Deconstructing the R&R

For many years, I oversaw the publication of a peer-reviewed journal focused on college student success topics. Whenever the editor had a conflict, I would step in and shepherd the manuscript through the review process. On one such occasion, the initial disposition for the manuscript was “revise and resubmit” or R&R. This was not an unusual occurrence at our journal, nor is it for most journals. And yet, I received an email from the editor telling me that the author was in tears. She had misread the decision as a rejection of her manuscript.

Admittedly, our R&R letter was deliberately vague, trying to walk a fine line between acknowledging the potential merits of the manuscript and committing to publish it. Shortly after that, we revisited the letter to state the disposition more clearly, and hopefully avert future soul-crushing experiences.

Despite the positive nature of an R&R, some authors will be stung by the less than unqualified acceptance of their manuscript. I certainly understand the feeling. We pour a lot of ourselves into our research and writing; the 30-page paper may be the culmination of several years of work. It doesn’t help that reviewers are sometimes unnecessarily harsh in their criticism. Some editors will attempt to filter the most egregious reviewer comments, but others won’t.

Remember that a revise and resubmit is a win—even if it doesn’t initially feel like one. It is a commitment, an invitation. The journal’s editorial board is communicating its strong interest in your work and agreeing to support your efforts to refine it. It is not a guarantee of publication, but it is an opportunity to continue the conversation about your manuscript.

One of my colleagues frequently shares a story about a manuscript that went through multiple revisions at one journal only to be rejected. He turned around and submitted it to another journal, where it was accepted almost immediately. Certainly, making multiple revisions only to have the piece rejected was discouraging for my colleague, but the process led to a stronger manuscript in the end. And his tenacity led to a publication.

So, maybe you aren’t elated at the prospect of revisiting the manuscript or wading through snarky reviewer comments. Take a day or two to feel your feels. And then commit to doing the work. Here are a few suggestions to get you started:

• Map out the revision requests from reviewers. Depending on the journal, you may receive only narrative comments from reviewers, or you may receive both narrative comments and comments embedded in the manuscript file. Creating a table in Word, Excel, or Google Docs (if working with collaborators) and assigning each query to a separate row is a good initial step. Then you might indicate the query’s importance or the amount of time or attention it might require in another column. For example, you might label requests small, medium, or large to help pinpoint the magnitude of necessary edits. Alternately, you might tag the requests by type: grammar and mechanics, style or formatting, substantive changes.

• Develop a plan for tackling the requests. Once you have organized the requested edits, you can determine how much time you will need to revise the manuscript. Even if you cannot begin work right away, block off some time on your calendar before the due date. If you need to read some additional sources, go ahead and collect them and store them with your R&R files.

The order in which you handle the requests is up to you. In some ways, it makes the most sense to save mechanical and stylistic edits to the end. If you have substantive changes to make, some of those fixes may be nullified. At the same time, cleaning up your reference list to conform to the journal’s preferred style might give you an easy win if you are feeling overwhelmed by the R&R requests.

• Make a note of the changes made. Going back to your table of requests, insert another column where you can record whether and how you addressed the changes. This process will help you know what remains to be done. You can also transmit a version of this table along with your revised manuscript, so the editor and reviewers know what changes have been made.

At times, you will strongly disagree with a revision request. In that case, you’ll want to respectfully explain why you have decided not to address the requested change. In, Dannelle Stevens offers helpful suggestions for phrasing your objections, such as

• I find that some suggestions are beyond the scope of. . .

• To make the recommended change is not in keeping with. . . (see Figure 11.1)

• Communicate with the editor. At times, the reviewers’ recommendations may conflict with one another. If the editor has not offered a synthesizing statement suggesting which edits they want you to prioritize, consider asking for their help sorting out conflicting requests.

You should also ask how to account for word count limits or restrictions on tables or figures for the revised manuscript. For example, if the journal has a strict limit on the number of display elements in a manuscript and a reviewer has recommended that you include an additional figure, will you be able to do that without having to remove something else? I was once working on an R&R where the reviewers recommended that my co-author and I add an entire section. We were already at the word limit for the journal. When asked whether we would be permitted to go over, the editor said we could have an additional 150 words. We had to cut elsewhere to accommodate that revision request. Not verifying the word count requirements in advance would likely have resulted in another R&R.

• Understand the R&R review process. In many cases, the journal editor sends a revised manuscript back out to the same panel of reviewers who completed the initial review. In other cases, the editor may evaluate how well the author responded to the reviewers’ feedback. Finally, if one or more of the original reviewers are unavailable, the editor may send the manuscript to a new reviewer. While how the journal handles the second review round shouldn’t impact how you approach your revision, knowing the process helps set your expectations about how the process might go.

• Request an extension if needed. Typically, the journal editor will provide a deadline for returning the revised manuscript. Once you have a sense of the work required, you can determine whether it is feasible to accomplish within the given timeframe. If not, request an extension. Extending the deadline may push back the publication date for the piece, but your request communicates your investment in publishing to the journal editor.

• Draft a cover letter. In addition to your revised manuscript and a detailed accounting of your response to the reviewers’ queries, you will want to enclose a cover letter that includes identifying information about your manuscript (e.g., title, manuscript number), an expression of appreciation for the reviewers’ time and feedback, and a summary of your response to that feedback.

The R&R process can be challenging. The manuscript may come back at a time when we are in the midst of another writing project, and we may resist switching gears and worry about getting stalled on the new project. Moreover, the time elapsed between submission and initial disposition may make reconnecting with our analysis or the sources we referenced in the lit review difficult. Yet, it is essential to remember that the R&R is an expression of genuine interest in our work, an acknowledgment that we have something important to contribute to the scholarly discourse. If you stay the course, the reward very likely will be a publication.

Do you need support navigating an R&R? A writing coach can help you make sense of revision requests and create a plan for managing them. Feel free to contact me today to see how I might help with your manuscript revision.