Do academic journals always return manuscript submissions with requests for edits?
January 13, 2011 9:15 PM
Academics: Do submissions to journals always result in the manuscript being returned for editing prior to publication?
At lunch today, my labmates and I were discussing a manuscript that we recently submitted which had been returned to us. The editor had said that they thought that the manuscript was a good fit for the journal, but was not quite ready for publication, and they had included about a page of fairly critical comments.
I have a half-dozen publications and the same thing has happened in each case. In fact, we realized that in all the papers the four of us had been party to, some version of that scenario had unfolded, with a response being positive but requesting edits, then the edited manuscript (sometimes with very few changes) being published.
So, academics of Metafilter: is this the unspoken custom of how journal submissions go? If they like your manuscript, they still have to respond with strongly-worded edits prior to accepting it? Or is this just an example of confirmation bias at work? (We study environmental sciences, if it pertains)
At lunch today, my labmates and I were discussing a manuscript that we recently submitted which had been returned to us. The editor had said that they thought that the manuscript was a good fit for the journal, but was not quite ready for publication, and they had included about a page of fairly critical comments.
I have a half-dozen publications and the same thing has happened in each case. In fact, we realized that in all the papers the four of us had been party to, some version of that scenario had unfolded, with a response being positive but requesting edits, then the edited manuscript (sometimes with very few changes) being published.
So, academics of Metafilter: is this the unspoken custom of how journal submissions go? If they like your manuscript, they still have to respond with strongly-worded edits prior to accepting it? Or is this just an example of confirmation bias at work? (We study environmental sciences, if it pertains)
In my experience (physics) yes, there's almost always have some suggestions even if the reviewers like the article.
My theory is reviewers don't want to look like they're slacking, so they always make sure to at least suggest some small changes.
posted by auto-correct at 9:19 PM on January 13, 2011
My theory is reviewers don't want to look like they're slacking, so they always make sure to at least suggest some small changes.
posted by auto-correct at 9:19 PM on January 13, 2011
I'm in mathematics, and this is totally customary. Unless you take great issue with their suggestions, I would always make the changes they suggest.
posted by King Bee at 9:21 PM on January 13, 2011
posted by King Bee at 9:21 PM on January 13, 2011
Not ALWAYS, but yes, it is exceptionally rare to have a paper accepted without a revise and resubmit.
posted by brainmouse at 9:21 PM on January 13, 2011
posted by brainmouse at 9:21 PM on January 13, 2011
Anecdotally, that's been my experience too (biochemistry/biotechnology). It means the system of peer-review is working properly - the reviewers are actually paying attention ;-)
posted by Quietgal at 9:22 PM on January 13, 2011
posted by Quietgal at 9:22 PM on January 13, 2011
Depends on the field, but in Information Science, this is also customary.
I don't think it's because reviewers don't want to look like they're slacking; rather, everything could always use some improvement. Nothing is perfect, not even published articles.
posted by k8lin at 9:24 PM on January 13, 2011
I don't think it's because reviewers don't want to look like they're slacking; rather, everything could always use some improvement. Nothing is perfect, not even published articles.
posted by k8lin at 9:24 PM on January 13, 2011
Anecdotally, in philosophy, revise and resubmit is common.
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:27 PM on January 13, 2011
posted by LobsterMitten at 9:27 PM on January 13, 2011
In music education (and I'm 99% for other academic music fields), this is completely common. And I've definitely seen some strongly worded edit pages, so don't feel bad about that.
posted by SNWidget at 9:28 PM on January 13, 2011
posted by SNWidget at 9:28 PM on January 13, 2011
Even the best journals will occasionally accept on the first round. One of our flagship journals offered a whopping 0.6% of papers a conditional acceptance on the first round in 2008.
