Tackling revisions

Dealing with a ‘revise and resubmit’

If you receive a revise-and-resubmit decision, don't be discouraged. It means the editor sees potential in your work and believes it may be publishable if you address the reviewers' concerns.

Analyse the decision letter

• Separate the comments into major and minor tasks
• Focus on the core critique. If reviewers want a new framework or different data, do that work first

Deal with editor and reviewer comments

• Fix any fundamental problems with your core argument or theory
• Add missing data or fix statistical models
• Address every reviewer comment methodically
• Track all changes
• Keep a detailed record of all changes so editors and reviewers can easily see how you addressed the feedback.

Write the response letter

• Thank the editor and reviewers for their time
• Make a clear table or bulleted list that shows every single comment
• Paste the reviewer comment, then state your exact response
• Point to the exact page and paragraph number where you made the change in the new draft.
• Ensure you anonymise your letter

Challenges you may encounter

Common issues our editors see

• Conflicting reviewer demands
• Drifting away from the journal’s scope
• Data and theory that don’t fit together
• A defensive or dismissive tone
• Misinterpreting reviewer requests or author responses

Managing your response to reviewer comments

Receiving reviewer comments can be emotionally challenging. Avoid responding immediately while your emotions are still high. Remember that criticism of the manuscript is not criticism of you.

Reframe the feedback

• Focus on the editor's decision as well as the reviewers' comments.
• Look for recurring themes across the reviews, because these often identify the most important issues to address.

Stay objective

• Separate the tone of a comment from its academic content. Even poorly or harshly phrased comments may contain useful insights.
• Concentrate on what changes will improve the manuscript rather than whether every criticism feels fair.

Maintain a professional mindset

• Keep all responses respectful and evidence-based, even when you disagree.
• Prioritise constructive engagement over defending every aspect of the original submission.

Dealing with contradictory feedback

If reviewers provide contradictory recommendations, you'll need to decide how best to address them while explaining your reasoning clearly to the editor.

Tips for success

• Look for clues in the editor’s letter on how they want you to proceed.
• Decide whether one reviewer’s stance carries more weight or aligns better with the journal’s scope.
• Separate simple typos or small formatting fixes from deep theoretical disagreements, and tackle the latter first.
• Group complementary comments together, and make a separate group for the contradictory comments.
• Explain your decision based on your theoretical framework, methodology, or data limitations.
• Where possible, find a compromise, such as adding a paragraph that addresses both reviewers’ concerns.

Writing your response letter

• Be polite and objective.
• Explain that reviewers offered opposing views.
• Consider using a tabular or side-by-side format to help map reviewer points to your changes.
• Quote your new manuscript text so the editor sees the exact fix immediately.

When you disagree with a reviewer

You may occasionally disagree with a reviewer's suggestion. When this happens, respond respectfully and support your position with evidence, methodological reasoning, or references to the literature. Focus on the substance of the comment rather than its tone, and avoid defensive language.

Back up your rebuttal with logic, published data, or methodological justifications. And before pushing back, remember to thank reviewers for their helpful insights.

Take time before responding

Reviewer comments can be frustrating, particularly if they seem unfair or overly critical. Before starting revisions, set the decision letter aside for a day or two. Returning with a clear head can help you evaluate the feedback more objectively and prioritise the changes that will strengthen your manuscript.

It may help to discuss challenging comments with colleagues or mentors. Sharing the burden makes the response process feel less isolating.

Crafting your counterargument

• Support your choice with citations from the literature or methodological rules.
• Show that you understood what the reviewer meant, even if you disagree with their comments.
• If possible, add a sentence or note in the paper to address the reviewer's concern without changing your core findings.
• Copy the reviewer comment into your response document.