop the problem we have. Again, we have a major force that’s forming in our country, when you see that over the last three weeks, 29,000 people came in from China, and they're all fighting age, and they're mostly males. Yeah, you have to do what you have to do to stop crime and to stop what's taking place at the border.

Would that include building new migrant detention camps?

Trump: We wouldn't have to do very much of that. Because we'll be bringing them out of the country. We're not leaving them in the country. We're bringing them out. It’s been done before.

Will you build new ones?

Trump: And it was done by Obama in a form of jails , you know, prisons. And I got blamed for that for four months. And then people realized that was done by him, not by me.

So are you ruling out that you would build new migrant detention camps?

Trump: No, I would not rule out anything. But there wouldn't be that much of a need for them, because of the fact that we're going to be moving them out. We're going to bring them back from where they came.

I ask because your close aide and adviser Stephen Miller said that part of what it would take to carry out this deportation operation would include new migrant detention camps.

Trump: It’s possible that we’ll do it to an extent but we shouldn't have to do very much of it, because we're going to be moving them out as soon as we get to it. And we'll be obviously starting with the criminal element. And we're going to be using local police because local police know them by name, by first name, second name, and third name. I mean, they know them very well.

How are you going to get state and local police departments to participate in this? Under what authority is the President able to do that?

Trump: Well, there's a possibility that some won't want to participate, and they won't partake in the riches, you know. We have to do this. This is not a sustainable problem for our country.

Does that mean you would create funding incentives from the federal government for state and local police departments?

Trump: It could very well be. I want to give police immunity from prosecution because the liberal groups or the progressive groups, depending on what they want to be called, somewhat liberal, somewhat progressive, but they are—they’re very strong on the fact that they want to leave everybody in, I guess, I don't know. You know, sanctuary cities are failing all over the place. And I really believe that there's a pent-up demand to end sanctuary cities by people that were in favor of sanctuary cities, because it's just not working out for the country.

So by your own telling, these are new, bold, and aggressive actions that you would take.

Trump: I don't think they're bold actions. I think they’re actions that are common sense. But I really believe, Eric, that they’re actions that—it's incredible that they've allowed so many people to come into our country, especially considering they were unchecked and unvetted, most of them. They're just pouring in. They're pouring in at levels that no country has ever seen before. It's an invasion of our country.

Well, let me put it this way: They’re new and they're certainly going to be tested in the courts. If the courts rule against you, do you commit to complying with all court orders upheld by the Supreme Court?

Trump: I will be complying with court orders. And I'll be doing everything on a very legal basis, just as I built the wall. You know, I built a tremendous wall, which gave us great numbers. I also was willing to do far more than I said I was going to do. I was also and am willing to—they should have completed the wall. I completed what I said I was going to do , much more than I said I was going to do. But as you do it, you realize you need more wall in different locations, locations that, at one point, people thought you wouldn't be able to—you wouldn't need.

But, and—the first glimpse I found that Biden, frankly, wanted open borders, because I never believed it. It just didn't make sense. The first time I really saw that was when he didn't want to install the wall that was already built and could have been thrown up, hundreds of miles of additional work could have been thrown up in a period of three weeks.

I want to talk about your plan to build the wall in just a second, but just to come back on that. So you commit to complying with all Supreme Court orders? All orders upheld by the Supreme Court?

Trump: Yeah, I would do that, sure. I have great respect for the Supreme Court.

So come back to the border wall for a second because in the last term, you tried to negotiate border funding with Democrats, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, and had an opportunity for $25 billion. Didn't work. Got the $1.4 billion—

Trump: But with the $25 billion things came that were unacceptable.

Codifying the DREAMER protections—

Trump: Well, a lot of other things besides that. There were a lot of bad things. Sure, they gave you money for the wall. I basically took the money from the military, as you know. I consider this an invasion of our country and I took the money from the—

So my question is, what do you plan to do in the second term? Are you going to move right away on day one to direct federal funds to continue building the wall? Are you going to aim for legislation? How do you plan to do?

Trump: I think what we will do is we will complete—and when you say and when I say complete the wall, I built much more wall than I ever thought necessary. But as you build it, you find out that you need it. And we built it, and there were certain areas then you find out that are leaking and they leak. Like a politician leaks, they leak. And we would get that and we would build that and then you build something else. And it was just a system, we had a great system going. And we could have added another 200 miles of wall and good territory for it. Because it really does work, you know, walls work. Walls and wheels. I would say, you know, a lot of, see what you have here, your tape recorder, everything else is going to be obsolete in about six months. You'll have something that's much better. But the two things that are never obsolete are walls and wheels.

Something you said a moment ago. You said, “We want to protect police from prosecution.” What do you mean by that?

Trump: Police have been—their authority has been taken away. If something happens with them, even if they're doing a very good job, they take away their house, they take away their pension, they take away their, I mean, essentially, they end up losing their families over it. They take away everything. They prosecute people. And we have to give the police back the power and respect that they deserve. Now, there will be some mistakes, and there are certain bad people and that's a terrible thing. But there are far more problems with what's happened now, where police are standing outside of a department store as it’s being robbed and 500 mostly young people are walking out carrying air conditioners and televisions and everything else. And the police would like to do something about it. But they're told to stand down. They said don't do it. And if you do anything about it, if you stop crime, we're going to go after your pension, your home, your family, your wife or your husband. And you know, police are being prosecuted all the time. And we want to give them immunity from prosecution if they're doing their job.

Would you try to pass a law for that through Congress?

Trump: Excuse me.

Would you push a bill through Congress to do that?

Trump: We’d have to take a look at that.

Let’s shift to the economy, sir. You have floated a 10% tariff on all imports, and a more than 60% tariff on Chinese imports. Can I just ask you now: Is that your plan?

Trump: It may be more than that. It may be a derivative of that. A derivative of that. But it will be somebody—look when they come in and they steal our jobs, and they steal our wealth, they steal our country.

When you say more than that, though: You mean maybe more than 10% on all imports?

Trump: More than 10%, yeah. I call it a ring around the country. We have a ring around the country. A reciprocal tax also, in addition to what we said. And if we do that, the numbers are staggering. I don't believe it will have much of an effect because they're making so much money off of us. I also don't believe that the costs will go up that much. And a lot of people say, “Oh, that's gonna be a tax on us.” I don't believe that. I think it's a tax on the country that's doing it. And I know. Look, I took in billions of dollars from China. Nobody else ever did anything on China. I also let people know what the threat of China was. China was going along making $500 to $600 billion a year and nobody was ever even mentioning it until I came along. What's happening in Detroit is very sad because electric cars with this EV mandate, which is ridiculous, because they don't go far. They cost too much and they're going to be made in China. They're all going to be made in China.

Mr. President, most economists—and I know not all, there isn't unanimity on this—but most economists say that tariffs increase prices.

Trump: Yeah.

Are you comfortable with additional inflation?

Trump: No, I've seen. I've seen—I don't believe it'll be inflation. I think it'll be lack of loss for our country. Because what will happen and what other countries do very successfully, China being a leader of it. India is very difficult to deal with. India—I get along great with Modi, but they're very difficult to deal with on trade. France is frankly very difficult on trade. Brazil is very difficult on trade. What they do is they charge you so much to go in. They say, we don't want you to send cars into Brazil or we don't want you to send cars into China or India. But if you want to build a plant inside of our country, that's okay and employ our people. And that's basically what I'm doing. And that’s—I was doing and I was doing it strongly, but it was ready to really start and then we got hit with COVID. We had to fix that problem. And we ended up handing over a higher stock market substantially than when COVID first came in . But if you look at the first few years of what we did, the numbers we had were breathtaking. There's never been an economy—

Sir, the economy was certainly humming during your first term. There's no question about it. But, you know, Moody's did say that your trade war with China cost the U.S. economy $316 billion and 300,000 jobs. [Editor’s note: The estimate of $316 billion was made by Bloomberg Economics, not Moody’s.]

Trump: Yeah. Moody’s doesn’t know what they’re talking about. We had the greatest economy in history. And Moody's acknowledges that. So how did it cost us if we had such a good economy? Everybody admits it. If we didn't do that, we would have no steel industry right now. They were dumping steel all over this country. And I put a 50% tariff on steel. It was gonna go higher. And the people that love me most are businesses, but in particular, the steel industry. They love me because I saved their industry. I've had owners of steel companies and executives of steel companies come up and start crying when they see me. They say, nobody, nobody helped us until you came along. China was dumping massive amounts of steel into our country. And we saved the steel industry.

Do you think that businesses pass along the cost of a tax to the consumer?

Trump: No, I don’t believe so. I believe that it cost the country that—I think they make less. I actually think that the country that is being taxed makes less. I don't believe—

You don't believe that businesses pass on the cost?

Trump: No, I think what happens is you build. What happens to get out of the whole situation is you end up building, instead of having your product brought in from China, because of that additional cost, you end up making the product in the United States. And that's been traditionally what happened. If you look at what goes on. If you look at China, they don't want our cars. They charge them tremendous numbers. You look at India. India is a very good example. I get along very well with the people, representatives of India. Modi is a great guy, and he's doing what he has to do. But we had a case with Harley Davidson, I had Harley Davidson on the White House. I said, “How are you doing? How's business? Very good? Everything's good?” I said, “Just out of curiosity, how do you deal with India?” “Not Well.” Now you’ve got to remember, this is five years ago, four years ago, they said, “Not well. We can't do business with India, because they charged us such a big tariff, it was over 100%.” And at that price, you know, there's a point at which the consumer breaks and can't buy. They said, “But they will do anything for us to build a Harley Davidson plant in India. They don't want us to give motorcycles to India, but they do want us to build a plant.” I said, “Well, I'm not going to be very happy with that.” But that's ultimately what happened. They built a plant in India. And now there's no tax, and I'm saying we're doing the same thing. We're gonna build plants here. Now something that's taking place that nobody's talking about, maybe don’t know, but I have a friend who builds auto plants. That's what he does. If you ask him to build a simple apartment someplace, he wouldn't know how to do it. But he can build the plant, millions of feet, the biggest plants in the world. He's incredible. And I said to him, “I want to see one of your plants.” And he said to me, “Well, are you ready to go to Mexico? Are you ready to go to China?” I said, “No, I want to see it here.” He said, “We're not really building them here, not the big ones, the big ones are being built right now in Mexico or China.” China now is building plants in Mexico to make cars to sell into the United States. And these are the biggest plants anywhere in the world. And that's not going to happen when I'm President, because I will tariff them at 100%. Because I'm not going to allow them to steal the rest of our business. You know, Mexico has taken 31% of our auto manufacturing, auto business. And China has taken a much bigger piece than that. We have a very small percentage of that business left and then you have a poor fool like the gentleman is at the United Auto Workers who is okay with the fact that we're going to do all electric cars and it's so sad to see because the all electric cars are just not what the consumer wants.