Mostly though, I would think of an acceptance on the first round as a hint that I should have tried a better journal first.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:33 PM on January 13, 2011
Mostly though, I would think of an acceptance on the first round as a hint that I should have tried a better journal first.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:33 PM on January 13, 2011
The earnest answer is that this is part of the peer review process, and reviewers who are themselves experts in the field are always going to have input and criticism of even an excellent paper. Besides, since when you are such a brilliant scholar and great writer that there's nothing about your work that could be improved?
The more cynical answer, if you're so inclined, is that the reviewers want to feel that they're contributed something "useful" to the review process and did some actual work by having the authors jump through a few more hoops based on their valuable advice.
posted by deanc at 9:50 PM on January 13, 2011
The more cynical answer, if you're so inclined, is that the reviewers want to feel that they're contributed something "useful" to the review process and did some actual work by having the authors jump through a few more hoops based on their valuable advice.
posted by deanc at 9:50 PM on January 13, 2011
I have heard of a couple of papers being accepted without any changes. Hasn't ever happened to me, though.
What's more mysterious to me is what to do with contradictory reviewers' suggestions. I generally point the conflict out to the Editor and justify my choice but obsequiously say that I'll abide by whichever the Editor prefers.
posted by gingerest at 9:52 PM on January 13, 2011
What's more mysterious to me is what to do with contradictory reviewers' suggestions. I generally point the conflict out to the Editor and justify my choice but obsequiously say that I'll abide by whichever the Editor prefers.
posted by gingerest at 9:52 PM on January 13, 2011
It's certainly what's happened for all my math papers. I'm used to getting a couple three pages of suggested edits. The one time all the reviewer pointed out was a couple of typos, I was shocked.
posted by leahwrenn at 9:54 PM on January 13, 2011
posted by leahwrenn at 9:54 PM on January 13, 2011
Academics: Do submissions to journals always result in the manuscript being returned for editing prior to publication?
Yes, almost always.
posted by special-k at 10:05 PM on January 13, 2011
Yes, almost always.
posted by special-k at 10:05 PM on January 13, 2011
This is normal in my humanities field. Apparently it's not unheard of for a paper to be accepted as is (subject to copyediting by the journal), but the "revise and resubmit" or "conditional acceptance" routine is . . . routine.
posted by Orinda at 10:06 PM on January 13, 2011
posted by Orinda at 10:06 PM on January 13, 2011
I know one paper in my field that was accepted to a top journal without revision. It was published in 1986. :)
posted by eisenkr at 10:06 PM on January 13, 2011
posted by eisenkr at 10:06 PM on January 13, 2011
Math here, and yeah, this is standard.
Do you ever read a paper in your field and think, "Wow, this is perfect, I wouldn't change anything about this?" Neither do referees.
posted by escabeche at 10:23 PM on January 13, 2011
Do you ever read a paper in your field and think, "Wow, this is perfect, I wouldn't change anything about this?" Neither do referees.
posted by escabeche at 10:23 PM on January 13, 2011
Absolutely normal in political science (assuming the journal is interested in publishing your paper at all).
posted by PueExMachina at 11:17 PM on January 13, 2011
posted by PueExMachina at 11:17 PM on January 13, 2011
I have never heard of anyone not having to make some revisions - neither in my field (linguistics) nor my husband's (physics). In THEORY it could happen, but I don't know anyone it's happened to.
The closest I've seen is a friend who got glowing reviews on a paper and was told by the editor that the suggested revisions were "optional". But she did them anyway, of course, or most of them, and I think the editor would have been surprised if she hadn't done any.
posted by lollusc at 11:48 PM on January 13, 2011
The closest I've seen is a friend who got glowing reviews on a paper and was told by the editor that the suggested revisions were "optional". But she did them anyway, of course, or most of them, and I think the editor would have been surprised if she hadn't done any.
posted by lollusc at 11:48 PM on January 13, 2011
Biology here and totally normal. One top journal returned a paper to us and said to make it half as long! We did and they published it without another comment.
