10 tips for navigating ‘revise and resubmit’
Editor Andrew Dorman provides advice for responding to a ‘revise and resubmit’
At once filled with promise and potentially frustrating, ‘revise and resubmit’ is perhaps the most emotionally confusing result when submitting an academic manuscript. While contradicting reviewer feedback and the prospect of further changes with no guarantee of success can be daunting, for those able to effectively navigate these challenges the prospect of publication awaits. In this blogpost, International Affairs Editor Andrew Dorman outlines 10 top tips for researchers navigating this most cryptic of responses.
1) Recognize it as a positive result but don’t become complacent
It is important to emphasize the positive aspects of ‘revise and resubmit’. Very few papers ever receive a straight ‘accept’, and a ‘revise and resubmit’ is a real achievement. You have passed the desk-reject stage and the external reviewer(s) and editorial team think that your paper has the potential to be included in the journal you have submitted to. So well done!
That said, do not assume that a ‘revise and resubmit’ is a guaranteed acceptance. Tweaking and submitting essentially same paper is likely to result in disappointment. Remain committed to the paper — all manuscripts can be improved and receiving a ‘revise and resubmit’ is your chance to draw on the advice you have received make the paper better. So, keep working on it and avoid taking shortcuts that could mean falling at this hurdle.
2) Don’t let conflicting recommendations discourage you
The second point to remember is that the different reviewers have not seen each other’s comments. This means that there will most likely be some repetition and, given that the reviewers will inevitably have different backgrounds and experiences, they will also have different ideas about taking the piece forward. Where this is the case, the editorial team will often provide their guidance, particularly when reviewers have different views. But the editorial team are also looking to you to use your expertise to navigate through the (at times contradictory) advice from reviewers and produce an improved paper.
3) See things from the reviewer’s perspective
Remember that reviewers aren‘t trying to stop you from getting published at all costs. A good reviewer is looking to provide some form of evaluation for the editors and also share their thoughts on how best to take the piece forward for the author(s). Bear in mind that they are generally giving their time for free and they have been selected by the editorial team for their expertise. Simply concluding that a particular reviewer or the editorial team don’t know enough to understand your paper is an easy option, but it is unlikely to help you reach publication. Remember that what may be obvious to you may not be so clear to someone reading your manuscript for the first time. Accept the feedback in good faith, try to stay detached and give yourself time to respond. All manuscripts improve with feedback. It’s also worth remembering that the editorial team will alert the author if they think that the reviewer’s feedback is irrelevant or inappropriate.
4) Respond systematically to feedback
This step is vital to give your article the best possible chance of progressing to publication. A clear and easy approach is to adopt a simple two column solution. On the left-hand side, list the main feedback points you have received and, on the right-hand side, outline how you have responded to each point. This helps show the editor and potentially the reviewer that you have addressed any issues or questions raised.
5) Focus on editorial guidance
Most editors will give some guidance about their thoughts to the authors. Bear in mind that acceptance and rejection are ultimately a decision that falls to the editorial team, not the reviewers. If the editorial team gives you a clear steer, it is generally sensible to follow their advice. Ignoring their views is, in the parlance of the British civil service, ‘a brave move’.
6) Be pragmatic in your response
Editors generally do not expect a revised piece to incorporate all of the feedback. Practical limits, such as word counts, contradictory advice from reviewers and so forth, are legitimate reasons for discarding some of the feedback. The key is for authors to make sure that it is clear for the editorial team why the advice has been set aside. If you are unsure about a major issue, you can contact the editors but don’t do this on every point as, like yours, their time is limited. Instead, do your best to identify more difficult points and resolve obvious contradictions in a consistent way before contacting editors.
7) Maintain momentum but don’t rush
Some journals encourage a quick response but if you need more time, then ask the editors for an extension. Your request should also include an explanation and an indication of your proposed new timescale. That said, where possible, it is generally better to respond promptly and maintain momentum before life gets in the way.
8) Don’t be dissuaded by multiple ‘revise and resubmits’
If your article gets more than one ‘revise and resubmits’, this is not unusual. You can either look at this negatively — will anything ever be good enough? — or more positively — you are still in the game. Editors are not looking to reject pieces. We are looking for the best pieces for our particular journal, and most of us have been in your shoes as academics and will be again.
9) Respond to ongoing events
If your piece is time sensitive, it is worth making sure that you update it, even if the reviewers have not asked you to. Events happen and there can be delays between the completion of a review and you receiving the feedback. If Russia has subsequently invaded Ukraine, and your piece is on Ukrainian–Russian relations, then you need to address the elephant in the room.
10) Learn from the process and apply it to your reviewing
Finally, reflect on the feedback you have received for when you next review a manuscript. Not many of us are formally taught how to review and there is much to learn from each other’s reviewing practices. Consider what you found helpful and unhelpful and reflect on how to apply these insights to your own reviewing.
Andrew Dorman is the Editor of International Affairs.
You can find more advice on research and publishing in international politics in our Editors Desk series.
All views expressed are individual not institutional.