Sir, I understand your position—

Trump: And by the way, I have no problem with all electric. I think it's great. And you can buy electric, I think it's fine. They don't go far. They have problems. They don't work in the cold. They don't work in the heat. There's a lot of problems. When I was in Iowa where they were all over. They were all over the streets. It was 40 degrees below zero the night of the Iowa caucuses.

I was there with you.

Trump: Right. That’s right. I’ve never heard of cold weather like that.

Just to clarify something you said a moment ago: You're considering a 100% tariff on Chinese and Mexican imports?

Trump: I didn't say that. They charge us 100%. But they charge us much more than that. India charges us more than that. Brazil charges us what—Brazil's a very big, very big tariff country. I ask people, Who are the worst to deal with? I'm not going to give that to you because I don't want to insult the countries because I actually get along with them. But you'd be surprised. The E.U. is very tough with us. They don't take our foreign products. They don't take our cars. We take Mercedes Benz and Volkswagen and BMW. They don't take our cars. If we want to sell a Chevrolet, even if we want to sell a Cadillac, a beautiful Cadillac Escalade, if we want to sell our cars into Germany, as an example, they won't take them.

Let's come back to Europe later.

Trump: I said to Angela Merkel, “Angela, how many Chevrolets are in the middle of Berlin?” She said none. I said, “You're right about that. But we take your cars, including cars that aren't that expensive, like Volkswagen, relatively speaking.” I said, “Do you think that's fair?” She said, “Probably not, but until you came along, nobody ever mentioned it.”

Sir, you've been critical of how Israel has prosecuted its war against Hamas. In a recent interview, you said that it needed to “get it over with” and “get back to normalcy.”

Trump: Yeah.

So as President, would you consider withholding American military assistance to Israel to push it to winding down its war?

Trump: Okay. So let me, I have to start just as I did inside. [Asks an aide to turn down the air conditioner.] I don't have to go through the whole thing. But as you know, Iran was broke. Iran is the purveyor of—

No, I know that but would you—

Trump: No, but think of the great job I did. It would have never happened. It would have never happened. You wouldn't have had—Hamas had no money. Do you know that?

I do understand that, sir, I just want to know—

Trump: No, but I hope it can be pointed out. During my term, there were stories that Iran didn't have the money to give to any—there was very little terrorism. We had none. I had four years of—we had no terrorism. We didn't have a World Trade Center knocked down. You know, Bush used to say, “Well, we’ve been a safe country.” I said they knocked down the World Trade Center in the middle of your term. Do you remember that one during the debate? That was a good one. But it was true, very true. But we had no terror during our—and we got rid of ISIS 100%. Now they're starting to come back.

I want to know—you said you want to get Israel to wind down the war. You said it needs to “get it over with.” How are you going to make that happen? Would you consider withholding aid?

Trump: I think that Israel has done one thing very badly: public relations. I don't think that the Israel Defense Fund or any other group should be sending out pictures every night of buildings falling down and being bombed with possibly people in those buildings every single night, which is what they do.

So you won’t rule out withholding or conditioning aid?

Trump: No, I—we have to be. Look, there's been no president that's done what I've done for Israel. When you look at all of the things that I've done, and it starts with the Iran nuclear deal. You know, Bibi Netanyahu begged Obama not to do that deal. I ended that deal. And if they were smart and energetic, other than trying to get Trump, they would have made a deal because they were in bad shape. They should have made a deal with Iran. They didn't prosecute that. They didn't make that deal. But I did Golan Heights.

You did.

Trump: Nobody even thought of Golan Heights. I gave them Golan Heights. I did the embassy and in Jerusalem. Jerusalem became the capital. I built the embassy. I even built the embassy.

Right.

Trump: And it's a beautiful embassy for a lot less money than anybody ever thought possible. And you've heard that. But there's been no president that's done what I've done in Israel. And it's interesting. The people of Israel appreciate it. I have like a 98%—I have the highest approval numbers .

Do you know who doesn’t have a high approval rating right now in Israel, though?

Trump: Bibi.

Yeah. Do you think it's time for him to go?

Trump: Well, I had a bad experience with Bibi. And it had to do with Soleimani, because as you probably know by now, he dropped out just before the attack. And I said, “What's that all about?” Because that was going to be a joint and all of a sudden, we were told that Israel was not doing it. And I was not happy about that. That was something I never forgot. And it showed me something. I would say that what happened on—the October 7 should have never happened.

It happened on his watch.

Trump: No, it happened on his watch. And I think it's had a profound impact on him, despite everything. Because people said that shouldn't have happened. They have the most sophisticated equipment. They had—everything was there to stop that. And a lot of people knew about it, you know, thousands and thousands of people knew about it, but Israel didn't know about it, and I think he's being blamed for that very strongly, being blamed. And now you have the hostage situation—

Has his time passed?

Trump: And I happen to think that on the hostages, knowing something about the enemy, and knowing something about people, I think you have very few hostages left. You know, they talk about all of these hostages. I don't believe these people are able or even wanting to take care of people as negotiations. I don't—I think the hostages are going to be far fewer than people think, which is a very sad thing.

You think you could work better with Benny Gantz than Netanyahu in a second term?

Trump: I think Benny Gantz is good, but I'm not prepared to say that. I haven't spoken to him about it. But you have some very good people that I've gotten to know in Israel that could do a good job.

Do you think—

Trump: And I will say this, Bibi Netanyahu rightfully has been criticized for what took place on October 7.

Do you think an outcome of that war between Israel and Hamas should be a two state solution between Israelis and Palestinians?

Trump: Most people thought it was going to be a two-state solution. I'm not sure a two-state solution anymore is gonna work. Everybody was talking about two states, even when I was there. I was saying, “What do you like here? Do you like two states?” Now people are going back to—it depends where you are. Every day it changes now. If Israel’s making progress, they don't want two states. They want everything. And if Israel's not making progress, sometimes they talk about two-state solution. Two-state solution seemed to be the idea that people liked most, the policy or the idea that people liked above.

Do you like it?

Trump: It depends when. There was a time when I thought two states could work. Now I think two states is going to be very, very tough. I think it's going to be much tougher to get. I also think you have fewer people that liked the idea. You had a lot of people that liked the idea four years ago. Today, you have far fewer people that like that idea.

Trump; There may not be another idea. You know, there are people that say that that situation is one of the toughest, the toughest to settle.

Yeah, absolutely.

Trump: Because children grow up and they're taught to hate Jewish people at a level that nobody thought was possible. And I had a friend, a very good friend, Sheldon Adelson, who felt that it was impossible to make a deal because the level of hatred was so great. And I think it was much more so on one side than the other, but the level of hatred of Jewish people was so great, and taught from the time they were in kindergarten and before. He felt that—and he was a great dealmaker. He was a very rich man. He was a rich man because of his ability to make deals. And he loved Israel more than anything else. He loved Israel, and he wanted to protect Israel. And he felt that it was impossible to make a deal because of the level of hatred.

Do you feel that way now?

Trump: I disagreed with it. But so far, he hasn’t been wrong.

You said you're proud to be one of the first presidents in generations to have not gotten the United States into a war. You addressed this a little bit in the press conference. But if Iran and Israel got into a war, will you join in Israel side?

Trump: I have been very loyal to Israel, more loyal than any other president. I've done more for Israel than any other president. Yeah, I will protect Israel.

You came out this week and said that abortion should be left to the states and you said you won't sign a federal ban. So just to be clear: Will you veto any bill that imposes any federal restrictions on abortions?

Trump: You don’t need a federal ban. We just got out of the federal. You know, if you go back on Roe v. Wade , Roe v. Wade was all about—it wasn't about abortion so much as bringing it back to the states. So the states would negotiate deals. Florida is going to be different from Georgia and Georgia is going to be different from other places. But that's what's happening now. It's very interesting. But remember this, every legal scholar for 53 years has said that issue is a state issue from a legal standpoint. And it's starting to work that way. And what's happened is people started getting into the 15 weeks and the five weeks or the six weeks and they started getting into, you know, time periods. And they started all of a sudden deciding what abortion was going to be.

People want to know whether you would veto a bill, if it came to your desk, that would impose any federal restrictions. This is really important to a lot of voters.

Trump: But you have to remember this: There will never be that chance because it won't happen. You're never going to have 60 votes. You're not going to have it for many, many years, whether it be Democrat or Republican. Right now, it’s essentially 50-50. I think we have a chance to pick up a couple, but a couple means we're at 51 or 52. We have a long way to go. So it's not gonna happen, because you won't have that. Okay. But with all of that being said, it's all about the states, it's about state rights. States’ rights. States are going to make their own determination.

Do you think that—

Trump: And you know what? That’s taken tremendous pressure off everybody. But we—it was ill-defined. And to be honest, the Republicans, a lot of Republicans, didn't know how to talk about the issue. That issue never affected me.

So just to be clear, then: You won't commit to vetoing the bill if there's federal restrictions—federal abortion restrictions?

Trump : I won't have to commit to it because it’ll never—number one, it’ll never happen. Number two, it’s about states’ rights. You don't want to go back into the federal government. This was all about getting out of the federal government. And this was done, Eric, because of—this was done, this issue, has been simplified greatly over the last one week. This is about and was originally about getting out of the federal government. The last thing you want to do is go back into the federal government. And the states are just working their way through it. Look at Ohio. Ohio passed something that people were a little surprised at. Kansas, I mean, places that are conservative and big Trump states, I mean, Ohio and way up Kansas, all these states, but they passed what they want to pass. It's about states rights.

I understand, sir. Your allies in the Republican Study Committee, which makes up about 80% of the GOP caucus, have included the Life of Conception act in their 2025 budget proposal. The measure would grant full legal rights to embryos. Is that your position as well?

Trump: Say it again. What?

The Life at Conception Act would grant full legal rights to embryos, included in their 2025 budget proposal. Is that your position?

Trump: I'm leaving everything up to the states. The states are going to be different. Some will say yes. Some will say no. Texas is different than Ohio.

Would you veto that bill?

Trump: I don't have to do anything about vetoes, because we now have it back in the states.

Okay.