posted by fshgrl at 12:04 AM on January 14, 2011
posted by fshgrl at 12:04 AM on January 14, 2011
I'm editorial administrator for a journal in the humanities, and yep, nearly every paper the reviewers ask for changes. (I wish they wouldn't. Why the heck can't people just submit good papers?)
posted by b33j at 12:23 AM on January 14, 2011
posted by b33j at 12:23 AM on January 14, 2011
Bioinformatics here; yes, this always happens, even if the paper is good.
posted by primer_dimer at 1:11 AM on January 14, 2011
posted by primer_dimer at 1:11 AM on January 14, 2011
The astronomer I live with tells me it is exactly the same in astronomy as it is for everyone else who has replied.
posted by kyrademon at 3:08 AM on January 14, 2011
posted by kyrademon at 3:08 AM on January 14, 2011
Academics: Do submissions to journals always result in the manuscript being returned for editing prior to publication?
In my personal paper-writing experience this always happens.
However, I do know of one person who got a paper accepted and published with no revisions. In a pretty good journal too.
posted by jonesor at 3:22 AM on January 14, 2011
In my personal paper-writing experience this always happens.
However, I do know of one person who got a paper accepted and published with no revisions. In a pretty good journal too.
posted by jonesor at 3:22 AM on January 14, 2011
Yes. It was explained to me from my very first paper that revisions are normal. I've had really nice reviews so far (touch wood) but there were always a few bits I needed to tweak. Cross-disciplinary experts were especially helpful because they warned me of certain phrases I'd best change because they would be highly contentious to others in their field - they probably saved me from being confronted by an angry mob!
So unless you see good reasons not to make changes a reviewer has recommended (in which case explain that - I've had to say to reviewers that I see their point but it just wasn't possible to do all of it because of time/space constraints), make them.
posted by tel3path at 3:32 AM on January 14, 2011
So unless you see good reasons not to make changes a reviewer has recommended (in which case explain that - I've had to say to reviewers that I see their point but it just wasn't possible to do all of it because of time/space constraints), make them.
posted by tel3path at 3:32 AM on January 14, 2011
Another vote for always happens in the sciences - it is impossible to write a nontrivial paper that cannot be improved in some way.
The closest I have ever come to direct acceptance was an e-mail with a few lines of corrections, such as requesting alternate technical terms or physical units, which I took as a sign of an extremely lazy reviewer.
The more cynical answer, if you're so inclined, is that the reviewers want to feel that they're contributed something "useful" to the review process
An also cynical approach that follows from this is to include a couple of low-hanging fruit for the reviewer to pick on, to stop them from getting creative with an otherwise good paper.
posted by Dr Dracator at 3:48 AM on January 14, 2011
The closest I have ever come to direct acceptance was an e-mail with a few lines of corrections, such as requesting alternate technical terms or physical units, which I took as a sign of an extremely lazy reviewer.
The more cynical answer, if you're so inclined, is that the reviewers want to feel that they're contributed something "useful" to the review process
An also cynical approach that follows from this is to include a couple of low-hanging fruit for the reviewer to pick on, to stop them from getting creative with an otherwise good paper.
posted by Dr Dracator at 3:48 AM on January 14, 2011
I was the managing editor of a peer-reviewed journal in the humanities for 5 years. We did accept papers on first submission (IIRC, it was something on the order of 10% of all submissions). Even so, the papers were sent back to the author with the redacted reviewers' comments for incorporation into the final draft, simply so the author could address the reviewers observations (often framed more specifically or filtered/reconciled by the senior editor) or any additional suggestions from the in-house staff. For the best of the best, these suggestions may be rather minor--a few sentences here, a clarification there, a mention of someone's pet source. And very occasionally, authors not see eye to eye with some suggestion or other and explained why in returning their revised final submission.
This is different from "revise and resubmit," which for us meant the paper has not been accepted, the requested revisions are more substantial, and than if/when* the author returned it, it would be subjected to another round of peer review.
