A journal revise-and-resubmit decision is not a rejection, but it does require a disciplined response. This workflow explains how to assess reviewer comments, plan manuscript revisions, prepare a clear reviewer response letter, document every change, and resubmit without losing track of requirements or deadlines.
Overview
A revise-and-resubmit decision means the editor sees enough potential in the manuscript to invite another evaluation, subject to changes. The invitation may be minor or substantial, and the decision letter may include comments from an editor, reviewers, or both. Read the decision as a set of publishing requirements rather than as a general request to “improve the paper.”
Begin by saving the decision letter, reviewer reports, submitted manuscript, figures, tables, supplementary files, and the journal’s current journal submission guidance in one project folder. Check whether the journal has specified a revision deadline, file-naming convention, anonymization requirement, word limit, response-letter format, or particular resubmission category. Publisher terminology and submission-system steps vary, so use the journal’s own instructions as the final authority.
Do not start rewriting immediately. First, separate the feedback into manageable issues and decide how each point will be addressed. A calm, traceable process is more useful than trying to make every change at once.
What to track
A revision tracker turns several long reports into a controlled list of decisions. A spreadsheet, document table, or writing submission tracker can work. Create one row for each distinct comment, even when several comments appear in the same paragraph.
Useful columns include:
- Source: editor, Reviewer 1, Reviewer 2, or another contributor.
- Location: page, section, paragraph, figure, table, or line reference from the submitted version.
- Comment: a short, accurate paraphrase of the request.
- Priority: essential, important, or optional.
- Decision: revise, explain, provide an additional analysis, or respectfully decline.
- Action taken: the concrete change made in the manuscript.
- New location: page, section, figure, table, or line reference in the revised version.
- Status: not started, in progress, awaiting coauthor input, complete, or checked.
Prioritize comments that affect the paper’s central argument, methods, evidence, interpretation, ethical documentation, or compliance with the journal’s instructions. Requests about wording, organization, references, and presentation still matter, but they can usually be handled after the substantive work is stable.
Some comments will overlap. If two reviewers identify the same unclear definition or missing explanation, combine the work in the manuscript but acknowledge both comments separately in the response letter. This shows that you have considered each report rather than copying one generic answer.
Use a second checklist for the final submission package. It can include the clean manuscript, marked or tracked-changes manuscript if requested, figures, tables, supplementary files, cover letter, reviewer response letter, declarations, and permissions or ethics documentation where applicable. The submission tracker template approach is also useful for recording file versions and submission status.
Cadence and checkpoints
Work in stages rather than treating revision as one uninterrupted task.
1. Read and cool down
Read the editor’s letter and all reports once without editing. Mark repeated concerns, questions you do not understand, and requests that may require new analysis or coauthor discussion. Avoid drafting defensive replies while the feedback is still fresh.
2. Build the issue map
Within the first planning session, transfer each actionable point to the tracker. Identify dependencies. For example, a request to revise the conclusion may depend on clarifying the results, while a request for an additional analysis may affect several sections, tables, and limitations.
3. Confirm the revision plan
Discuss major decisions with coauthors before making extensive changes. Agree on who owns each task, what evidence is available, and which requests need an explanation rather than direct compliance. If a comment is ambiguous, the corresponding author may contact the editorial office using the channel specified by the journal. Ask a focused question and include the manuscript or decision details needed for context.
4. Revise in passes
Make a substantive pass first: methods, analysis, results, argument, and limitations. Follow with a structure and clarity pass, then a technical pass for references, figures, formatting, anonymization, and required statements. After each pass, update the tracker immediately so that the response letter will be based on the final changes.
5. Run a pre-submission checkpoint
Before uploading, compare the revised files with the journal’s submission guidelines. Confirm that every required reviewer comment has a response, every response points to a location, and every cited location matches the current file. Open the uploaded files if the system permits a review before final submission.
How to interpret changes
Not every reviewer suggestion must be followed in exactly the proposed form. The goal is to address the underlying concern accurately and transparently. If a reviewer asks for an analysis that is not appropriate for the study design, explain why, provide any suitable alternative, and acknowledge the limitation where relevant.
A useful response format is:
| Element | What to include |
|---|---|
| Comment | Quote or accurately summarize the reviewer’s point. |
| Response | Thank the reviewer briefly, then state your decision and reasoning. |
| Action | Describe the change made, or explain why no direct change was made. |
| Location | Give the page, section, figure, table, or line reference in the revised manuscript. |
For example: “We agree that the sampling procedure was not sufficiently clear. We have expanded the Methods section to describe the inclusion criteria and recruitment sequence. This explanation appears in Section 2.3, pages 6–7.” If you disagree, keep the tone factual: “We appreciate this suggestion. We did not add the proposed comparison because the available data do not support a valid comparison; instead, we clarified this limitation in Section 4.”
Do not claim that a change was made if it was only considered. Likewise, do not rely on a broad statement such as “all comments were addressed” without showing where. A precise response letter helps the editor and reviewers evaluate the revision efficiently.
When to revisit
Revisit the workflow at four practical checkpoints: immediately after receiving the decision, after the issue map is complete, before the response letter is finalized, and immediately before resubmission. At each checkpoint, check for changes in the manuscript version, revision deadline, submission-system requirements, coauthor responsibilities, and required files.
Return to this process whenever a new decision introduces another revision round. A later round may focus on unresolved comments, new questions, or changes made during the first revision. Start a fresh decision log or clearly label the new round so that old page references are not confused with current ones.
For a practical final review, ask:
- Have I read the latest editor letter and reviewer reports in full?
- Does every substantive comment have a specific response?
- Are disagreements explained respectfully and supported by the manuscript’s scope or evidence?
- Do response-letter locations match the revised file?
- Have figures, tables, references, supplementary files, and anonymization been checked?
- Is the correct file version ready for the journal’s submission system?
Finally, record the resubmission date, manuscript version, decision deadline, and any expected next step in your tracker. A revise-and-resubmit decision can feel complicated because it combines editorial judgment, detailed criticism, and administrative requirements. Breaking it into logged issues, scheduled checkpoints, and verifiable responses makes the next submission clearer, more professional, and easier to manage.