Trump: They’re gonna make those determinations.

Do you think women should be able to get the abortion pill mifepristone?

Trump: Well, I have an opinion on that, but I'm not going to explain. I'm not gonna say it yet. But I have pretty strong views on that. And I'll be releasing it probably over the next week.

Well, this is a big question, Mr. President, because your allies have called for enforcement of the Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of drugs used for abortions by mail. The Biden Department of Justice has not enforced it. Would your Department of Justice enforce it?

Trump: I will be making a statement on that over the next 14 days.

You will?

Trump: Yeah, I have a big statement on that. I feel very strongly about it. I actually think it’s a very important issue.

Got it. You think this issue should be left to the states. You've made that perfectly clear. Are you comfortable if states decide to punish women who access abortions after the procedure is banned?

Trump: Are you talking about number of weeks?

Yeah. Let’s say there’s a 15-week ban—

Trump: Again, that’s going to be—I don't have to be comfortable or uncomfortable. The states are going to make that decision. The states are going to have to be comfortable or uncomfortable, not me.

Do you think states should monitor women's pregnancies so they can know if they've gotten an abortion after the ban?

Trump: I think they might do that. Again, you'll have to speak to the individual states. Look, Roe v. Wade was all about bringing it back to the states. And that was a legal, as well as possibly in the hearts of some, in the minds of some, a moral decision. But it was largely a legal decision. Every legal scholar, Democrat, Republican, and other wanted that issue back at the states. You know, Roe v. Wade was always considered very bad law. Very bad. It was a very bad issue from a legal standpoint. People were amazed it lasted as long as it did. And what I was able to do is through the choice of some very good people who frankly were very courageous, the justices it turned out to be you know, the Republican—

States will decide if they're comfortable or not—

Trump: Yeah the states—

Prosecuting women for getting abortions after the ban. But are you comfortable with it?

Trump: The states are going to say. It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It's totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions. And by the way, Texas is going to be different than Ohio. And Ohio is going to be different than Michigan. I see what's happening.

President Trump, we're here in Florida. You're a resident of Florida.

Trump: Yeah.

How do you plan to vote in the state’s abortion referendum this November that would overturn DeSantis’s six-week ban?

Trump: Well, I said I thought six weeks is too severe.

You did.

Trump: You know, I've said that previously.

Trump: I think it was a semi-controversial statement when I made it, and it's become less and less controversial with time. I think Ron was hurt very badly when he did this because the people—even conservative women in Florida thought it was—

Well this referendum would undo that. Are you gonna vote for it in November?

Trump: Well, it'll give something else. I don't tell you what I'm gonna vote for. I only tell you the state's gonna make a determination.

Okay, sir. Violent crime is going down throughout the country. There was a 6% drop in—

Trump: I don't believe it.

You don’t believe that?

Trump: Yeah, they’re fake numbers.

You think so?

Trump: Well it came out last night. The FBI gave fake numbers.

I didn't see that, but the FBI said that there was a 13% drop in 2023. [Editor's note: This statistic refers specifically to homicides.]

Trump: I don’t believe it. No, it’s a lie. It’s fake news.

Sir, these numbers are collected by state and local police departments across the country. Most of them support you. Are they wrong?

Trump: Yeah. Last night. Well, maybe, maybe not. The FBI fudged the numbers and other people fudged numbers. There is no way that crime went down over the last year. There's no way because you have migrant crime. Are they adding migrant crime? Or do they consider that a different form of crime?

So these local police departments are wrong?

Trump: I don't believe it's from the local police. What I saw was the FBI was giving false numbers.

Okay. So if elected, going on to the Department of Justice. If elected, would you instruct your Attorney General to prosecute the state officials who are prosecuting you, like Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis?

Trump: Well, we're gonna look at a lot of things like they're looking. What they've done is a terrible thing. No, I don't want to do that. I was not happy looking at Clinton. I was not happy. I think it's a terrible thing. But unfortunately, what they've done is they've lifted up the lid and they've—what they've done to me is incredible. Over nothing.

Well you said Alvin Bragg should be prosecuted. Would you instruct your Attorney General to prosecute him?

Trump: When did I say Alvin Bragg should be prosecuted?

It was at a rally.

Trump: I don’t think I said that, no.

I can pull it up.

So just to be clear: You wouldn’t instruct your Attorney General to prosecute Alvin Bragg?

Trump: We are going to have great retribution through success. We're going to make our country successful again. Our retribution is going to be through success of our country.

Would you fire a U.S. attorney who didn't prosecute someone you ordered him to? Him or her?

Trump: It depends on the situation, honestly.

So you might?

Trump: It would depend on the situation. Yeah.

Okay, so sir, you said that you would appoint a real special prosecutor to go after Biden and his family—

Trump: Well, it depends what happens with the Supreme Court. Look, a president should have immunity. That includes Biden. If they've ruled that they don't have immunity, Biden, probably nothing to do with me, he would be prosecuted for 20 different acts, because he's created such. You take a look at not only his criminal acts of taking a lot of money and being a Manchurian Candidate . Look at what happened in Afghanistan. Look at what happened throughout the world. Look at what happened with him allowing Russia to do that with Ukraine. That would have never happened with me, and it didn't happen. And I knew Putin very well.

President Trump, isn’t going after your political opponents what they do in a banana republic?

Trump: That’s what’s happening now. Yeah.

Trump: No, no, no, no. Eric, that’s what’s happening now. I’ve got to be on Monday—in fact, we’re doing this today because Monday was a little bit tougher, because I have to be in a criminal court on Monday.

That’s right.

Trump: Over a non-criminal case. It's not even a criminal case . And it's like I said, if you go to Andy McCarthy, or if you go to Jonathan Turley, two real experts, or if you go to all the legal scholars that wrote, they say, this isn't even a criminal case. And I have a judge who's more conflicted than any judge anyone's ever seen. And he's a mean guy who hates Trump. And you take a look at what's going on there. You just asked me, you know, you're talking about—you just asked me a question and they're doing that to me!

Well, sir, just to be clear—

Trump: Wait a minute, I haven't had a chance to do it to them. I would be inclined not to do it. I don't want to do it to them. But a lot of that's going to have to do with the Supreme Court. Look, we are going in another two weeks to the Supreme Court. And they're going to make a ruling on presidential immunity. If they said that a president doesn't get immunity, then Biden, I am sure, will be prosecuted for all of his crimes, because he's committed many crimes . If they say, on the other hand, that a president has immunity, and I happen to think a president has to have immunity, because otherwise it's going to be just a ceremonial position. But Biden has done so many things so badly. And I'm not even talking the overt crime. I'm talking about the border, allowing all of the death and destruction at the border—

Trump: Allowing all of this stuff. If a president doesn't have immunity. So when you asked me that question, it depends on what the Supreme Court does.

Well on that question, your lawyer, John Sauer, argued in court recently that if you as President ordered a Navy SEAL team to assassinate a political rival, you shouldn’t be prosecuted. Do you agree with your lawyer?

Trump: Well, I understood it differently. I thought it was a political rival from another country. I think I understood it differently, and I'm not sure. And John Sauer also said that first you go through an impeachment and then you make that determination based on impeachment. But a president, if you don't don't have immunity from prosecution, fairly strong immunity from prosecution. Now, if you do something just overtly very bad and very stupid, that's a different situation. That may be one of those cases.

Gotcha. So just to come back to something you were saying a moment ago, I just want to say for the record, there's no evidence that President Biden directed this prosecution against you. But even if we—

Trump: Oh sure there is.

Well, even if we stipulated that—

Trump: I always hate the way a reporter will make those statements. They know it’s so wrong. It’s just sort of to protect yourself. But no, no. His head of the Justice Department, one of the top few people, was put into the DOJ. Fani, Mr. Wade, Fani’s lover, spent hours in Washington with the DOJ working on my case. The DOJ worked with Leticia James on my case. The DOJ worked with deranged Jack Smith. He's a deranged person on my case . No, no, this is all Biden—

But the question, though—

Trump: And by the way, let me go a step further.

Trump: On my case with a woman that I never—that I have no idea who she is, until she made a phone call. “Do you know her?” And I said, “This is something that's a figment of her imagination.”

You’re talking about E. Jean Carroll?

Trump: Then I got sued. Until that, I had no idea who this woman was, I have no, I had nothing to do with this woman. That was done by a political lawyer in front of a highly, in my opinion, a totally inappropriate judge, who was conflicted for a lot of reasons , who wouldn't allow us to put in evidence, he was so bad, he was so evil. But I've had three of those judges in New York now, three of them. That's all I get. And it's a very unfair situation. They've gone after me, it's called election interference. But it's even beyond election interference, what they've done, and they've never seen, and I sort of, it's amazing when you say that Biden knew nothing. Biden knew everything. Just like, he knew nothing about Tucker's business and his business.

Even if we stipulate that, do two wrongs make a right?

Trump: No, I don't, I wouldn't want to, I wouldn't want to do anything having to do with. I wouldn't want to hurt Biden. I'm not looking to hurt Biden. I wouldn't want to hurt him. I have too much respect for the office. But he is willing to hurt a former President who is very popular, who got 75 million votes. I got more votes than any other sitting president in history. And I have probably eight cases right now that are all inspired by them, including my civil case.

Jason Miller: Eric, the President has his dinner in about 15 minutes. So he has a few more minutes here.

Trump: Are you staying? Are you going to have dinner with everybody?

Yeah, yeah. We only have 15 minutes left?

Trump: Yeah, his dinner is at 7:15.

In that case, let’s just do some rapid-fire questions.

Trump: All right. Do you think you could do this interview with Biden?

You know, he didn’t say yes. So I’m grateful that you’re giving me the opportunity.

Trump: He will never say yes, cause he’s off. He’s off, way off.

Let's take a second to talk about January 6. You have called the men and women who have been prosecuted for their actions on January 6 “hostages” and “political prisoners.” More than 800 of these people have been sentenced through our judicial system, most of whom pleaded guilty. Some of them have been convicted by juries. You've said you will pardon them. Are you calling into question the conclusions of the justice system in more than 800 cases?

Trump: It’s a two-tier system. Because when I look at Portland, when I look at Minneapolis, where they took over police precincts and everything else, and went after federal buildings, when I look at other situations that were violent, and where people were killed, nothing happened to them. Nothing happened to them. I think it's a two-tier system of justice. I think it's a very, very sad thing. And whether you like it or not, nobody died other than Ashli .

Will you consider pardoning every one of them?

