I was asked today, at what point do you give up on a revision?
The answer is simple.
I don’t.
As long as you have a revision invited, you make a good faith effort to revise the paper & #resubmit.
Why?
Because, even if the revision is extra difficult, you never know if your paper will get traction at another #journal.
Plus, if you submit a good faith revision, you never know if the editor will read it & help you find a path to publication.
So let me reframe the question, rather than asking when do you give up, ask how do you address concerns in a revision? & resubmit the paper?
First, read the entire review package & ask what is the big issue?
Usually, massive revisions are asked for when the #theory, #hypotheses & #analysis don’t align.
Aligning them usually requires updating the arguments leading to the hypotheses to map to what you actually studied.
Or
Gathering new data to align the analysis to the hypotheses.
Decide which path you want to take & do your best to make it work.
Second, ask is it possible to address the demands of a fussy reviewer?
Across 120+ journal papers, I’ve only had the entire panel agree on accepting a paper a handful of times.
Usually, my papers are accepted with a split decision - 2 yes & 1 no.
If I think my team can, we give it our best shot.
Third, I recognize, despite our best shot, that ‘no’ voter will usually escalate their complaints & attempt to persuade the editor that they are correct.
Often, the no is the most thorough review, which makes it challenging.
So, If I have one truculent or impossible reviewer, I typically do my best to address their comments, explain why I did what I did, & say a little prayer when I resubmit.
I do so bc I want the whole panel to know we tried to address the concern. Remember, a 2 to 1 split often leads to a happy ending.
Fourth, I put my trust in the editor.
If my effort is in good faith (e.g., well thought out, clearly explains why or why not I did something, and so on), the editor will sometimes extend another revision with more precise direction on what to do next.
Fifth, I always address the comments - either with changes or an explanation of why I didn’t make changes.
In doing so, I take care to show even the most truculent reviewer respect - even if their comments are not respectful - even if I’m explaining why I disagree.
I always keep in mind that they are a volunteer & I value their time.
Sixth, I get the paper copyedited.
I remove all the low-hanging fruit for rejection - typos and grammatical errors.
The review panel can see my arguments if the paper is clean.
Finally, I recognize there is risk with each resubmission.
I just do my best to earn another revision. I don’t expect an accept.
The bottom line is to resubmit - do your best to address the concerns - and hope for the best.
Best of luck.
Comments