How to Handle a Revise-and-Resubmit Decision
A revise-and-resubmit decision is, statistically, a good outcome, it means the editor sees a path to acceptance. How that revision gets handled determines whether that path actually leads anywhere, and a surprising number of R&R opportunities get squandered by a rushed or defensive response, understanding the full process well helps convert this genuine opportunity into an actual publication.
Read every comment before responding to any of them
A full read-through, ideally more than once, before drafting any revisions helps you see the overall pattern in the feedback, sometimes reviewers who seem to disagree with each other are actually pointing at the same underlying weakness from different angles that only becomes clear once you’ve absorbed all the feedback together.
Address every point, even the ones you disagree with
Ignoring a comment, even a minor one, tends to read as dismissive to an editor deciding whether to send the revision back to the same reviewers. Every point deserves either a genuine revision or a clearly reasoned explanation for why a change wasn’t made, treating even seemingly minor points with genuine consideration rather than selective response.
Write a response letter that’s easy for the editor to follow
A point-by-point structure, the original comment, followed directly by your response and where in the manuscript the change was made, is far easier for an editor and reviewers to verify than a general narrative response. This format also makes it obvious you engaged seriously with each point, worth investing genuine time in making this document clear and well-organized.
Disagreeing with a reviewer is fine, defensiveness isn’t
A well-reasoned, evidence-based pushback on a specific point is a normal and accepted part of the process. A response that reads as irritated or dismissive of the reviewer’s concern, even when the underlying disagreement is reasonable, tends to work against you regardless of who’s technically right, worth reviewing your own tone carefully before submitting the response.
Manage co-author coordination carefully during the revision process
Revisions often require input from multiple co-authors, particularly for substantive methodological changes. Establishing a clear process and timeline for co-author review of the revised manuscript and response letter, rather than one author handling everything unilaterally, avoids both delays and the risk of overlooking a co-author’s specific expertise on a particular reviewer comment.
Meet the deadline, and flag it early if you can’t
Most journals set a revision window, and missing it without communication can result in the submission being treated as a new one, losing any priority from the original submission date. A brief note to the editor requesting an extension, sent well before the deadline, is a normal and usually accommodated request, worth reaching out proactively rather than simply missing the deadline silently.
A revise-and-resubmit checklist
- All reviews read in full at least twice before drafting any response
- Every comment addressed, either through revision or a clearly reasoned explanation
- A clear, point-by-point response letter structure used throughout
- Tone reviewed carefully to avoid appearing defensive, even where disagreeing
- Co-author coordination managed with a clear process and realistic timeline
Frequently asked questions
How long does a typical revision period last?
This varies by journal, commonly ranging from a few weeks to several months depending on the scope of requested revisions, always confirm the specific deadline stated in your decision letter.
What if reviewers give genuinely contradictory feedback?
Address this directly in your response letter, explaining how you resolved the tension and why, rather than silently picking one reviewer’s suggestion without acknowledgment.
Is it acceptable to request a deadline extension for a revision?
Yes, most editors accommodate reasonable extension requests, particularly when the requested revisions are substantial, worth asking proactively rather than risking a missed deadline.