Trump: I would consider that, yes.

You would?

Trump: Yes, absolutely.

All right, so—

Trump: If somebody was evil and bad, I would look at that differently. But many of those people went in, many of those people were ushered in. You see it on tape, the police are ushering them in. They’re walking with the police.

I want to ask you another question on this. There are some former allies and staff who don't support you in this election and have cited your attempts to overturn the 2020 election. What would you say to voters who like your policies, but who believe that someone who attacked a cornerstone of democracy—the peaceful transfer of power—cannot be entrusted to preserve it?

Trump: Well, actually, I did the opposite of attack. I'm the one that tried to stop it. I offered 10,000 soldiers and Nancy Pelosi turned me down. So did the mayor of Washington, she turned me down in writing.

What would you say to those voters, though?

Trump: That I offered. Number one, I made a speech that was peaceful and patriotic that nobody reports. Nobody talks about it: peacefully and patriotically. Nobody talks. You know, the committee never used those words. They refused to allow those words. Number two, I had like five tweets that were, go home, blah, blah. I got canceled because of those tweets.

Trump: No, I got canceled because of those tweets. I didn't get canceled because of bad things I said. I got canceled because of good things I said. Because when you read my tweets, and when you see the speech that I made, and when you see the statement that I made in the Oval Office in the Rose Garden, during this very dramatic and horrible period, I'm a very innocent man. Nancy Pelosi is responsible, because she refused to take the 10,000 soldiers or National Guardsmen that I offered. She refused to take them. The mayor of Washington refused to take them too. And they're responsible, you know, for the Capital.

Speaking of this, looking forward—

Trump: One other thing they did that’s so horrible and the press refuses to talk about it. They destroyed all evidence.

Are you worried about political violence in connection with this November's election?

Trump: No. I don't think you’ll have political violence.

You don’t expect anything?

Trump: I think we're gonna have a big victory. And I think there will be no violence.

Mr. President, you've talked a lot about your plan to obliterate the deep state. What exactly does that mean?

Trump: It means we want to get rid of bad people, people that have not done a good job in government. And we look at people like a company would look at people. You know, when you buy a company, you go in and you look at, how do you like the job? Job performance. They have job performance standards. And yeah, we would like to get rid of people that haven't done a good job. And there are plenty of them.

How do you plan to do that? Your team is preparing to give you the power through Schedule F, which would allow you to fire civil servants.

Trump: We’re looking at a lot of different things. Civil service is both very good and very bad. You have some people that are protected that shouldn’t be protected. And you have some people you almost want to protect because they do such a good job. I know a lot of people that are in civil service and they’re outstanding people.

Would you hire anyone who believes Joe Biden won the 2020 election?

Trump: I have no doubt that what we said was fact. The press, the fake news media, doesn't want to talk about it. You know, I have a lawsuit against the Pulitzer Foundation over the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax, because they talked about it for two and a half years and it turned out to be a total scam . And then certain writers got Nobel Prizes—

The RNC is holding litmus tests on employees, asking if they believe the election was stolen or not. Would you do the same? [Editor's Note: While the RNC is reportedly asking job applicants this question, it has denied it is a litmus test for employment.]

Trump: I wouldn’t feel good about it, because I think anybody that doesn't see that that election was stolen. It just—you look at the proof. It's so vast, state legislatures where they didn't go through the legislature. They had to go through the legislature. You look at it, it’s so vast, all of the different things. I could give you report after report on state after state of all of the fraud that was committed in the election, and if you had a really open mind, you would say I was right.

I want to get to your policies on Russia and Ukraine in a second, but President Trump, we just passed the one year anniversary of Evan Gerskovich’s detainment in Russia. Why haven't you called for his release?

Trump: I guess because I have so many things I'm working on. I have hundreds of things. And I probably have said very good things about him. Maybe it wasn't reported. But I think he's a very brave young man.

Will you do it now?

Trump: You’re talking about Wall Street Journal ?

Yeah.

Trump: Oh, I would certainly call. I’ll call for it right now in your story if you'd like.

Excellent.

Trump: But I do have. I do have many, many things. And here's a difference between me and Biden: I'll get him released. He'll be released. Putin is going to release him.

Can we talk about—

Trump: I think Biden has dealt with Putin very poorly. Putin should never have gone into Ukraine. And he didn't go in for four years with me. I get along very well with Putin, but the reporter should be released and he will be released. I don't know if he's going to be released under Biden.

But you would try to get him released as President?

Trump: Yeah, I would get him released. Yes.

You said that Russia—

Trump: I’m surprised that Biden. Well, I'm not surprised with anything with Biden. But I think it's a terrible precedent. And I'm very surprised that he hasn't been released, but I will get him released, if he's not released by the time we get to office.

Sir, you have said that you're willing to let Russia “do whatever the hell they want” to NATO countries that don't spend enough on their defense. If Putin attacked a NATO state that you believe was not spending enough on their defense, would the U.S. come to that country's assistance?

Trump: Yeah, when I said that, I said it with great meaning, because I want them to pay. I want them to pay up. That was said as a point of negotiation. I said, Look, if you're not going to pay, then you're on your own. And I mean that. And the question was asked to me: If we don't pay? It was asked to me long before this event. Do you know that, after I said that, do you know that billions of dollars poured into NATO? Do you know that?

I know that, sir. Secretary General Stoltenberg gave you credit for that. He said that your threat to pull out of NATO—

Trump: Correct.

Led to the allied countries giving $100 billion more on their defense.

Trump: Both then and three years before. Do you know that NATO—the cupboards were bare. They had no cash, they were dying, we were spending almost 100% of the money on NATO . We were protecting Europe. And they weren't even paying.

The question, though, is would you—

Trump: Eight. Only eight countries were paying. The rest of them were delinquent. And I said to them, if you don't pay, enjoy yourselves, but we're not going to protect you. I said it again a few weeks ago, two months ago, I said it again. And I said it, that if you don't pay. Look, that's the way you talk as a negotiator. I'm negotiating because I want them to pay. I want Europe to pay. I want nothing bad to happen to Europe, I love Europe, I love the people of Europe, I have a great relationship with Europe. But they've taken advantage of us, both on NATO and on Ukraine. We're in for billions of dollars more than they're in in Ukraine. It shouldn't be that way. It should be the opposite way. Because they're much more greatly affected. We have an ocean in between us. They don't. And when I say things like that, that’s said as a point of negotiation, and I did a very good job because billions of dollars came in recently.

You said in 2016 in an interview, you said “in order to get reform, you have to be willing to walk away.”

Trump: I said, for instance, the question was asked when we had a very big meeting, rather secret, but the press knew about it. We had 28 countries at that time. And a gentleman stood up who happened to be the head of a very important country. And he said, “Are you saying”— because I said to him, “You guys aren't paying your bills, we're paying your bills. It's not fair. You're hurting us on trade. And then on top of it, we're defending you. We're spending most of the money on NATO with the United States.” I said it's not fair. And the man stood up and said, “Are you saying that if we aren't paying our bills, if we don't pay our bills, and Russia attacks us, are you saying that you will not protect us?” I said that's exactly what I'm saying.

Now, after I said that, billions of dollars poured in. It was like magic. Obama never said that. Obama would go give a speech and he’d leave. Bush would go give his speech and he’d leave. I went, I looked at the numbers, and I said, wait a minute, the United States is paying for NATO. We're paying for close to 100% of NATO.

So the question, though, sir—

Trump: And not being treated right, because we're being treated very badly by most of the same countries on trade.

So you want to renegotiate the terms of the treaty, it sounds like. Do you want to—

Trump: No, I just want them to pay their bills. I don't have to renegotiate it. It's like Biden. Biden has the right to close up the border right now. He doesn't need anything from Congress. Same thing with NATO. I don't need to renegotiate the terms of the treaty. All I need to do is have them pay their bills. They don't pay their bills.

Do you want to maintain 80 years of American leadership in defending the West, especially Europe, or do you want to change the architecture of the post-war world that has kept us out of a World War for the last 80 years?

Trump: I want them to pay their bills. Very simple. NATO is fine. See, the problem I have with NATO is, I don't think that NATO would come to our defense if we had a problem.

Trump: No, I don't believe that. I know them all. It's a one-way street, even if they paid. I want them to pay. But I believe if we were attacked, NATO wouldn't be there. Many of the countries in NATO would not be there .

Would you continue to provide military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine?

Trump: I’m going to try and help Ukraine but Europe has to get there also and do their job. They're not doing their job. Europe is not paying their fair share.

Orban says he came here and met with you, and said that you wouldn’t give a penny. Is he wrong?

Trump: No, I said I wouldn't give unless Europe starts equalizing. They have to come. Europe has to pay. We are in for so much more than the European nations. It's very unfair to us. And I said if Europe isn't going to pay, who are gravely more affected than we are. If Europe is not going to pay, why should we pay?

So you may not aid Ukraine?

Trump: Look, we get hurt on trade. We get hurt on trade. European Union is brutal to us on trade. We went over it, the cars, they don't want our agriculture. They don't want our cars. They don't want anything from us. It's like a one-way street. Well it’s the same thing with NATO. They treat us very badly. They don't pay their bills. Now, I came along and they start paying their bills. I'll tell you something, Secretary Stoltenberg said, and I hope he says it now, but he certainly said it then loud and clear, he has never seen any force like Trump . Because every president would come over, they'd make a speech and they'd leave. Trump came over and he got us billions and billions of dollars. I got them hundreds of billions of dollars from countries that were delinquent. And he was my biggest fan. I hope he still is, but I don't know that he is, you know, maybe he is, maybe he is. But even this recent go-round, right, because you're asking me a question. There are two parts of that question. One is, four years ago, and one is now. I did a hell of a job getting money for NATO because nobody else—NATO had no money. NATO couldn't have even prosecuted what they're doing right now. They had no money. All they were doing was building stupid office buildings. They built a $3 billion office building.

Miller: Eric, Eric, I gotta wrap because his dinner is coming up.

Can we just do the rapid fire then, because—

Miller: Eric, I literally have three minutes until this dinner starts.

Okay, you said—

Trump: By the way, you understand what I just said?

Yeah, yeah.

Trump: He spent $3 billion by the same architect—

Let’s just go through this rapid fire because of the time.

Trump: But you understand?

I do. I do, Mr. President. You said you only want to be dictator for a day. What did you mean by that?

