Being told that an article has been given “sent for revision” status often worries authors, although in practice it means that the journal is interested in publishing the work. Let us look at how to organise the revision process correctly and improve the chances of a positive editorial decision.
What does a decision to send an article for revision mean?
After reviewing a manuscript, the editorial board usually chooses one of several decisions: to accept the article, reject it or send it for revision. A decision to revise and resubmit is one of the most common intermediate outcomes of peer review and shows that the journal sees scientific value in the work but considers it necessary to address certain comments. Such a status is not equivalent to rejection: provided the comments are addressed, the article has a genuine chance of publication.
Minor and major revisions: what is the difference
Decisions to revise are generally divided into two main types. Minor revisions involve limited adjustments: refining the wording, adding clarifications to the methodology, or correcting the reference list or formatting. Major revisions require more substantial reworking of the article – additional calculations, refinement of the sample, revision of the argument structure or the inclusion of new data. In both cases, the article is usually returned for further review, although the likelihood of a new review round is higher for major revisions.
How should reviewers’ comments be read?
Before starting work on the article, it is useful to study all the comments carefully and divide them by significance. Some comments concern the content – methodology, argumentation, interpretation of results – while others concern formatting and technical details. This division helps authors allocate their time and focus first on the revisions without which the editorial board will not proceed with further consideration of the article.
The main categories of comments encountered when revising an article include:
- methodological questions requiring clarification of the sample, additional calculations or justification of the approach used
- comments on the structure and logic of the material
- questions about how the scientific novelty and practical significance of the study are formulated
- technical corrections – formatting of references, tables, figures and the bibliography
Authors should bear in mind that a specific question from the reviewer usually lies behind each comment, so the response should be precise rather than general.
How to structure a response to reviewers’ comments
A response to a review is a separate document that the editorial board considers alongside the updated article. How thoroughly and accurately it is prepared affects both the speed and the outcome of further consideration. When preparing a response to reviewers, authors usually follow this sequence.
- Thank the editorial board and reviewers for their comments and confirm your willingness to make the requested changes.
- Group the comments by reviewer, keeping the numbering used in the review.
- Indicate what change has been made to the article and in which section or line.
- Explain your position on any comments you disagree with, providing scientific arguments.
- Attach the final version of the article with the changes highlighted or tracked.
This structure makes it easier for the editorial board and reviewers to check the revision and reduces the risk of further questions.
How long does it take to revise an article?
The time required for revision depends on the extent of the changes requested and is stated in the editorial decision. For minor revisions, authors are usually given between two and four weeks to prepare a response. Major revisions, which may involve additional calculations or new data, typically require between six and twelve weeks, and an especially extensive revision may take longer still. If the deadline set proves insufficient, authors can usually request an extension by contacting the editor and explaining the reason.
Common mistakes made when revising an article
When preparing a response to a review, authors sometimes make mistakes that reduce the quality of the final version of the article. These mistakes include:
- ignoring individual comments without explanation
- changing the wording without making substantive revisions to the underlying issue
- failing to agree the final version of the article with all co-authors
- missing the deadline set by the editorial board without prior notice
Authors should treat reviewers’ comments as part of the overall work on the quality of the publication, rather than as a formal obstacle on the way to print.
Revising an article is a standard stage of the publication process, not a sign that the research is weak. A systematic approach to reviewers’ comments, a clear response structure and adherence to the set deadlines significantly increase the likelihood of a positive editorial decision on further consideration.
Need help with publishing a scientific article? Specialists at Scientific Publications will analyse reviewers’ comments, help you draft an accurate response for the editorial board, and support your article through every stage until it is finally accepted for publication. To receive a free consultation, fill in the form below and our manager will contact you shortly. Towards a successful publication!
