This is a great post (I wish I had written it) on revising and resubmitting:
http://getalifephd.blogspot.mx/2011/03/how-to-respond-to-revise-and-resubmit.html
The same basic approach also applies to books. Usually, once the reviews of your book ms come in, you have to provide your editor with a response that he/she can take to the editorial board. The advice in the post above is pretty much dead on for this part of the book process as well.
Funny, but there are real socialization gaps in this profession. I have seen enough R&Rs as a reviewer that demonstrate that people vary widely in taking reviewers seriously. I posted that link because lots of folks don't know how to cash in on an R&R. If you already know this stuff, good for you.
Is an excel spreadsheet necessary? I mean, is it ok to use google docs?
Kent:
Funny, but there are real socialization gaps in this profession. I have seen enough R&Rs as a reviewer that demonstrate that people vary widely in taking reviewers seriously. I posted that link because lots of folks don't know how to cash in on an R&R. If you already know this stuff, good for you.
Lambert and Phyllida make good points--R&Rs range on a spectrum from modest tweaks to major revisions. Plus the editor can make things far more difficult by sending the piece out to different reviewers. So, no, this is not all that you need to do, but being organized and responsive is better than not being either.
Editor here: generally, a thorough response letter is strongly correlated with a positive r & r result, even with major revisions--though in the immortal words of Dr. Evil, I don't have the paperwork to back that up. It signals that you have taken the reviewers' comments seriously, reflected on them, and put in the effort to improve the paper in line with this feedback. In addition, a thorough response letter reduces the burden on the second round reviewers and editorial team by providing a snap shot of the revisions that have been made and where they have been made. Don't discount how much this may work in your favour, particularly in terms of giving you another shot if things are not quite there yet in the resubmission.
The letter also allows the respondent to address some of the "noise" that is inevitable in any review process. I have had reviewers make one criticism on one page of their review, then make a criticism on the next page that is logically incompatible with their claim on the previous page.
Apart from ignoring it, the letter is the only way to deal with this. Pursuing the "excel" method championed by Captain Obvious will result in making your paper as batsh*t nuts as some of the reviews I have read.