Trump: That was said sarcastically as a joke on Sean Hannity. He said, “Do you want to be a dictator?” I said, “Only for one day. I want to close up the border and I want to drill, baby, drill.” Then I said, “After that, then I never want to be a dictator.” That was done. That was said sarcastically. That was meant as a joke. Everybody knows that.

Do you see why—okay, you say you were joking, but do you see why—

Trump: No, no, wait. If you read it, it was a joke. I wanted to be for one day. You know why? Because we have an incompetent fool that’s allowing people to come into our country. We have an incompetent fool that drove energy prices so high over such a short period of time. And by the way, you know, he's gone to a lot of my policies now. But the day after the election, if they win, there won't be any more oil.

Do you see why so many Americans see language like that, you know, dictator for a day, suspending the Constitution—

Trump: I think a lot of people like it.

But you see why they see that as contrary to our most cherished democratic principles?

Trump: No. I think the press does. Not because they don’t understand it. They understand it as well as you do, as well as anybody does. That was said in fun, in jest, sarcastically.

Trump: It’s like “Russia, if you’re listening.” Remember “Russia, if you’re listening”?

Trump: That was said in the exact same vein. “Russia, if you're listening.” Everybody knows that was said sarcastically. But they cut off the laughter. You know, they cut it off immediately. As soon as it was—immediately, it was cut off. But that was said, sarcastically, a joke, it was in jest. This is the same thing. I said, “I want to be dictator for one day, I want to close up the border. And I want to drill, baby, drill.” And then I said, “After that, I don't want to be a dictator.” Now—

Trump: I did. But nobody reports that.

Well, we have a chance to have a good conversation and get the full truth here, which is what I’m trying to do.

Trump: But you understand what I mean.

I know what you mean.

Trump: I hope you report it. Because that was said.

I’m giving you a chance to respond.

Trump: Good. That was also said, Eric, with a smile. I'm laughing. And Sean Hannity, it was a question that he asked me.

It scares people, though, sir. It scares people.

Trump: I don't understand why it would. Everybody. Anybody that saw it would say I was laughing. He was laughing. The whole place was laughing. You know, it was a town hall?

I saw it.

Trump: And the town hall, they were laughing like hell. That was said in jest.

Only four of the 44 people who served in your cabinet the last time are endorsing you in this election. [Editor’s note: Roughly half a dozen Trump cabinet members had endorsed him at the time of this interview.] A number, as you know, have come out and said they won't support you in this election.

Trump: I don’t know. Like who? I’ve gotten many. I got Mnuchin!

Your former chiefs of staff, your former secretary of defense—

Trump; Well, I don’t know. Look, I mean—

The question, though, is why should voters—

Trump: Well, wait. Even this week, Mnuchin endorsed me. Pompeo endorsed me. Who are the people that? I mean, some didn’t because I didn't think they were very good. Look, when people think you don't like them and you're not going to bring them back. I'm not going to bring many of those people back. I had some great people. I had some bad people. When they think they are not in favor and they're not coming back, they're not inclined to endorse.

Well, the question I have to ask you, sir, is why should voters trust you?

Trump: I’ve had a lot of people endorse me.

You’ve gotten a lot of—

Miller: I’ll send him the full list.

You’ve gotten a lot of endorsements. I don’t dispute that. But the question I have to ask—

Trump: No, I mean that. I’ve had a lot of people endorse me from cabinets. Now, I have to tell you this, I haven’t asked for a lot of endorsements.

They come to you know. I know, sir.

Trump: If I call up 95% of those people that you say, if I made one phone call, they’d be endorsing me in two minutes.

The question I have to ask you is: Why should voters trust you when so many of the people who watched you the most closely in the first term don't think you should serve a second?

Trump: Well, they don't because I didn't like them. Some of those people I fired. Bill Barr, I fired Bill Barr . I didn't want him. Other people. I thought he did a terrible job. As soon as he was going to be impeached, he was going to be impeached by the Democrats, he totally folded. Bolton was a fool. He was a stupid fool. But actually, he served a good purpose because he's a nutjob. And every time he walked into a room, people thought you were going to war. He's one of the people, one of the many people, that convinced Bush to go into the Middle East, blow the place up and end up with a whole destroyed world. And nothing. What did anybody get out of it? We blew up the Middle East. And nobody got anything out of it. That was one of the Bolton people. You could go past. You could give me every single person you're talking about. And I would tell you a reason why I wouldn't want their endorsement. Now I had great people like, you know, I rebuilt the military.

Miller: The president's late for his dinner.

Biden doesn’t have any cabinet members who have come out against him.

Trump: Because Biden’s a very different kind of a guy than me. He keeps bad people. For instance, when you had Afghanistan, he kept Milley. Milley should have been fired immediately. Milley should have been fired based on his statement to China. If he actually made those statements, that's a very serious thing. You know, the statement to China, if he actually made them, and I guess he did, because they're on tape. That is really a serious problem. But he should have been fired for that. Other people should have been. Many people should have been fired. I did fire people, I fired a lot of people. Now I let them quit because ,you know, I have a heart. I don't want to embarrass anybody. But almost every one of those people were fired by me.

You could look at the military people. I said, “Hand me a letter, general, hand me a letter,” every one of them. So they handed me a letter. I don't think I’ll do that again. I think, from now on, I’ll fire. You know why? Because they say that they quit. They didn't quit. I said, “Hand me a letter.” That's a gentleman's thing to do. “General, hand me a letter.” I took care of ISIS. I had people saying it would take five years. I did it in a very short period of time. We have a great military, if you look at our military, I have great support from our military, from the real people, from the real generals, not the television generals. But I could ask for endorsements from 90 to 95% of the people that you're telling me. Every one of them would give me an endorsement.

Miller: Eric, Eric, I do have to get the president to his dinner. I’m sorry.

Both the Heritage Foundation's Project 25 and the American Conservative magazine, they're a big supporter of yours, have proposed abolishing the 22nd amendment that limits presidents to two terms. They say that, you know, if you come back into office, you will have served two non-consecutive terms, and that if the popular will is there for you, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to— [Editor's note: The proposal came from the American Conservative , not Project 25.]

Trump: I didn't know they did that.

Well, would you definitely retire after a second term, or would you consider challenging the 22nd amendment?

Trump: Well, I would, and I don't really have a choice, but I would.

You would consider it?

Trump: I’m at a point where I would, I think, you know, I would do that. Look, it’s two terms. I had two elections. I did much better on the second one than I did the first. I got millions more votes. I was treated very unfairly. They used COVID to cheat and lots of other things to cheat. But I was treated very unfairly. But no, I'm going to serve one term, I'm gonna do a great job. We're gonna have a very successful country again—

But you’d consider it?

Trump: And then I'm gonna leave.

You’d consider it, you said.

Trump: Consider what?

Challenging the 22nd amendment.

Trump: I don't know anything about it. I mean, you're telling me now that somebody's looking to terminate. I wouldn't be in favor of it. I wouldn't be in favor of a challenge. Not for me. I wouldn't be in favor of it at all. I intend to serve four years and do a great job. And I want to bring our country back. I want to put it back on the right track. Our country is going down. We're a failing nation right now. We're a nation in turmoil.

Miller: Eric, we’re way past—the President’s gotta get to his dinner. I’m sorry.

Is there anything we didn’t talk about that you wanna talk about before they—

Any question that I didn’t ask you that I should have?

Trump: No, I thought it was a good interview, actually.

Well, I really appreciate—

Trump: I mean, if it’s written fairly, it’s a good interview.

I had so many more questions I’d love to ask you.

Trump: And I find them to be very interesting questions.

I just try to ask good, probing questions. I have a lot more I’d love to talk about.

Trump: All I ask is one thing: Treat it fairly.

I will, sir.

Trump: I will say this, let me just say this. Everybody wants to work for me. And a lot of people say, “Oh, would he work for me? Oh, would he be a Vice President? Would he accept?” Vice President? I’ve got everybody in the nation calling me begging me to be vice president. I have everybody calling me wanting to be in the cabinet. Everybody wants to work for me. Everybody. And the practice of saying, “General, give me a letter” or “somebody give me a letter,” that's a nice thing to do. I don't think I'll do it anymore. But that's a nice thing to do. But everybody wants to work for me. We're gonna have a very successful administration. And the advantage I have now is I know everybody. I know people. I know the good, the bad, the stupid, the smart. I know everybody. When I first got to Washington, I knew very few people. I had to rely on people. And some of those people gave me very good advice.

People close to you tell me you’re more skeptical now—

Trump: Of what?

Of people betraying you in Washington?

Trump: I'm not more skeptical. I know the way nature—that's the way nature works. And I run a tough operation and some people can't take it. You know, working for Biden is very easy. He never fires anybody. He should fire everybody having to do with Afghanistan. He should fire everybody having to do with the border. I would have fired everybody and it would have been a big story.

Miller: Eric, he’s 10 minutes late for his dinner.

All right, all right. I don’t mean to be rude.

Trump: No, I find it very interesting.

Thank you, sir.

Trump: Thank you very much.

Follow-up Phone Interview With Trump

Two weeks after the Mar-a-Lago interview, TIME conducted a 20-minute phone interview with Trump on April 27. Below is a lightly edited transcript of that conversation.

Last time we spoke, you said you had an announcement coming over the next two weeks regarding your policy on the abortion pill mifepristone. You haven't made an announcement yet. Would you like to do so now?

Trump: No, I haven’t. I’ll be doing it over the next week or two. But I don't think it will be shocking, frankly. But I'll be doing it over the next week or two. We’re for helping women, Eric. I am for helping women. You probably saw that the IVF came out very well. And, you know, I set a policy on it, and the Republicans immediately adopted the policy.

That’s true.

Trump: And that was a good policy for women. You know, it's about helping women, not hurting women. And so IVF is now, I think, really part of what we do. And that was important. I think that might have been right around the time of our interview. But in terms of the finalization—and you saw that Alabama and other states have now passed legislation to approve that.

Right, right. And of course there was the law in Arizona that was passed since then too.

Trump: Right.

Mr. President, for the first time ever, Iran recently launched a massive attack against Israel from its own territory.

If Israel and Iran get into a war, should the US support Israel in striking Iran militarily?

Trump: Yes, if a situation like occurred. A lot of people say it was a ceremonial, it was a ceremonial attack. Because they allowed everybody to know what happened, et cetera, et cetera. If that’s the case, it would be a good thing, not a bad thing. But a lot of people say that that attack was, you know, I mean, everybody knew about it. I heard about it long before the attack was made, and so did many others. So it would depend, obviously, but the answer is yes. If they attack Israel, yes, we would be there.