*One thing I always found curious was that a significant percentage (on the order of 50%) of manuscripts returned to the author as "revise and resubmit" never came back to us, even though we were the flagship journal in our sizable subfield.
posted by drlith at 4:19 AM on January 14, 2011
This is different from "revise and resubmit," which for us meant the paper has not been accepted, the requested revisions are more substantial, and than if/when* the author returned it, it would be subjected to another round of peer review.
*One thing I always found curious was that a significant percentage (on the order of 50%) of manuscripts returned to the author as "revise and resubmit" never came back to us, even though we were the flagship journal in our sizable subfield.
posted by drlith at 4:19 AM on January 14, 2011
In my career (in physics), I've written about a half-dozen papers and refereed a couple dozen. Out of those, only one was accepted with "optional" revisions (one I was a referee for); all the others "required" revisions, if they were acceptable at all. I've never seen a paper accepted as-is.
posted by Johnny Assay at 5:36 AM on January 14, 2011
posted by Johnny Assay at 5:36 AM on January 14, 2011
If they like your manuscript, they still have to respond with strongly-worded edits prior to accepting it?
As everyone else has said, yes, some revisions are highly probable even if minor (notation, perhaps cite this other bit of literature you missed, reword a claim). They definitely do not have to be "strongly worded;" I've gotten and given mild and purely constructive comments.
*One thing I always found curious was that a significant percentage (on the order of 50%) of manuscripts returned to the author as "revise and resubmit" never came back to us, even though we were the flagship journal in our sizable subfield.
I sometimes submit a paper which I think is fundamentally not interesting enough to get published in a flagship there anyway, a) to get the good comments b) just in case they disagree with me! If the comments suggest that it isn't going to work out, I don't go through with several revisions there before withdrawing it and trying elsewhere.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:05 AM on January 14, 2011
As everyone else has said, yes, some revisions are highly probable even if minor (notation, perhaps cite this other bit of literature you missed, reword a claim). They definitely do not have to be "strongly worded;" I've gotten and given mild and purely constructive comments.
*One thing I always found curious was that a significant percentage (on the order of 50%) of manuscripts returned to the author as "revise and resubmit" never came back to us, even though we were the flagship journal in our sizable subfield.
I sometimes submit a paper which I think is fundamentally not interesting enough to get published in a flagship there anyway, a) to get the good comments b) just in case they disagree with me! If the comments suggest that it isn't going to work out, I don't go through with several revisions there before withdrawing it and trying elsewhere.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:05 AM on January 14, 2011
Micro/Molecular/cell here, its bizarre to have a paper come back with less then a paragraph of criticism generally its at least a page.
Here are two papers I know of that were accepted without revision. The answer to your question is the joke.
posted by Blasdelb at 6:09 AM on January 14, 2011
Here are two papers I know of that were accepted without revision. The answer to your question is the joke.
posted by Blasdelb at 6:09 AM on January 14, 2011
I was a gofer for a library journal's editorial team a few years ago. I don't think we ever accepted a paper for publication as-is, but we conditionally accepted papers all the time. It's totally normal to include critical comments and to ask for changes, even if the reviewers and editors love your paper. Everything can be improved, right?
posted by zoetrope at 6:49 AM on January 14, 2011
posted by zoetrope at 6:49 AM on January 14, 2011
I've never had a paper be accepted without reviewer comments in a couple decades of writing papers. I've never given back comments of my own without requiring some changes to a paper I've reviewed. Sometimes the changes a minor: an additional reference, a few typos, but there are always a few. Sometimes, as Johnny Assay says, comments are even optional, but I've never checked that unconditional acceptance box for any paper, or had it done to me.
