Work hard at reading and fully understanding the referee comments and replying to each reviewer fully. Revisions in regard to major revisions can be more difficult to implement and respond to. If you complete these revisions quickly, it will likely help get a speedy acceptance whilst the paper is still fresh. Whilst it is not required to make every suggested change, it is necessary to address all comments, therefore you must have good reason for rejecting a suggestion.įor minor revisions, it is probably best in these circumstances to simply get on with making such revisions without too much argument. The manuscript most likely requires second review, and even when carefully revised and responded to may not be accepted, however is still open to acceptance a tricky one!.Ĭhange and modify the text where it makes sense. rewriting of Methodology, further simulations required to run, or that additional data which can be gathered quickly is required.

Major revisions are recommended for manuscripts which have a clear contribution, relevance and intrest, but requires significant contributions, improvement or further justification of technical quality or presentation, ie. The manuscript often does not require a second review, and can be seen as ‘conditionally accepted’ upon these revisions. This usually includes textual changes based on clarification of minor points or sentences, abbreviations, minor revision to figures for clarity.

Minor revisions are recommended for manuscripts which make a clear and sound contribution, but require a few small changes to ensure it is fully fit for publication. Look out for reading between the line phrases from Editors: the ‘ We cannot accept your paper in its current for, but if you do decide to resubmit, then we would only consider a substantial revision' can be read as a rejection but translated into an invitation to resubmit.! See Dealing with rejection for more information. Reviewers are independent of Journals, therefore you could realistically end up with the same reviewer the second time round. It is important that you do make changes based on reviewer comments (if plausible). Reformat your article adhering to the new guide to authors: (remember reference styles etc). Take the criticism constructively - go to next journal on your list and begin afresh. The following outlines possible Editor Decisions and some general recommended responses, though these will of course vary depending on individual circumstances and should be discussed with co-authors and supervisors.ĭon’t worry, it happens. The reviewers will recommend if their opinions on the fitness of the manuscript for publication, and, once all comments have been collected, the Editor will write to you with a decision about your manuscript, enclosing anonymous referee reports. The referees will provide comments in relation to these criteria which should be constructive, meaningful and respectful of the manuscript, whilst making a justified, clear assessment of the work. Is the manuscript and techniques presented clearly? Is the work technically sound? Is the concept and experiments correct and accurate? Is the physics correct? This is an assessment of the reliability and trustworthiness of your data and claims! Is the work and presented solutions relevant and significant to the scientific field? Is the research novel and innovative? Is the work significantly different or markedly better than previously reported science? How relevant is the manuscript to the journal in question?

The reviewers will advise if they believe the paper is recommended for publication based on the following criteria: The Review process can take a long time (approximately 30 - 60+ days), and will likely provide a mixed barrel of feedback for you and the Editor with regard to your manuscript.

Accept with minor revisions