Answer the reviewers, point by point.

You give us the decision letter and reviewer comments exactly as you received them, plus the manuscript they refer to. We return a structured revision plan, worked one reviewer point at a time:

• Each reviewer point, isolated and quoted.The free-text letter is parsed into discrete points — each tagged to its reviewer and carried with the reviewer’s verbatimwords, and no point is invented that the reviewers did not raise. What the engine can’t ground in the letter it surfaces separately rather than answering on a guess, so you can see exactly what it did and did not address.
• A plain read of what’s actually being asked. Reviewer comments are often terse or oblique; each one is restated in plain terms so you know what a response has to satisfy.
• An editable draft response for each grounded point. A paragraph you can lift into your response letter and edit — a scaffold to verify and make your own, not abstract advice and not a finished letter.
• An overall response-to-reviewers scaffold. The per-point drafts assembled into the skeleton of the letter, with the structure editors expect.

Not every reviewer comment carries the same weight, and treating them as if they do is how good papers stall. For each point the plan says which of two things it is:

• A methodological must-fix — the reviewer has identified something the analysis or manuscript genuinely needs to change (an unadjusted confounder, the wrong model family, an absent sensitivity analysis, a clustering the design ignored). Answering these in prose alone is what draws a second, harder revision round.
• A presentational or clarification ask — the submitted work may already support the point; the response needs to state, justify, or surface it more clearly. These you can often answer at the desk.

Sorting the two is the judgment RigorMD is built for — the same methodological lens as the pre-submission review, pointed at the reviewers’ concerns. It is guidance a careful author or statistician would give, made explicit and point-by-point; where a call is genuinely uncertain, the plan says so rather than guessing.

The value is in being honest about the edges. This plan:

• does not rewrite your manuscript — it structures your response; the revised paper stays yours to write;
• does not certify the paper or its statistics, and makes no claim that a response is sufficient or that the manuscript will clear review — it is not a guarantee of acceptance;
• flags language you should not send — the drafts are held to the same never-certify stance as the rest of RigorMD, so a scaffold never over-promises the editor on your behalf;
• does not replace your statistician or mentor — on any complex revision, their read of the final letter still belongs there. Every point traces to a quote you can check; verify each one and edit freely before you send.

Revision response is the third stage of the manuscript lifecycle — Design, pre-submission Review, then Revision, with an optional Re-review of the revised draft. The price depends only on whether we already have the manuscript on file:

• $10 when this study was reviewed with RigorMD — the manuscript is already here, so you paste the reviews and go;
• $30for a new manuscript we haven’t seen — you upload it with the reviews, under the same no-identifiers attestation and confidentiality posture as a full review.

Your plan is private to you and the recipients you name — never visible to an institution admin. See the full lifecycle and pricing, every check we run, or run the free reference-integrity checker first to see the kind of rigor a full review applies.