Module 9: Revising, Resubmitting, and Rejection of Your Manuscript

Essential Questions

• What types of responses might I receive as a result of the peer-review submission process? 
• How do I handle the response I receive? 

A journal editor will respond with one of three decisions after the manuscript has been reviewed. These options include acceptance of the manuscript as is, revision and resubmission with the potential for publication, and rejection of the manuscript with no opportunity to publish in that journal. Each of the decisions require a separate, distinctive set of steps by the manuscript author.

Acceptance

Very rarely a manuscript will be accepted as is without revisions. If this occurs, congratulations! Because the field of education is vast and there are many stakeholders, peer reviewers often ask authors to consider their own unique perspectives in their feedback and rarely see a manuscript without areas for growth; however, acceptance without revision is possible, especially with small local, state, or regional practitioner journals. For instance, SPAs often have national-level publications and then state or regional affiliate publications. In most cases, the acceptance rates are higher for state or regional publications since they are less competitive. Acceptance of a manuscript requires little effort on the part of the author from that point forward, barring small edits to style or grammar, as well as some email interactions with the editor.

Revision and Resubmission 

When an editor and reviewers see promise in a manuscript, they will suggest the author “revise and resubmit” with either major or minor revisions (Majumder, 2014). Major revisions might include an overhaul of the theory described, significant clarification of the methods undertaken, or a deeper look at the findings and implications and additional information on how these might be more applicable to practitioners. Minor revisions might include citing newer scholarship in the literature review or adding a table to capture the findings more succinctly. Typically, revise and resubmit with minor revisions signals that the manuscript likely will be accepted for publication. If a revise and resubmit with major revisions is handled properly, there is also a strong chance of publication. 

Revision Tips

Like the drafting stage, revision is a multi-layered part of the research and publication process; however, now it is incumbent upon the author to make the requested revisions, particularly major revisions, to ensure publication. The following tips can make the revision process go smoothly. 

1. Read the reviewer’s comments carefully and ensure complete understanding. Ask for an outside set of eyes to review the comments if they seem unclear. 
2. If the practitioner and trusted colleagues cannot understand the reviewers’ comments, it is acceptable to email the editor and respectfully request clarification on particular points. 
3. Address reviewer’s comments one-by-one in the manuscript (Majumder, 2014).
4. Use the revision and editing process requested by the editor. Typically, this includes using the Track Changes feature in Microsoft Word, although this varies from journal to journal. 
5. If the revisions are major, include a cover letter where those changes are described in depth one-by-one. For example, if the literature review was reorganized at the request of the reviewers, the cover letter should outline specifically where the literature review was reorganized and how this section of the manuscript flows more effectively now. 
6. If the revisions requested by reviewers seem unusual or unjustified, which does occur on occasion, it is acceptable in practitioner journals to explain to the editor in the cover letter why a specific revision was not made. The editor will then determine whether this decision was prudent or not. 
7. Ask for an extra set of eyes after revisions have been made and before resubmission. At least two trusted colleagues should examine the revisions after they have been made to ensure all revisions requested were thoroughly addressed. 
8. Notice the “blind spots” in the manuscript. Every author can improve their writing, especially practitioners who may be new to the genre of journal writing. Take time to reflect upon these blind spots and make revisions accordingly. For instance, since the practitioner is deeply familiar with the participants, typically the teacher’s students, might he or she have forgotten to describe these participants with sufficient depth for an outside audience? Address these blind spots thoroughly before resubmitting.

Rejection 

One of the potential, and potentially most difficult, outcomes of the entire research and publication process is rejection. Practitioners pour a significant amount of time, energy, and creativity into their teacher or action research projects. The participants are usually students or colleagues with whom the practitioner has a strong relationship, and the outcomes of the research usually mean a great deal to the teacher or administrator. Hearing that the work has been rejected may feel like a personal attack on one’s teaching or administrative efforts, even one’s whole career. In fact, studies show that one-third of authors not only abandon a manuscript after rejection but leave the whole line of research, never to be returned to (Belcher, 2009). 

One way to look at the feedback though is to consider it to be free, helpful feedback intended to improve the manuscript. While the feedback may appear mean spirited or personal, especially to a practitioner who is new to publication, this is rarely the case. The feedback is intended to improve the field of education and to ensure that only the clearest, more beneficial ideas are published for other practitioners to consider and potentially use in their own classrooms and schools. 

The author should make the revisions suggested to the manuscript, unless the feedback seems completely unfounded, and then move to number two on the top three list of journals. There are more fish in the practitioner pond! Identify the aims and scope of the second journal selected and then revise to ensure the journal’s needs are met prior to submitting again. Always ask for a colleague to take a peek before resubmission and consider the second submission a new lease on the manuscript. 

Suggested Readings

https://www.apa.org/pubs/authors/new-author-guide.pdf

https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2009/04/27/when-journal-says-no