Responding to Journal Editors When Revisions are Requested

Introduction

Receiving a request for revisions from a journal editor is a positive step in the publication process. It means your research has potential, but certain aspects require refinement before it can be accepted for publication. The way you respond to revision requests can significantly impact the likelihood of your paper being accepted. A well-structured and professional response demonstrates your commitment to quality research, respect for the review process, and ability to engage constructively with editorial feedback.

This article provides practical advice on how to respond effectively to journal editors when revisions are requested. It covers key aspects such as understanding the revision request, structuring a response letter, addressing reviewer comments, and maintaining professional communication.

---

1. Understanding the Revision Request

Before responding to the journal editor, it is crucial to carefully analyze the revision request. Editors typically categorize revisions as:

1.1 Minor Revisions

• These involve small changes, such as clarifying arguments, improving writing, or correcting formatting issues.
• Minor revisions usually lead to acceptance if addressed properly.

1.2 Major Revisions

• These require substantial changes to methodology, data analysis, or theoretical framework.
• The paper may need restructuring or additional data collection.
• Major revisions do not guarantee acceptance but indicate that the paper has potential.

1.3 Revise and Resubmit

• This is a conditional rejection, meaning the paper requires significant modifications before reconsideration.
• A detailed and thorough revision is required, addressing all concerns raised by reviewers.

✅ Tip: Read the editor’s comments carefully and identify the major themes in the requested revisions. This will help structure your response effectively.

---

2. Structuring Your Response to the Editor

A clear, well-organized response letter is essential for demonstrating that you have engaged thoughtfully with the revision request. The response should be structured as follows:

2.1 Polite Opening Acknowledgment

Start with a courteous and appreciative tone, acknowledging the opportunity to revise the paper:

Dear [Editor’s Name],
Thank you for your detailed feedback on our manuscript titled “[Paper Title]” (Manuscript ID: XXXX). We appreciate the insightful comments from both you and the reviewers, as they have helped us improve our work significantly.

2.2 Summary of Revisions

Provide a brief overview of the key revisions made:

We have carefully addressed all the comments and made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, methodology, and discussion of our paper. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment and outline the changes made in the manuscript.

2.3 Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer Comments

Each reviewer’s comment should be addressed individually in a structured manner:

• Restate the reviewer’s comment (in bold or italics for clarity).
• Provide a direct response explaining how you addressed the issue.
• Indicate where the change has been made in the manuscript (mention page/section numbers).

✅ Example Response:

Reviewer 1 Comment: The study lacks a detailed discussion of the limitations.

Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We have now included a dedicated section on limitations (Page 14, Section 5). This section discusses potential biases, the scope of the study, and areas for future research.

2.4 Handling Conflicting or Unjustified Comments

If a reviewer suggests a change that you do not agree with, politely explain your reasoning.

✅ Example:

Reviewer 2 Comment: The study should include an additional experiment on X.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. However, conducting an additional experiment is beyond the scope of this study. Instead, we have elaborated on the justification for our chosen methodology and provided references to prior studies that support our approach (Page 7, Paragraph 3).

2.5 Concluding the Response Letter

End with a professional and appreciative note:

We appreciate the time and effort invested by the reviewers and editorial team. We believe these revisions have significantly strengthened our manuscript. We look forward to your feedback and hope that the revised version meets the journal’s standards for publication.

Best regards,
[Your Name]
[Your Institution]
[Your Email]

---

3. Best Practices for Addressing Reviewer Comments

3.1 Be Respectful and Professional

Even if you disagree with a reviewer, always maintain a polite and appreciative tone.

3.2 Provide Clear and Detailed Responses

Avoid vague replies like “We fixed it.” Instead, explain what was changed and why.

✅ Example:

We have rewritten the discussion section (Pages 10-12) to clarify how our findings align with previous research and to provide a stronger theoretical foundation.

3.3 Highlight Revisions in the Manuscript

Use tracked changes or highlight modifications in color when resubmitting.

3.4 Follow the Journal’s Formatting Guidelines

Ensure that the revised manuscript meets the journal’s formatting and submission requirements.

3.5 Be Timely in Your Response

Meet the deadline for revisions and, if needed, request an extension politely and professionally.

✅ Example:

Dear [Editor’s Name],
We appreciate the opportunity to revise our manuscript. Due to unforeseen circumstances, we require an additional two weeks to ensure a thorough revision. Would it be possible to extend the deadline? Thank you for your consideration.

---

4. Common Mistakes to Avoid

❌ Ignoring Reviewer Comments – Failure to address key issues may lead to outright rejection.

❌ Being Defensive or Argumentative – Respond with a constructive mindset rather than disputing every criticism.

❌ Making Superficial Changes – Reviewers can tell if revisions are superficial. Ensure changes are meaningful.

❌ Failing to Provide Justifications – If a suggested change is not incorporated, provide clear and logical reasons.

❌ Missing the Deadline – Late submissions may be automatically rejected. Plan ahead to submit on time.

---

5. After Resubmission: What to Expect

After submitting your revised manuscript, the journal editor may:

• Accept the Paper: If all revisions are satisfactorily addressed.
• Request Further Revisions: If additional improvements are needed.
• Reject the Paper: If major concerns remain unaddressed or the research does not meet the journal’s standards.

✅ Tip: If the paper is rejected after resubmission, consider submitting it to another journal after making necessary improvements.

---

Conclusion

Responding to revision requests professionally and thoroughly is crucial for increasing the chances of publication. By carefully analyzing editor and reviewer feedback, structuring a clear and detailed response letter, and making substantive revisions, researchers can enhance the quality of their manuscripts.

Remember, the revision process is an opportunity to strengthen your research. Approach it with a positive mindset, engage constructively with feedback, and demonstrate a commitment to producing high-quality scholarly work.

By following these best practices, you can navigate the revision process successfully and bring your research one step closer to publication.