How to write and publish a scientific paper - Barbara Gastel, Robert A. Day 2022

The modify letter—and how to respond to it
The review process (How to deal with editors)
Publishing the paper

More likely, you will receive from the editor a cover letter and two or more lists labeled “reviewers’ comments.” The letter may say something like, “Your manuscript has been reviewed, and it is being returned to you with the attached comments and suggestions. We believe these comments will help you improve your manuscript.” If the editor feels confident that the research is publishable in the journal but believes that the paper’s content, presentation, or both should be improved, the letter may go on to say that the paper will be published if modified as requested. Alternatively, if the author thinks the research might be publishable in the journal but cannot validly decide until the paper is revised (for example, by describing the methods in more detail or clarifying some points), the letter may say only that the paper will be reconsidered if the modifications are made. Especially if different reviewers made contradictory requests, the editor might say which requests to follow. Editors also may list requests of their own.

By no means should you feel disconsolate when you receive a “modify letter.” Realistically, you should not expect that rarest of all species—the accept letter without a request for modification. The vast majority of submitting authors will receive either a modify letter or a reject letter, so you should be pleased to receive the former rather than the latter.

Nevertheless, you might not feel very pleased at first. You worked so hard on the paper. To you, maybe it seemed perfect, or nearly so. The revisions would require even more work. And maybe they look unreasonable. If this is your reaction—as it commonly is—take some time to cool down. On rereading the requests after a day or two, you may realize that they are not really so burdensome. You may also find that items with you disagreed contain at least some truth.

(© Vivian S. Hixson, reproduced by permission)

Your first decision, then, is whether to proceed with the revisions or instead submit the paper elsewhere. In the case of a “publish if revised” letter, the better choice almost always is to proceed with the revisions. After all, publication of your paper is now almost guaranteed. In the case of a “reconsider if revised” letter, perhaps weigh your choices more thoroughly. If you can readily make the changes (for example, by describing or discussing your study in more detail), resubmission tends to be wise. If, however, the suggested revisions would entail much more work (such as conducting extensive experiments that you do not consider warranted) or would greatly change the nature of your paper, perhaps consider whether to proceed as advised or to try submitting the paper elsewhere.

In proceeding with revisions, remember that the reviewers and journal editor are your allies. Their goal, like yours, is for the paper to achieve its full potential. Rather than resenting the request to revise, realize that the reviewers and editor are helping you to excel. In fact, remembering their comments when writing future papers can minimize the need for such revision then.

Also, remember that, like writing a paper, revising a paper is likely to be a team effort. The corresponding author will receive the request to revise. However, different members of the author list may be best suited to help address requests about different parts or aspects of the paper.

As you read the requests, you might find that some are unsuitable because the editor or reviewer misunderstood what you were trying to say. Do not disregard such requests. Instead, take them as evidence that clarification is needed. After all, the editors and reviewers probably read your paper more carefully than almost anyone else would; if they misunderstood a point, others might be especially likely to do so. So, revise the writing in question to make it unambiguous.

In some other cases, the editors or reviewers might understand what you were saying but make a request with which you disagree. For example, they might ask for a change that you believe would introduce an inaccuracy. Or they might suggest an addition that you consider unwarranted. Do not just ignore these requests either; such behavior might well prevent publication of your paper. Rather, respectfully address such requests. For example, if a request was intended to solve a problem with the paper, propose another way to solve it. Or if an addition seems unwarranted, calmly explain why you consider it so. Editors want to publish papers with which both they and the authors are satisfied. Sometimes they will even arrange a phone or video call to work out a mutually acceptable solution.

Journals commonly state a deadline for submitting revisions. If at all possible, meet this deadline. If you cannot do so, inform the editor as soon as possible, so schedules can be revised accordingly.

Sometimes only the editor reviews the revisions and determines whether they are acceptable. In other instances, one or more of the reviewers also evaluate the revisions. Accordingly, papers sometimes undergo more than one round of revision. If additional revisions are needed, persevere. Quite likely, you are almost there.

When you submit a revised manuscript, make it easy for the editor to identify the changes. For example, if the editor supplied a numbered list of revisions to make, state, by number, how each was addressed. Perhaps use the Track Changes feature of Microsoft Word to show your revisions. Or if the editor asked you to indicate your revisions in another way, such as by highlighting, carefully follow the instructions. Clearly identifying the changes made can speed the final decision about your paper. It also can help earn you a reputation as a good author to work with—a fact that can facilitate further interactions with the editorial office.