Gotcha. Well, on that front, right now there are campus protests across the country, as you know, against Israel and against Israel's war in Gaza and against the United States’ posture there.

Trump: Right.

Your former Secretary of Defense says you once suggested shooting protesters in the leg during the Black Lives Matter—

Trump: Yeah, which Secretary of Defense was that?

That was Esper.

Trump: Well, he was my worst Secretary of Defense. He was a weak, ineffective person. He was recommended by some RINOs that I don't have too much respect for. But I was, you know, I was not there very long. So I had to rely on people. No, he was a very ineffective Secretary of Defense. No, but I would, are you talking about in the case of colleges, or what are you talking about?

I was just going to ask, would you use the American military against protesters as President?

Trump: Well, I would use certainly the National Guard, if the police were unable to stop. I would absolutely use the National Guard. It would be something, I mean, if you look at what happened in Washington with monuments, I passed the law. I took an old law, brought it into effect that you get a minimum of 10 years without any adjustment if you do anything to desecrate a monument and everything was immediately set up. I didn’t have to use very much. That was having to do with the monuments. That was the monument period, where they liked to rip down monuments.

And I signed into effect a law that gives you 10 years, not one day less than 10 years of prison if you desecrate a monument. You know, that was very effective. I don’t know, I think you saw it, everything stopped after that.

I remember that period, sir. So you would rule out using the military on protesters?

Trump: Well, I would use the National Guard. I don't think you'd ever have to use much more than that.

So you have spoken a lot about “woke-ism” on college campuses. Polls show a majority of your supporters have expressed the belief that anti-white racism now represents a greater problem in the country than anti-Black racism. Do you agree?

Trump: Oh, I think that there is a lot to be said about that. If you look at the Biden Administration, they're sort of against anybody depending on certain views. They're against Catholics. They're against a lot of different people. They actually don't even know what they're against, but they're against a lot. But no, I think there is a definite anti-white feeling in this country and that can't be allowed either.

How would you address that as President?

Trump: I don't think it would be a very tough thing to address, frankly. But I think the laws are very unfair right now. And education is being very unfair, and it's being stifled. But I don't think it's going to be a big problem at all. But if you look right now, there's absolutely a bias against white and that's a problem.

I want to get to your thoughts on China. Do you think the U.S. should defend Taiwan if China invades?

Trump: Well, I’ve been asked this question many times and I always refuse to answer it because I don't want to reveal my cards to a wonderful reporter like you. But no. China knows my answer very well. But they have to understand that things like that can’t come easy. But I will say that I have never publicly stated although I want to, because I wouldn’t want to give away any negotiating abilities by giving information like that to any reporter.

I understand your position there—

Trump: It puts you in a very bad position if you actually come out and make a statement one way or the other.

I understand, sir. Taiwan's foreign minister said U.S. aid for Ukraine was critical for deterring China from attacking Taiwan. Do you agree with that?

Trump: Well, I think they think the concept, because they have the same concept. Are we going to be helping them the same as we helped Ukraine? So they would want to think that, they think if you’re not helping Ukraine, you’re most likely not going to be helping them. So I think it’s difficult from their standpoint in terms of the policy. That’s a policy of the United States. It’s to help various countries that are in trouble.

You said you would back Israel if it goes to war with Iran. Do you think the U.S. can keep troops in the Middle East and contain the expansionist goals of Russia and China at the same time, or would we need to withdraw troops to realistically manage our obligations overseas?

Trump: I think we have a lot of options. And I think we’re in a lot of places where we shouldn't be, and we probably aren't in some places where we should be. We have a lot of options as to troops. And one of the things we have, we can manage our expectations, troops can be put in certain locations very quickly.

Would you withdraw troops from South Korea?

Trump: Well, I want South Korea to treat us properly. As you know, I got them to—I had negotiations, because they were paying virtually nothing for 40,000 troops that we had there. We have 40,000 troops, and in a somewhat precarious position , to put it mildly, because right next door happens to be a man I got along with very well, but a man who nevertheless, he’s got visions of things.

And we have 40,000 troops that are in a precarious position. And I told South Korea that it's time that you step up and pay. They’ve become a very wealthy country. We've essentially paid for much of their military, free of charge. And they agreed to pay billions of dollars. And now probably now that I’m gone, they're paying very little. I don't know if you know that they renegotiated the deal I made. And they're paying very little. But they paid us billions, many billions of dollars, for us having troops there. From what I’m hearing, they were able to renegotiate with the Biden Administration and bring that number way, way down to what it was before, which was almost nothing .

Gotcha. President Trump, you have been—

Trump: Which doesn’t make any sense, Eric. Why would we defend somebody? And we’re talking about a very wealthy country. But they're a very wealthy country and why wouldn't they want to pay? They were actually, they were a pleasure to deal with. Not easy initially, but ultimately, they became a pleasure to deal with. And they agreed to pay billions dollars to the United States for our military being there. Billions, many billions.

President Trump, you have been the leader of the world's most powerful democracy and you have dealt with the leaders of authoritarian countries. Why is democracy better than dictatorship?

Trump: Well, it's because the word freedom. You have freedom. And you have all of the advantages with none of the disadvantages. You have freedom if you have a real democracy. I think we’re becoming less of a democracy when I look at the weaponization of the Justice Department, the FBI. When you look at what happened with FISA. When you look at all the things that have happened, we’re becoming less and less of a democracy. But with democracy, if it's a properly-run democracy, which it will be, if and when I get back into office, it’ll be a very proper democracy, not like what we have right now. I don't even think what we have right now is, where a presidential candidate has to spend eight hours a day in court instead of campaigning over nothing. Over zero. Over nonsense. And all speared and all spread out and—and really done by the Biden administration. And I think that's no longer democracy. I think that's third-world country stuff.

I want to get you to respond to one other thing you said that stirred some controversy. You once wrote on Truth Social that you might have to terminate parts of the Constitution. What did you mean by that?

Trump: I never said that at all. I never said that at all . When I talk about certain things, we are, there is nothing more important than our Constitution. But the Democrats have violated our Constitution with crooked elections and many other things. They violated it by using the FBI and the DOJ to go after people very unfairly, very unconstitutionally. I have a judge that gave me a gag order, where I'm the leading candidate, I'm leading Biden. I'm the Republican candidate who's substantially leading Biden. I don't know if you've seen the recent polls, Eric. But in fact, if you would, we will send them to you. Jason, if you could send them to Eric, it would be great.

Jason Miller: Yes, sir.

Trump: But we're substantially leading in all of the swing states and overall, and you know, I’m in a court case. A Biden-inspired court case, where the judge has put a gag order on me where I'm not allowed to answer many very important questions. And so that's a violation of our Constitution. And I would end those violations of Constitution. So that's what I was referring to. They have broken the Constitution. They have gotten very far astray from our Constitution. I'm talking about the fascists and the people in our government right now, because I consider them, you know, we talk about the enemy from within. I think the enemy from within, in many cases, is much more dangerous for our country than the outside enemies of China, Russia, and various others that would be called enemies depending on who the president is, frankly.

President Trump—

Trump: Because if you have the proper president, you'll be able to handle them very smartly, and everybody will be very satisfied. But if you don't have the proper president, I agree they would be strong enemies. But the enemy from within is a bigger danger to this country than the outside enemy, on the basis of having a president that knows what he's doing. Because if a President is good, solid, the proper person, and you're not gonna have a big problem with China, Russia or others, but you still have a problem from the sick people inside our country.

Mr. President, in our last conversation you said you weren't worried about political violence in connection with the November election. You said, “I think we're going to win and there won't be violence.” What if you don't win, sir?

Trump: Well, I do think we're gonna win. We're way ahead. I don't think they'll be able to do the things that they did the last time, which were horrible. Absolutely horrible. So many, so many different things they did, which were in total violation of what was supposed to be happening. And you know that and everybody knows that. We can recite them, go down a list that would be an arm’s long. But I don't think we're going to have that. I think we're going to win. And if we don't win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election. I don't believe they'll be able to do the things that they did the last time. I don't think they'll be able to get away with it. And if that's the case, we're gonna win in record-setting fashion.

One last question, Mr. President, because I know that your time is limited, and I appreciate your generosity. We have just reached the four-year anniversary of the COVID pandemic. One of your historic accomplishments was Operation Warp Speed. If we were to have another pandemic, would you take the same actions to manufacture and distribute a vaccine and get it in the arms of Americans as quickly as possible?

Trump: I did a phenomenal job. I appreciate the way you worded that question. So I have a very important Democrat friend, who probably votes for me, but I'm not 100% sure, because he's a serious Democrat, and he asked me about it. He said Operation Warp Speed was one of the greatest achievements in the history of government. What you did was incredible, the speed of it, and the, you know, it was supposed to take anywhere from five to 12 years, the whole thing. Not only that: the ventilators, the therapeutics, Regeneron and other things. I mean Regeneron was incredible. But therapeutics—everything. The overall—Operation Warp Speed, and you never talk about it. Democrats talk about it as if it’s the greatest achievement. So I don’t talk about it. I let others talk about it.

You know, you have strong opinions both ways on the vaccines. It's interesting. The Democrats love the vaccine. The Democrats. Only reason I don’t take credit for it. The Republicans, in many cases, don’t, although many of them got it, I can tell you. It’s very interesting. Some of the ones who talk the most. I said, “Well, you didn’t have it did you?” Well, actually he did, but you know, et cetera.

But Democrats think it’s an incredible, incredible achievement, and they wish they could take credit for it, and Republicans don’t. I don't bring it up. All I do is just, I do the right thing. And we've gotten actually a lot of credit for Operation Warp Speed. And the power and the speed was incredible. And don’t forget, when I said, nobody had any idea what this was. You know, we’re two and a half years, almost three years, nobody ever. Everybody thought of a pandemic as an ancient problem. No longer a modern problem, right? You know, you don't think of that? You hear about 1917 in Europe and all. You didn’t think that could happen. You learned if you could. But nobody saw that coming and we took over, and I’m not blaming the past administrations at all, because again, nobody saw it coming. But the cupboards were bare.

We had no gowns, we had no masks. We had no goggles, we had no medicines. We had no ventilators. We had nothing. The cupboards were totally bare . And I energized the country like nobody’s ever energized our country. A lot of people give us credit for that. Unfortunately, they’re mostly Democrats that give me the credit.

Well, sir, would you do the same thing again to get vaccines in the arms of Americans as quickly as possible, if it happened again in the next four years?

