Responding to an editorial decision

Responding to an editorial decision on a manuscript submission to a research journal

A topic in research methodology

After submitting your work to a journal (Read about submitting to a research journal), you will (in time) be sent a decision on whether it is considered suitable for publication, usually with a report of the reviewers' comments..

On receiving an editor's decision on a submission, the author(s) may have to decide how to respond.

The decision is 'Accept'

It is important to decide where you want your work to appear before submitting to a journal, so if the editor's decision is 'Accept' then you be pleased and (unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise) you should proceed to publish your paper in the journal.

There may however still be some work to do, depending upon the journal and the editor's way of running the journals.

Sometimes an accept decision comes with some minor suggestions for (further) changes, although usually these will be left to the author's discretion at this point.

Sometimes the assignment of copyright, or providing a license to publish in only finalised once a decision to publish is made. There may be a choice about whether to publish open access or not when the journal offers both modes.

Sometimes the journal asks for manuscripts for review in a certain format, and then requires a 'final version' to be submitted after acceptance – for example restoring material removed for 'blind' review (such as author names, names of institutions, acknowledgements, and/or citations to the author's previous publications.)

The decision is 'Reject'

It is unusual for such a decision to be reviewed. This sometimes happens is author's appeal, but this is rare – normally 'the editor's decision is final'. So the decision here is usually between:

abandoning the paper: deciding the paper has no merits, and at best should be used to feed into further work that may be published later

revising the paper for a submission elsewhere: a rejection will come with advice on why the paper was rejected, although the perceived failings will be so great that the editor did not request revisions for that journal. The feedback can suggest ways the manuscript could be reviewed, although there is no certainty that reviewers for another journal (or just another set of reviewers) would highlight the same issues and make the same suggestions for improvement. Authors therefore need to use feedback to make their own judgements on what changes would improve the manuscript fro a new submission,

The decision is 'Revise'

The decision is minor or major revision or resubmission (reject but invite resubmission).

If the paper is not accepted, but the editor indicates it will be reconsidered after changes informed by referee reports, then the first decision to be made is whether to continue the process with that journal (and make the revisions indicated) or to seek publication in another outlet. There are three key issues here:

• how much work is needed for the revision: in relation to the author's /authors' (a) evaluation of how much the changes will improve the work, and (b) how much they wish to be published in that particular journal;
• how feasible the revisions are: to what extent will it be possible to respond positively to the requirements of the referees;
• are the changes require conscionable – are the referees asking the authors to do anything which they feel undermines the work or does not reflect their position or would misrepresent the work being reported (e.g. if a referee recommends "adding a sentence to make explicit that the sample was randomised into two groups as required in a pure experiment", the authors cannot in conscience add such a sentence if they had not randomised the sample.

Minor revisions

A decision of minor revision (or equivalent) implies that the editor is expecting the authors to be able to readily, and quite quickly, make the required changes, and expects to publish the work in due course. It is unusual, therefore, that authors would withdraw a paper with this decision.

Major revision

A decision of major revision (or equivalent) implies that the editor is not entirely sure if the authors will be able to respond satisfactorily to referee comments or not, but expect to publish the paper if they can; and/or that the revisions requested are quite substantial and may require some further work (not more data collection, but possibly some additional analysis, perhaps some changes of format of presentation of results) beyond relatively straightforward changes.

Resubmission

A decision of resubmission/reject by invite resubmission means that a good delay more work is needed before the study can be published, and the editor is either not convinced it will necessarily be possible, or believes any such major reworking is likely to take some time. It may mean that referees suspect the underlying study is sound but that the report needs a complete reworking.

Who will evaluate a revision?

Sometimes, depending on journal policy and ther nature of the changes requested, the editor can make a decision on a revised manuscript for 'minor revisions'. 'Major revisions' nearly always go back to peer review, usually, if they are available, to the original reviewers. Some journals like to include new reviewers but that is less common if the original reviewers are available to look at the revision. Resubmissions tend to only happen some considerable time later, and it more likely the oriognal revieers will not be invited or may not be available.

Do all recommended changes have to be made?

Editors are usually reasonable people who are open to logical and evidence argument. Sometimes it is acceptable to disagree with some things referees ask for, as long as an explanation is given, then the editor will have to make a decision. Also referee comments may be at different levels: things that needs to be done; things it would be good to do; things that might be useful. So decision letters need to be read carefully to distinguish required changes and recommended changes – and sometimes just suggestions.

Preparing a revision/resubmission

Journals differ, and usually precise instructions are included with the editor's decision latter. As a general process:

Keep a record of changes made.

The recommended approach is to cut and paste a copy of the decision latter into a table so each comments that needs to be addressed is on a separate line, and the changes made or other response can be recorded in another column. This is useful for keeping track on progress in the revision, and responding to the editor.

Editors normally expect a letter with the revision outlining responses to each substantive point made by the editor and reviewers. Presenting this as a table also helps the editor see exactly what you have done, as well as showing you are systematic.

The revised manuscript should be made from a copy of the original manuscript file (keeping the original to refer to in case needed). Tracking on the file for revision will help you keep track of the changes made and review them. The first thing to do is head the copy with 'revision' or similar and save it with a file name so there will be no confusion over which file is being worked on. Journals often ask for a tracked revised manuscript so the editor and reviewers can easily see what has been changed but it usually a good idea to track for your own benefit anyway. Make a copy of the final tracked revision, and accept the changes on the copy so you now have the original manuscript, the revision showing changes made and a 'clean' copy of the final manuscript. Sometimes journals require both the clean and tracked version of the revision.

Now you are ready to submit your revision/resubmission with your response to the referees explaining the changes yo have made