If there were no (or even few) reviewer comments, I'd be worried that the journal wasn't doing their job properly or able to attract good-quality reviewers. It would certainly lead me to reconsider submitting future articles to them.
posted by bonehead at 6:59 AM on January 14, 2011
If there were no (or even few) reviewer comments, I'd be worried that the journal wasn't doing their job properly or able to attract good-quality reviewers. It would certainly lead me to reconsider submitting future articles to them.
posted by bonehead at 6:59 AM on January 14, 2011
It may be worth hiring a freelance editor to clean up your prose before sending the manuscript out. The magazine doesn't want to take the effort to fix every submission to maintain their standards. While you may be an expert in your field, you may not be an expert at writing.
posted by JJ86 at 7:06 AM on January 14, 2011
posted by JJ86 at 7:06 AM on January 14, 2011
Applied chemistry - author and editor - I have never seen a paper accepted with NO changes. Book chapters on the other hand...
posted by Fiery Jack at 7:39 AM on January 14, 2011
posted by Fiery Jack at 7:39 AM on January 14, 2011
Physics. I submitted a long article (chapter from my thesis) which came back with the single comment: "The less than sign on page xxx should be greater than". The editor said that this was an insufficient review, and sent it to another referee. The second review had multiple changes requested, and the paper was accepted after the changes.
Referees are busy too, and I think editors only feel comfortable accepting their review when they're convinced they read it. Easiest way to be sure is that they have some sort of corrections.
posted by bessel functions seem unnecessarily complicated at 8:11 AM on January 14, 2011
Referees are busy too, and I think editors only feel comfortable accepting their review when they're convinced they read it. Easiest way to be sure is that they have some sort of corrections.
posted by bessel functions seem unnecessarily complicated at 8:11 AM on January 14, 2011
Economics: extremely rare that a paper is accepted without "revise and resubmit".
posted by The Toad at 8:58 AM on January 14, 2011
posted by The Toad at 8:58 AM on January 14, 2011
Once, a colleague of mine was ecstatic over having a manuscript accepted with absolutely no changes. (He was in microbiology.) That's the only one I've personally heard of. I'm sure it happens from time to time, but overall I think reviewers have such varying perspectives that most of them are going to come up with, "I'd like to see a discussion of X (their pet topic) or statistical test Y (one they just started using themselves)." Peer review is so subjective.
posted by Knowyournuts at 10:03 AM on January 14, 2011
posted by Knowyournuts at 10:03 AM on January 14, 2011
I had a journal paper accepted once with no changes and no comments from reviewers, and it was a letdown. Every paper can be improved, and it was disappointing to not get any feedback.
I also had a paper accepted recently after a couple rounds of revision, but on sticky points in the Introduction, Methods, and Conclusions sections - there were no problems with the Results and Discussion sections. That was more encouraging, since it let me know that the primary weakness of the original submission was in how the work was framed.
posted by Mapes at 1:06 PM on January 14, 2011
I also had a paper accepted recently after a couple rounds of revision, but on sticky points in the Introduction, Methods, and Conclusions sections - there were no problems with the Results and Discussion sections. That was more encouraging, since it let me know that the primary weakness of the original submission was in how the work was framed.
posted by Mapes at 1:06 PM on January 14, 2011
For CS/Biology journals, the common editorial replies to a manuscript that i've heard of are- 1) Accept, 2) Accept with minor revisions, 3) Accept with major revision 4) Reject .
Accept with minor revision = Minor corrections, editing, typos etc. (usually)
Accept with major revision = More experiments, analysis etc. (usually)
Very few manuscripts are accepted in the form submitted. Most have to at least go through some minor revision. Some manuscripts have to go through a major revision before reaching the minor revision stage.
TL(?);DR - CS/Bio, revisions are almost always required.
posted by learning_machines at 8:49 PM on January 15, 2011
Accept with minor revision = Minor corrections, editing, typos etc. (usually)
Accept with major revision = More experiments, analysis etc. (usually)
Very few manuscripts are accepted in the form submitted. Most have to at least go through some minor revision. Some manuscripts have to go through a major revision before reaching the minor revision stage.
TL(?);DR - CS/Bio, revisions are almost always required.
posted by learning_machines at 8:49 PM on January 15, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by arnicae at 9:17 PM on January 13, 2011