How to reply to reviewer's positive comment more naturally?

Question

I want to reply to the reviewer's comment (see below) on my paper,

My concerns have been addressed satisfactorily and the paper is acceptable.

My own reply would be like:

Your recognition of our work is much appreciated.

or

Your encouraging comment is greatly appreciated.

However, it seems unnatural to read, How to give an more appropriate reply?

Answer 1

There are a few points that have to be considered here.

First, a reviewer will usually not see an authors response to their review except if the reviewer has accepted to review also the (major) revision and the manuscript is not accepted after the revisions. This means such a response has no audience and editors will not typically convey such messages between author and reviewer.

Second, All reviews and rebuttals pass an editor, with the explicit exception of an open review (visible online), which occurs in a few journals. So for the most part the response you provide should be directed to the editor. It is perfectly fine to tell the editor you really appreciate the reviewers comments but that will most likely not reach the reviewers as pointed out above.

Third, most authors provide an acknowledgement in their published papers and it is in most, or at least many, circles considered polite to thank reviewers in the acknowledgement. A common phrase could be that "the manuscript was improved by the [insightful] reviews by X and y [or: the anonymous reviewers]" or something along those lines. The square parentheses indicate places where alternatives are necessary depending on ones view of the reviews. There is no need to involve very complicated thanks here as has also been pointed out in other replies. Simple and straight forward is better.

As a final point, the quote you provide stating that "My concerns have been addressed satisfactorily and the paper is acceptable." is not what I would consider an overwhelmingly positive response and your thanks should be written with this in consideration. If someone says the manuscript is just ok but publishable, a response glorifying the review and the effect of the review will certainly seem odd from all perspectives. So make sure there is a match between the "verdict" and your "thanks". Keeping it simple and non-convoluted is always a good reciepe.

Answer 2

For this sort of reply, I personally like to keep it short and sweet:

Thank you!

Answer 3

First, "your recognition of our work", although not intended as such, sounds slightly egotistical. Second, "your encouraging comment" seems to read too much into what is being stated: simply that your paper has met the necessary standard. While that may be encouraging to you (it would be to me), encouragement is not the purpose of the statement.

If you wish to thank your reviewer, you shouldn't directly address your thanks to that specific comment itself, but rather address your appreciation directly to the whole of the effort and time that the reviewer provided to help you to improve your work. Here's one possible way of starting such a statement:

We wish to express our appreciation for your in-depth comments, suggestions, and corrections, which have greatly improved the manuscript.

Ideally you should be specific in stating how you believe that the reviewer's comments have improved the paper: e.g. added clarity; technical accuracy; correction of specific errors; language; suggested analyses or experiments; etc...

Giving such feedback tells a reviewer that their anonymous review is valued and that their time was well spent. Remember: the anonymous peer reviewer is doing this as a community service for which they receive no payment and little recognition, if any.

Answer 4

I would suggest the following response to the reviewers:

That's great to hear! Thank you for trusting us. Have an awesome day!