What happens after you submit your manuscript to a journal?

At the desk

After you submit your manuscript to a journal, it’ll typically go to an editor who will read it to determine whether or not it fits the journal’s themes. Sometimes, even if you have submitted an excellent manuscript, it just won’t be the right thematic fit for the journal.

If this is the case, you’ll receive a desk rejection. Desk rejections occur when the editor determines that your manuscript isn’t right for the journal. In addition to less-than-ideal thematic fit, desk rejections can occur because the editor doesn’t see the stakes of your project or doesn’t think the research or writing matches the standards of the journal.

In the event of a desk rejection, the editor will email you a short note explaining that the journal is passing on your work and wishing you good luck elsewhere. Often desk rejections are boilerplate, but occasionally they contain valuable feedback that can help you target your revisions before you send to another journal.

Usually if you’ve been desk rejected, you should not revise your manuscript and send it back to the same journal. You’ll want to seek other journals that haven’t rejected your manuscript yet.

Desk rejections typically come back fairly quickly after submitting to the journal, though response times vary from journal to journal.

Peer Review

If your manuscript passes the desk, the editor sends it to peer reviewers. Peer review consists of several readers (sometimes called referees) who read your manuscript. The referees’ job is to produce reports that recommend whether the editor should publish your manuscript or not. Each referee produces his/her/their own report. They typically do not consult with each other. In most cases you will not know the identity of your referees, nor will they know your identity. This is to promote fairness.

Referees are experts in your field who have agreed to read your manuscript (often for free). When they read your manuscript, they study the quality of your research, the quality of your argument, and whether they find the stakes of your argument compelling. Even if your manuscript is well researched and well argued, referees may reject it if they don’t think its stakes will interest readers in the field.

Once the referees read your manuscript, they’ll write reports on your manuscript and send them to the editor. Reports usually consist of two parts: 1) a recommendation whether to publish or not; and 2) a cover letter (or track changes comments) which justify and explain the recommendation.

Most journals ask referees to choose one recommendation from five potential options (though some journals give referees less options). The five options ranked from most to least desirable are:

• Accept
• Accept with minor revisions
• Revise and resubmit
• Reject with the offer to resubmit later
• Reject

By far the most common recommendation that reviewers give is to revise and resubmit. Acceptance without revision is almost unheard of.

Back with the editor

Once the editor has the referees’ reports, he/she/they makes a decision about your manuscript. The editor’s decision will be one of the five options listed above: accept; accept with minor revisions; revise and resubmit; reject with the offer to resubmit later; or reject.

Editors often follow referees’ recommendations, however, the decision is ultimately the editor’s. Therefore, if the referees recommend rejection, but the editor believes in the manuscript, he/she/they may still proceed with publication.

Once the editor has made a decision on how to proceed, he/she/they will write you an email informing you. Very often the editor will include the referees’ reports attached to the email as a justification as to why the editor reached the decision.

If an editor does not include the referees’ reports, you should feel comfortable asking the editor for them, regardless of the decision. Especially if you receive a rejection or a requested revision, the referees’ reports will provide valuable feedback.

It might be nice to imagine that an editor will accept your work after hearing from the referees, but this is extremely uncommon. Typically the best you can hope for is a revise and resubmit (often abbreviated R&R).

An R&R is a request that you revise parts of your essay and resubmit it to be re-evaluated. Often the same referees will look at your revised manuscript. However, this may not be the case for all journals. In some cases, the editor will look at the changes and make a final decision. In other cases the referees will be unavailable to review the revised manuscript and the editor will need to find new referees.

It is perfectly acceptable for you to politely email the editor after receiving an R&R and inquire about the journal’s editorial process. If you understand that the same referees will not see your revised manuscript, it can help you decide how you want to revise.

In the event that you receive an R&R, the editor will let you know the decision and give you a time frame to return the manuscript to the journal with the changes and updates requested by the referees.

How to handle an R&R

Emotionally, you should count an R&R as a cause for celebration. When editors and referees ask for an R&R, they are volunteering to read another draft of your manuscript. Typically editors and referees are not paid for their work, so the fact that they are volunteering their time to read another draft means that they value your contribution and believe in your project. They wouldn’t waste their time reading subsequent drafts for a manuscript they had no faith in!

Despite this boost in confidence, receiving an R&R does not guarantee you publication. To win publication, you’ll need to successfully respond to the editor’s and referees’ feedback. This is why it will be essential for you to request the referees’ reports if your editor has not provided you with them.

Responding to referees’ feedback

Perhaps the most important thing to understand when working on an R&R is that while you need to thoughtfully consider the suggestions that your referees make, you do not have to make all the changes that they suggest.

There can be a temptation to blindly make every change that the referees suggest. Certainly there will be some times when all suggestions are warranted. But referees are only providing advice. The most important thing that they want to see is that you have considered their feedback, not that you have parroted their exact changes back to them.

In the advent that a referee has provided a suggestion that you disagree with, the best way to handle the problem is through managing expectations. You manage your readers’ expectations in your introduction by clearly explaining the scope of your manuscript and why you chose your scope.

