After Submission

The focus of this module is the review process that occurs after submission of a journal article with an emphasis on understanding editor feedback.

Learning Objectives

• List the steps of the review process after submission
• Explain the possible types of editor feedback and the meaning of each
• Describe possible courses of action if the article needs revision or is not accepted

The Steps in the Review Process

It is important to begin by understanding the overall review process that occurs after you submit a journal article for publication. The following short YouTube video, The Peer Review Process, does an excellent job of outlining the steps involved in the review process by using a simple flow chart.

 The following list provides additional information regarding the steps of the review process and editor feedback.

Initial Screen - During the initial screening, the editor will review the manuscript to determine whether it should go on to the reviewers. Editors typically ask the follow questions:

• Does the manuscript fit the scope and aim of the journal? Will it be of interest to the journal's readers?
• Is the manuscript of acceptable quality in terms of writing, formatting, etc.
• Does the manuscript comply with journal's requirements?

Editors will begin by reading the cover letter carefully. As discussed in previous modules, the cover letter is critical for this reason. The cover letter should highlight the significance of the research and describe why the manuscript is a good fit for the journal. The editor will also likely read the abstract carefully and skim the rest of the manuscript before deciding. If the editor finds that the manuscript is not a suitable fit or of sufficient quality, it may be rejected outright. This is referred to as "desk rejection". If it clears the initial screening, the manuscript will be sent on for peer review.

Peer Review - During the peer review, the manuscript will be thoroughly evaluated by typically 2-6 reviewers. The peer reviewers are experts in the field that will be able to evaluate and provide feedback on the research, the presentation of the findings in the manuscript, the quality of the writing, and many other aspects. Each reviewer will submit their comments to the editor. Depending on the journal and the discipline, the process may take 30-90 days.

Final Decisions & Feedback - The editor will arrive at a final decision after carefully considering the feedback from the reviewers. Responses may vary a bit from journal to journal. However, following is a list of common responses you may receive from an editor:

• Accept without changes - The journal will accept the manuscript as submitted. This is very rare.
• Accept with minor revisions - The journal has accepted the manuscript but is asking the author to make minor corrections.
• Accept after major revisions - This is conditional acceptance where the journal agrees to publish the paper if the author makes larger changes requested by the reviewers.
• Revise and Re-submit (R & R) - This is a conditional rejection. The journal is essentially stating that with the major revisions they are suggesting, they would consider the paper at a later time in a new round of submissions.  This is not a guarantee of publication at a later date, but leaves the door open for the author to make revisions and submit again.
• Rejection - Also called an outright rejection, the journal will not publish the paper and will not reconsider it even with major changes.

Making Revisions

Begin by carefully reading the letter from the editor which will summarize the reviewers' feedback. Try to be objective and keep an open mind. The reviewers are experts in the field and their comments are designed to improve the quality of your final product. Do not view the comments as criticisms, but rather view them as advice that will ultimately help you be successful. Read all of the individual reviewer's comments and suggestions and then go through and mark them on your manuscript. If you were not rejected and you are being asked to make revisions, you must follow their suggestions. Keep in mind that the same reviewers may be looking at your manuscript when you send it back, therefore, you should not ignore referee comments. If you come across a comment or suggestion that you do not agree with, you may communicate that to the reviewers when you send it back. It may be that you need to re-write or further clarify a point in the manuscript to clear up a misconception or further explain a concept. As you work on the revisions, keep track of all the changes you have made. When you have made the necessary revisions, you then need to draft a letter to the editor that accompanies your manuscript when you return it. The letter should describe in detail how you addressed every comment from a reviewer. It should describe each revision or offer an explanation for any suggestions you disagreed with in their comments. It is important that you complete revision requests in a timely manner.

If your paper was rejected outright, the comments from the editor and reviewers may be useful in improving your manuscript before you submit it to another journal. In fact, another journal may use one or more of the same reviewers, so it is wise to heed the advice.

Acceptance

Once you submit the final piece and the revisions have been accepted, it is time to celebrate! However, you are not quite finished with the process. The paper will go into production and the copy editor will send you proofs that you will need to review for errors. The proof represents how your final product will appear in publication. Errors can even be introduced during the production process. Therefore, it is important that you review the proofs carefully. Once your paper has been accepted by the journal, it is appropriate to list it as "forthcoming" or "in press" on your CV while it is still in production.

Suggested Readings

Belcher, W. (2009). Writing your journal article in 12 weeks: A guide to academic publishing success. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Brookfield, S. D. (2011). Addressing feedback from reviewers and editors. In Rocco, T.S. and Hatcher, T. (2011). The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Calfee, R.C., & Valencia, R.R. (2001). APA guide to preparing manuscripts for journal publication. Washington, DC: APA
Day, R. A. (1998). How to write and publish scientific papers.
Devlin A. (2006) Research Methods.  Thompson Wadsworth.
Spier, R. (2002). The history of the peer-review process. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 20(8), 357-358.