Trump: Well, there are the variations of it. I mean, you know, we also learned when that first came out, nobody had any idea what this was, this was something that nobody heard of. At that time, they didn’t call it Covid. They called it various names. Somehow they settled on Covid. It was the China virus, various other names.

But when this came along, nobody had any idea. All they knew was dust coming in from China. And there were bad things happening in China around Wuhan. You know, I predicted. I think you'd know this, but I was very strong on saying that this came from Wuhan. And it came from the Wuhan labs . And I said that from day one. Because I saw things that led me to believe that, very strongly led me to believe that. But I was right on that. A lot of people say that now that Trump really did get it right. A lot of people said, “Oh, it came from caves, or it came from other countries.” China was trying to convince people that it came from Italy and France, you know, first Italy, then France. I said, “No, it came from China, and it came from the Wuhan labs.” And that's where it ended up coming from. So you know, and I said that very early. I never said anything else actually. But I've been given a lot of credit for Operation Warp Speed. But most of that credit has come from Democrats. And I think a big portion of Republicans agree with it, too. But a lot of them don't want to say it. They don't want to talk about it.

So last follow-up: The Biden Administration created the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, a permanent office in the executive branch tasked with preparing for epidemics that have not yet emerged. You disbanded a similar office in 2018 that Obama had created. Would you disband Biden's office, too?

Trump: Well, he wants to spend a lot of money on something that you don't know if it's gonna be 100 years or 50 years or 25 years. And it's just a way of giving out pork. And, yeah, I probably would, because I think we've learned a lot and we can mobilize, you know, we can mobilize. A lot of the things that you do and a lot of the equipment that you buy is obsolete when you get hit with something. And as far as medicines, you know, these medicines are very different depending on what strains, depending on what type of flu or virus it may be. You know, things change so much. So, yeah, I think I would. It doesn't mean that we're not watching out for it all the time. But it's very hard to predict what's coming because there are a lot of variations of these pandemics. I mean, the variations are incredible, if you look at it. But we did a great job with the therapeutics. And, again, these therapeutics were specific to this, not for something else. So, no, I think it's just another—I think it sounds good politically, but I think it's a very expensive solution to something that won't work. You have to move quickly when you see it happening.

Well, Mr. President, you've been extremely generous with your time, both in Mar-a-Lago and today, so thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to ask you these questions.

Trump: Thank you, Eric. And it’s an honor getting to know you. And call me anytime you want, okay?

All right, I will, sir. Thank you.

Trump: Okay. Thank you very much.

Correction, April 30: The original version of this transcript mis-attributed a proposal to abolish the 22nd amendment. It was proposed by the American Conservative magazine, but not by the Heritage Foundation's Project 25.

More Must-Reads From TIME

The 100 Most Influential People of 2024
How Far Trump Would Go
Scenes From Pro-Palestinian Encampments Across U.S. Universities
Saving Seconds Is Better Than Hours
Why Your Breakfast Should Start with a Vegetable
6 Compliments That Land Every Time
Welcome to the Golden Age of Ryan Gosling
Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time

Media Contacts
News Releases
Article Submissions
All Categories
Arts & Humanities
Campus Life
Equity & Diversity
Health & Medicine
Humans of the U
Law & Politics
Science & Technology
Sustainability
University Statements
Announcements
Submit an event
U Rising Podcast
About the U

University statement on April 30, 2024 protests

April 30, 2024 8:30 p.m..

About 200 protestors gathered in Presidents Circle this afternoon, starting about 6 p.m. The university commends the peaceful nature of the protests, which were expressed with dignity and conducted in a lawful manner. Leading up to tonight’s events, the university handed out flyers identifying lawful guidelines for protests , including QR codes to supporting resources.

One arrest was made based on an individual’s actions from last night. In total, 20 arrests were made over two days, based on three primary charges: disorderly conduct, trespassing higher education premises and failure to disperse. By 8 p.m., the crowds had left campus.

The university reiterates its support of free expression. Demonstrators are welcome to continue to express their views in a peaceful and legal manner. If tents go up or unlawful occupancy or trespass occurs, the university will enforce the law.

President Taylor Randall had the following statement:“I ask for the community’s patience as we manage a complex situation and balance free expression with lawful conduct. We are investing time and resources now to support free speech and prevent further escalation.”

The university will provide an additional update later this evening if warranted.

University of utah president taylor randall’s statement on protestor encampment, senior vice president michael good announces leadership transition, sincerely, lori: discovering your passion, people, and purpose, president’s letter regarding hiring practices, 2023: a year in perspective, university of utah to host 2024 presidential debate, u leaders respond to white house call to address antisemitism, anti-muslim bias, letter to the community: israel-palestine crisis, university of utah releases results of review of gymnastics program.

International edition
Australia edition
Europe edition

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak speak to the media in Berlin, following talks with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the Chancellery on 24 April.

Rishi Sunak is punishing the sick to cover up his own failures

Readers respond to the prime minister’s claim that the UK is suffering from a ‘sicknote culture’

As a retired GP who spent 35 years looking after people with anxiety and depression in primary care, I find Rishi Sunak’s recent comments about GPs “over-medicalising the everyday challenges and worries of life” offensive ( Sunak to cite Britain’s ‘sicknote culture’ in bid to overhaul fit note system, 19 April ). These disabling problems constitute around 40% of all those attending a GP practice.

He clearly has no idea what is going on in his country. People are suffering from multiple stresses, including huge financial pressures largely brought about by his own party’s total incompetence over the past 14 years. People are pretty resilient when dealing with stressful adverse events such as bereavement or job loss or debt in their lives, but when they encounter one more bad thing, they “hit a wall” and become unable to continue. It seems like a hard-wired mechanism that renders them incapable of carrying on.

Often, all they need is to step back from the edge and take a short break, which is where the GP role is central as the provider of the “fit note” and some compassionate emotional support. The GP will assess the level of distress and may offer signposting to debt advice or mental health services, which of course have been cut to the bone. Frequently people wait many weeks or months even to admit to the shame that they are too unwell to work, and keep on trying relentlessly and just getting worse.

The suggestion that some “specialist work and health professionals” would be perfectly able to keep them slogging away at work regardless is ridiculous. Even more unlikely is the suggestion that “tailored support” would be provided.

I find insulting the suggestion that GPs are unable to be “objective” about assessing their patients and that some minimally skilled “other” following an algorithm will magically whisk them into recovery. It is laughable, ill informed and may tragically drive some people to suicide. Of course, if I was being extremely cynical, I would acknowledge that dead people do not claim sick pay. Dr Maureen Tilford London

I would like to tell Rishi Sunak about the application that my mentally ill sister made for personal independence payment (Pip) in 2017 while living in her own home on anti-psychotic medication and under a mental health services care order ( Sunak accused of making mental illness ‘another front in the culture wars’, 19 April ).

Despite this, the application was rejected as lacking sufficient evidence. The assessors had targets to turn down claimants, so they had to reject a proportion of their cases, irrespective of merit, and this was clearly a case of need. But there were no targets to turn down appeals. My sister’s case was accepted on appeal, on much the same evidence. The process took eight months from the first claim, and was backdated in full.

But I had to call the Department for Work and Pensions to tell them that the letter informing my despairing and financially destitute sister that she had been entitled to Pip all along had arrived three weeks after she had taken her own life. I heard the horror in the DWP worker’s voice when I told her, for she was the one who had both rejected the original claim and accepted the appeal.

I believed then, as now, that had the state actually cared about those in need rather than looked for ways to strike down claims by hook or by crook, it could have given my sister the will to go on. My sister was one of many. Sunak wants to ramp up this practice. It can only lead to more suffering, and more deaths. Mark Lewinski-Grende Swaffham Prior, Cambridgeshire

Rishi Sunak’s entry into the Tory war against those on disability benefits is the latest in a long line of attacks that routinely undermine many people with long-term conditions whose health and capabilities will never improve. My wife suffered traumatic brain and other physical injuries in a road traffic accident in 1982. Under a Tory government in the 1990s, the then Department of Social Security confirmed her benefits on a lifetime adjudication.

Under the post-2010 Tory government, they have been subject to regular review. She lost the enhanced rate of Pip in 2018 because it was deemed that she could plan and undertake a journey. I love her dearly, but she cannot plan her way out of a paper bag. Name and address supplied

If Rishi Sunak wants to tackle the “sicknote culture” and reduce the number of those joining queues for mental health services, he has a simple cure at his disposal. He only needs to resign, call a general election and make way for a more competent and caring administration. The national mood would rise by leaps and bounds, and millions of people would immediately feel better at the prospect of light, however faint, at the end of our current endlessly dark tunnel. Maggie Black Oxford

Rishi Sunak’s speech last week claimed that we are overmedicalising the ordinary ups and downs of life, with people leveraging psychiatric labels and sicknotes to avoid working. His solution for both people and services is to toughen up, by raising the bar for receiving sick leave and health support. The explicit aim is to reduce the disability bill, NHS waiting lists and costly absenteeism. The covert aim is to deny that high levels of debilitating mental distress exist in Britain, and that this distress is rooted in social causes that need to be addressed.

The research into the social determinants of poor mental health is comprehensive, demonstrating that rising mental health problems are inextricably linked to the contexts in which people live and work. As a recent World Health Organization report shows, worsening workplace mental health is being driven by social factors such as wage inequality, excessive workloads, low job control and job insecurity, workplace demoralisation and dissatisfaction.

So yes, rising distress may not be a medical problem, as Sunak claims, but it is certainly a social one, as Sunak ignores.

We need to stop overmedicalising mental distress. As a psychological therapist, I know first-hand that most people seeking help aren’t suffering from “mental illnesses” in any biologically verifiable sense, but from understandable reactions to life and work conditions that are harming and holding them back; conditions that medicine was never designed to treat. By misrepresenting socially caused distress as a medical issue, we run the risk of wrongly individualising, pathologising and ultimately depoliticising that distress, and so exonerating social conditions from responsibility.