Let’s imagine a hypothetical: You have written a paper on electron transfer in 2-D materials. A referee made a suggestion that you should also consider electron transfer in 3-D materials. But you (correctly) understand that 3-D materials falls outside the scope of your research. To understand how electrons transfer in 3 dimensions, you would need to conduct radically different experiments. You’d even need to learn a new branch of chemistry! There’s no way you could rework your paper in time to meet the editor’s deadline while making this change. It would result in an entirely new paper.

In this case, you need to manage your readers’ expectations by clearly stating in the introduction that while electron transfer in 3-D materials is an important subject to understand, your paper exclusively focuses on 2-D materials for X reasons.

When well-meaning referees ask for large scale changes that you do not see falling within the scope of your project, you need to manage expectations at the beginning of your paper to solve the problem and save you time.

Of course, many suggestions will make your paper stronger.

If referees ask you to cite additional sources, you should make a good effort to include those sources so that your scholarship is based on the most up to date information. Even if you only mention the sources in passing, it is important to make this attempt.

If referees say that parts of your argument are unconvincing, you should weigh the feedback and determine why the referees are unconvinced. Maybe you’ll need to respond by finding additional research to bolster your claims. Maybe you’ll conduct another experiment specifically to address the referee’s concern. Maybe you’ll need to return to the archive to find additional primary documents to support your interpretation. Perhaps you’ll decide the referee’s skepticism stems from a misplaced assumption about your work, and you’ll include a counterargument in your manuscript specifically refuting your referee’s concern.

Regardless, you should probably attempt to respond to skeptical claims even if the response is to argue why the referee’s concern is unwarranted.

Since you typically receive at least two reports from referees, if both referees agree on a similar point (for example changing the title of your paper) you should follow the advice.

Of course, if you’re unsure whether you need to respond to a referee’s claim or not, ask your advisor, your colleagues, or your friends at the writing center.

When referees disagree

When referees agree on a specific point, it shows you that multiple readers are experiencing difficulty with the same issue.

But when referees disagree about the same point, it can be very confusing.

When referees disagree (for ex: one referee likes a specific part of your paper and another dislikes it) you should target your revision to the supportive referee.

Remember that the ultimate decision lies with the editor. If the editor gives you two reports—one positive and one negative—the editor is likely siding with the positive report. After all, if the editor sided with the negative report he/she/they wouldn’t give you the opportunity to revise and resubmit. Therefore when referees disagree on the same issue, side with the referee that supports your work.

This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make any changes, but keep the parts that get positive results, even if you have manage expectations or qualify your claims.

This advice applies to a situation in which you get two reports that recommend different publication outcomes (for ex: one referee says to “revise and resubmit” and one says to “reject”).

Resubmitting

Once you’ve responded to the referees’ feedback, it’s time to send your revised manuscript back to the editor.

In addition to returning a revised manuscript you should also send a cover letter to the editor. Sometimes journals explicitly ask for cover letters. However, even if your journal doesn’t ask for one, you should still email the editor a cover letter.

Cover letters are short documents that explain the changes you’ve made in response to the feedback. Cover letters are usually a page or two and will either explain the changes in paragraph format; bullets; or a T-chart.

The important part of a cover letter is that you address the main concerns that the referees had. Again, you might not agree with all the changes, but the cover letter should explain that you were aware of the recommendations and explain your rationale for how you responded. Even if you did not respond, you should explain why you made that choice.

Cover letters will make referees feel validated and make the re-reading process faster and easier for them. They’ll know right where to look for your revisions, since you’ll identify them in the cover letter. This will speed up the time it takes for you to hear the decision.

Since referees are often not paid for their work, you want to make it as easy as possible so they feel motivated to re-read. Otherwise, the unpaid work of re-reading your paper can fall to the bottom of their to do list.

Framing your changes positively in the cover letter can also help you manage the referees responses to your revisions.

Hopefully, with the cover letter and your thoughtful changes, the referees will recommend publication! In that case the referees’ work is done, and you will typically work with a copy editor to get your paper in excellent shape before publication.

However, sometimes after revising you will be asked to complete another revision. While this might seem frustrating, it is a good sign. It means that the editor is still invested in your work. Even if it takes several R&Rs, each request for a resubmission makes it more and more likely that your manuscript will finally be accepted.

(On a more mercenary level, journals do not want to develop a reputation of asking for multiple revisions and then rejecting a manuscript. They want attract authors as much as you want to see your important work appear in print.)

Communicating with the editor

It is perfectly fine to contact your editor during the submission process. Journals sometimes have specific portals to email editors. Other times they will provide email addresses.

Of course, different fields have different etiquette as to how frequently and when you are expected to contact the editor, so you should check with your advisor or your friends in your department.

But you should feel free to ask your editor questions about:

• Editorial process (for ex: how they handle R&Rs)
• Timeline (including average timeline to publication, which can be valuable information if you are under a deadline)
• Whether certain topics are a good fit for the journal

Completing an R&R is tough work, but with the ideas in this guide, you can do it! And don’t forget to schedule a writing consultation for free, individual help!

 

Further reading:

Inside Higher Ed has a great article on staying true to your basic intent when revising to resubmit.

Here is a great piece focused on writing a clear and compelling author response letter to include with your resubmitted article.

The Chronicle for Higher Education has a great article focused on how to respond when your reviewers disagree.