On three mistakes that early career authors make with journal revisions (and don't forget to hit submit).
Yesterday, I logged into a manuscript management system & found that my paper was due in early summer. The revision option had expired.
I contacted my co-author & asked "what happened?"
They responded: "What do you mean? We had an extension to August?"
I looked at my calendar. September 20.
I received a series of angry text messages - not targeted at me - but at the journal editor for not changing due dates.
I set aside my phone. I thought: "This was not the editor's fault."
Too often, I hear complaints about editors that result from author error - either poor planning or weak effort
Three addressable author-inflicted mistakes that early career authors should be aware of & can address.
(1) Failing to ask for an extension.
Most journal editors are happy to offer an extension of one to two months.
We want to see your very best work. We want to give you every opportunity to improve your work. We also don't want to waste our volunteer reviewer's time.
So if you have a problem, that limits your ability to resubmit a high-quality paper, then ask for more time.
However, you have to ask for the extension well in advance & offer a reasonable explanation for the request.
(2) Submitting an empirically flawed paper.
Many authors submit papers because "they are good enough to get another revision."
I recently had an author approach me, complain that I rejected his paper, then after I apologized & asked some questions, they admitted that they knew the method had issues when they submitted it.
I don't pack many grudges, in fact, I don't remember the author's name, but I will never forget that moment.
It should be no surprise to anyone when a paper they resubmit, with known problems, is rejected.
Usually, good enough is ok for a first submission. People are more forgiving.
Good enough will get you rejected in revisions. Don't satisfice on revisions.
You want to submit your very best possible work.
(3) Fail to have a colleague and/or copyeditor read the paper.
I try to have a person who is not a member of the author team read every paper - esp. on the first round of review.
My colleagues will point out substantive issues that my team missed - we are too close to the work to see the problems.
My copyeditor will notice ripples or nuances in our word choices & sentence structure that cause ambiguity or uncertainty in a reader's mind.
I have most first-round papers peer-reviewed or copyedited. I do it in the second round as well.
Why? Because sloppy errors make editors think you will not complete a successful revision.
Not everyone can afford to pay a copyedtior, I recognize that I'm privileged.
However, everyone can ask a colleague to glance over a paper.
So do it!
With planning, extra effort, & a peer review, you will find more success with revisions.
Best of luck!
P.S. My paper remains un-submitted. Grrrr.
Comments