Overmedicalisation is indeed a problem, but not for the reasons Sunak thinks. Dr James Davies Associate professor of psychology and medical anthropology, University of Roehampton; author of Sedated: How Modern Capitalism Created Our Mental Health Crisis

Health policy
Mental health
Rishi Sunak

Most viewed

IMAGES

9 Easy Steps to Write Your Response to Reviewer Comments
Data Reviewer Cover Letter
Data Reviewer Cover Letter
7802-Cover Letter-33076-1-4-20230407
Response to reviewers template
Clinical Reviewer Cover Letter

VIDEO

Letter Review Pathway (REB Users)
IQ TEST
Quotation Request Reply Letter
Writing Response to the Complaint Letter
Rant: The Letter
Response Letter for AFT Paper1253-Response Letter-reviewer and Response Letter-reviewer2

COMMENTS

PDF Response to Reviewers [Cover Letter]
Response to Reviewers [Cover Letter] Dear Editor, We appreciate you and the reviewers for your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version. The authors have carefully considered the
PDF Sample Response to Reviewers
Reviewer 1. There are numerous strengths to this study, including its diverse sample and well-informed hypotheses. Author response: Thank you! 1. Comment from Reviewer 1 noting a mistake or oversight in the manuscript. Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is correct, and we have [explain the change made].
Writing a Cover Letter and Response to Reviewers
Use a professional letter format (i.e., address the correct audience, state your purpose, and be signed by the author(s) of the manuscript) for your cover letter. Use a professional tone (i.e., use polite wording throughout the cover letter and response to reviewers, including when making your case for choosing not to follow a reviewer's ...
Response to reviewers
The response to reviewers is usually organized by presenting reviewers' comments one by one, followed by the authors' response. Authors should distinguish their responses from the reviewers' comments by using phrases such as "author response" and/or a different font color. Then, each response should clearly explain the change made and ...
Tips for Responding to Reviewers' Comments-from an Editor's or Reviewer
1. Cover letter/Letter to the editor. Letter to the editor summarizing the changes and, if necessary, defending the manuscript, should be written towards the end, right before the resubmission. 3 Instead letters to each of the reviewers, or a combined point-by-point response to address all reviewers' comments should be the first thing to prepare.
Cover letters
Cover Letters. The cover letter is a formal way to communicate with journal editors and editorial staff during the manuscript submission process. Most often, a cover letter is needed when authors initially submit their manuscript to a journal and when responding to reviewers during an invitation to revise and resubmit the manuscript.
(PDF) Writing a Response to Reviewers' Comments and Cover Letter
In what follows, an example of cov er letter that can go with your response to reviewers' com- ments is provided. Note that, this cov er letter should b e a separate ﬁle with your response docu-
How to Receive and Respond to Peer Review Feedback
If you've submitted to a journal with an open peer review process, your readers could see your comments as well. Keep your responses clear, unemotional, and easy to follow. Respond in-line to every comment, indicating line numbers where a change can be found. Reviewer Comment 1: Suggestion for additional charts.
Crafting Effective Response Letters to Peer Reviewers and Editors: A
A well-structured response letter is easier for reviewers and editors to navigate and understand. Consider the following structure for your response letter: Begin with a polite salutation: Start your letter by addressing the editor and reviewers by name (if known) and thanking them for their time and effort in reviewing your manuscript. ...
How to Address the Editor and Reviewers in Your Cover Letter
The fourth step in writing a cover letter is to respond to the reviewers' feedback, if you are resubmitting a revised manuscript after a previous rejection or revision request. You should thank ...
How to Respond to Reviewers' Comments Effectively
Read carefully and calmly. Be the first to add your personal experience. 2. Draft a cover letter. 3. Respond to each comment. 4. Proofread and format. 5.
Revising and responding
This is in addition to describing the changes in your point by point cover letter. Return the revised manuscript and response letter within the time period allotted by the editor. The following is an example as to how to respond to a reviewer comment: Reviewer comment: "In your analysis of the data you have chosen to use a somewhat obscure ...
PDF A template for responding to peer reviewer comments
Template 1 - General template. Dear Dr./ Mr./Ms. [Editor's Name], Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of my manuscript titled. [mention the manuscript's title] to [include the name of the journal, italicized]. I/We [use the relevant pronoun "I" or "We" here and wherever applicable throughout] appreciate ...
How to write a response to the reviewers of your manuscript
Here is a suggested outline for writing your response. Include a heading for every page with "Reply to the comments on manuscript [title of your manuscript] [manuscript ID number]" and " [your name] et al. ". Write an introduction to your response to the comments and summarise major changes you have made, and include this with this ...
PDF Responding to Reviewers
5. Writing the Response Letter 1. Begin each response by quoting the reviewers comment. Responding in a positive and grateful way to reviews, no matter how critical they are, will go a long way toward the likelihood of getting published (American Journal Experts). 2.Respond completely, politely, and include evidence (Williams, 2004).
Q. How should I format a cover letter and response to reviewers?
After the cover letter, beginning on the second page, respond point by point to the reviewers' and editor's comments. The comments and responses can be formatted however you see fit. Some authors preface each comment with "Comment" and each response with "Response"; other authors avoid these labels and instead use text formatting ...
Expert Tips for Responding to Reviewers' Comments on Your Research Paper
Overall, the reviewers can better comprehend the modifications you have made and how they have enhanced the paper if you provide a brief and clear explanation of your response in the cover letter. It also helps to demonstrate your understanding of the reviewers' feedback and your commitment to improving the quality of your research.
Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Free Example Letter
A Sample Response to the Comments of Peer Reviewers. Edward Researcher Palaeography Institute 1717 Writer's Lane South River, MI, USA, 484848 734-734-7344 [email protected] Dr Helen Wordsmith Assistant Editor Journal of the Shipping Manuscripts Society 717 Reader's Row London, UK, SW6 9DE [email protected] November 14, 2017.
PDF Meredith S. Simpson, PhD
reviewer's concern. We have included a response to reviewers in which we address each comment the reviewers made. In our response to reviewers, the reviewers' comments are numbered, and our responses follow below, in blue, and are prefaced by "Author response." Corresponding changes are highlighted in the manuscript text in the revised ...
How to respond to reviewer comments
Postulate your counter argument with a polite and sound response backed up with evidence to support your position. L: List (make a list…check it twice!) One of the best ways to ensure that you cover all the reviewers' comments is to create a list. Reviewers shouldn't have to re-read your whole manuscript again, combing it for your changes.
Q: How to write a response to reviewer comments in case of ...
Here are responses to the reviewer comments: Comment 1: Language editing for the manuscript has been done. I have used the services of a professional editing company for the same. Editorial Formatting comments: All the suggestions regarding editorial formatting have been incorporated. Comment 2: Use a 1" margin on all sides: Done.
PDF Academic and Career Skills Top Tips Responding to reviewers
Responding to reviewers Academic and Career Skills Top Tips Take time to reflect and consider Don [t be in a rush to respond to the feedback - sleep on it. Your responses will be more objective if you take time to mull over the reviewers comments.
如何回应reviewer？给科研小白的论文返修模板：cover letter 和 response
给科研小白的论文返修模板：cover letter 和 response. 这是把reviewer都感动了的返修模板! 一起来GET吧!. Reviewer：... Clearly the authors have spent much time and effort in improving the work and the paper. The reviewer is happy with the revision and to suggest acceptance to the work. 不管是大修还是小修 ...
Donald Trump TIME Interview on 2024 Transcript: Read
Read our full cover story on Donald ... "Hand me a letter, general, hand me a letter," every one of them. So they handed me a letter. ... I want to get you to respond to one other thing you ...
University statement on April 30, 2024 protests
U leaders respond to White House call to address antisemitism, anti-Muslim bias ... November 17, 2023. Read More. Letter to the community: Israel-Palestine crisis. October 11, 2023. Read More. University of Utah releases results of review of Gymnastics program. September 14, 2023. Read More @THEU. Homepage; Faculty/Staff; Students; Events ...
Kendrick Lamar
[Verse 1] Yeah, I'm out the way, yeah, I'm low, okay Yeah, the island right here's remote, okay I ain't thinkin' about no reaper Nigga, I'm reapin' what I sow, okay Got a Benjamin and a Jackson ...
Rishi Sunak is punishing the sick to cover up his own failures
Under the post-2010 Tory government, they have been subject to regular review. She lost the enhanced rate of Pip in 2018 because it was deemed that she could plan and undertake a journey.

Writing a Cover Letter and Response to Reviewers

For example:

How to Receive and Respond to Peer Review Feedback

A thoughtful, thorough approach to your revision response now can save you time in further rounds of review.

Keep Calm and Take Stock

Set a Plan for Revisions and Response

1. Start a list of essential vs. unessential requests to prioritize your work.

2. Decide whether you’ll need time to conduct additional experiments.

3. Make sure you have a system for responding to each comment, and demonstrating your changes.

4. Don’t ignore any comments .

Writing Your Response

Understand the Peer Review Comments

Maintain a Professional Tone

Structure Your Response Letter

Responding to Different Types of Comments

Provide Supporting Information

Be Concise and Clear

Proofread and Edit

Seek Feedback

Express Gratitude

Submit Your Response Letter

Common Phrases to Use in Your Response Letters

Acknowledging positive comments:

Accepting minor revisions:

Addressing major revisions:

Disagreeing respectfully:

Providing clarifications:

Expressing gratitude:

The Art of Tailored Editing for Grant Applications and Scientific Manuscripts

Optimizing Science Document Translations: Elevating Impact Through Post-Translation Editing

Breaking Down Language Barriers: Why Translating Your Research into English Matters (and How to Do It Right)

Need Help With Your Writing?

Revising and responding

Ask an Expert

Q. How should I format a cover letter and response to reviewers?

Answered By: Kelsey Hensler Last Updated: Jun 22, 2023 Views: 39

Links & Files

Comments (0)

Related Topics

Expert Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments on Your Research Paper

Introduction

Keep your Response Concise

How do I maintain a professional and respectful tone when responding to negative or critical comments from reviewers?

Read the Reviewers’ Comments Carefully

Address each Comment Individually

Be Specific About Revisions

Explain any Concerns

Provide a Clear and Concise Cover Letter

Handling Contradictory Suggestions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best way to present revisions in response to reviewers’ comments?

Is it appropriate to ask for clarification on a reviewer’s comment?

Upcoming Events

Recent Posts

Responding to Peer Reviewer Comments: A Free Example Letter

Guide to Academic and Scientific Publication

PhD Success

Why Is Proofreading Important?

如何回应reviewer？给科研小白的论文返修模板：cover letter 和 response

给编辑的cover letter

给reviewer的response

Read the Full Transcripts of Donald Trump’s Interviews With TIME

Follow-up Phone Interview With Trump

More Must-Reads From TIME

University statement on April 30, 2024 protests

RELATED ARTICLES

Rishi Sunak is punishing the sick to cover up his own failures

Most viewed

IMAGES

VIDEO

COMMENTS