How to Edit Research Paper After Receiving the Journal’s Peer Review Comments?

Once upon a time, you would walk to the mail box, and push the warm key into the lock. You would feel the drag of the key as it turns. The bolt clicked, and you reached into that dark void. Your hand landed on a bulging manila folder. You pulled the envelope from the mail box. You flashed back to the days of awaiting college admission decisions. Yep, you were right back there. You had gotten a fat letter, with the editing suggestions for that academic piece you submitted for publication. Those were kinder and gentler times. Today, you will often submit your piece via an electronic portal, your piece will, if you are lucky, make the rounds to reviewers without ink ever hitting paper. However, much of the process remains the same.

If you are new to publishing in any sense, you probably haven’t developed the thick skin that you will soon take for granted. Just like when you were trying to get into your dream school, these days will be trying regardless of whether you are eventually successful. Most writers will receive dozens of simple rejections before ever getting the equivalent of a juicy “thick letter” indicating that they may be able to publish in a particular journal.

What to Expect from the Peer Review

It is essential that those seeking to publish in a peer review journal be aware of the process facing them. When you submit an article to an academic or scientific journal, the piece will first be reviewed by an editor. This single editor is tasked with determining if your piece of academic writing is appropriate for publication in the journal where you have submitted it. If your paper doesn’t make it through this initial screening process, you will receive a rejection letter. Rejection letters may be very straightforward and offer no substantive information, may offer some editorial suggestions, may offer a line of encouragement, or be brutal and make you question your desire to ever write again. If, and only if, the initial editor believes that your piece of academic writing is appropriate for their journal, your paper will be sent out to a minimum of two additional readers. I bother to tell you this, because you should be aware that when perfecting a paper for academic writing you are not going to be seeing edits from a single person, unless your piece has been rejected.

If your piece has been rejected and the editor has been kind enough to provide you with information on how to improve your work, first, be very grateful. It is rare that rejections are accompanied with much in the way of valuable critique. This is simply because editors face a huge wall of submissions. So, if an editor took time to offer suggestions on a rejection, it tells you that the editor saw value in your work. Otherwise, you would simply find yourself with a form letter indicating that your piece doesn’t meet the needs of the journal.

Edits offered by the journal’s editor will probably be brief but could still mean a good deal of work for you as the writer. You can be told that you need to provide more support to a section of your work, or that you need to rewrite the literature review with a broader focus. You could be told that the piece isn’t supported strongly enough by research and additional support suggested. This can mean adding a new research study. All of this means that you are going back to rework this piece in a significant way.

If you thought that a “fat letter” from a publication would mean that you don’t have a great deal of work ahead of you, you are about to be disillusioned. When you are beginning the process of becoming a published academic, you are most likely not going to write that perfect academic paper that can be published in a journal with no significant alterations. So, first, I would suggest that you read the letter with a sense of gratitude that you have made it through an intentionally rigorous process and are about to take the next step in a profound learning process.

How to Approach the Reviewers’ Comments

Allow yourself time to feel everything that you are going to feel when someone critiques, however nicely, something you have spent months, if not years, producing. As you are likely receiving this critique via the internet, you don’t have the traditional buffer of having to sit down to compose a letter in response. One of the downsides of the electronic age, is that we can now respond in real time to everything. It will be best if you resist the temptation to respond to the editor without taking time to think and strategize your response. If you have been given the opportunity to rework your piece for publication, you have made a huge step. You need to realize this opportunity for what it is and not react without clearly thinking about what you are being asked to do and the implications this opportunity has for your future.

Once you have made the initial read and suffered the disillusionment that you have indeed not written the best piece of academic literature to ever be submitted for publication, allow yourself time to process your disappointment. Put the piece away until you can look at it again with the mindset that you are ready to do whatever is necessary to make this piece work for this publisher or to improve it for another publisher. I would never suggest that you launch into making changes the moment you have finished the first reading of the edits. Although this is clearly your choice to make, I find that there is a tendency to be overly tight right after reading criticism for the first time. Writing without processing and dealing with your feelings of disappointment may flavor your writing in an unintentional way. It is generally better to begin your rewrite when you are not emotionally charged.

Make sure that you have fully read and understood the criticisms of your piece. Keep in mind that you are reading comments from multiple sources, so the comments may not feel fully logical. You may have one reviewer that wishes you to focus on a further development of your analysis section and another that is concerned that you include further support in your literature review. Although these comments aren’t contradictory, they may have you feeling pulled in separated directions.

It is also important for a writer to understand the process he or she is entering when making the decision to revise and resubmit a piece for a given journal. This process can be a long and arduous one. Just because the author rewrites the piece in question it doesn’t mean that the new and improved piece will be accepted for publication either. However, to give yourself the best chance possible, you need to be thorough and consistent.

How to Respond to the Comments

First, make sure you understand what the reviewer is asking you to do. If there is a question in your mind, contact the editor for clarification. The last thing you want to do is guess at a major revision of your work. Second, be methodical so that you clearly incorporate all the edits requested. It is a good idea to go through your piece and highlight each area to be altered. Failure to attend to all editing requests will result in a second round of editing in the very least and most likely in an ultimate rejection. Finally, make sure that you have returned the article to the editor no later than the established deadline.

You may choose to attack the edits in any way you wish such that they are all attended to. However, whatever method you choose, make sure you have attended to all suggested changes no matter how minor.

When you resubmit your edited piece, you will want to include a cover letter where you plainly document how you dealt with each of the criticisms and editing suggestions you were given. If you choose to ignore any of the suggestions you received from the editor and reviewers, be sure that you provide a clear explanation as to why you made this decision. You will want to make sure that your cover letter addresses each change that you were asked to make to your original paper whether you chose to incorporate the change or not. Your cover letter is an opportunity to build a positive working relationship with the journal. By providing thoughtful response to criticism in a professional way, you are showing your editorial team that you are someone they can work with. Resist being defensive or taking a superior tone in your letter.

Providing a clear map to the changes you made, makes it easier for the editor to see how much work you have put into your revision and to see you as an author who is willing to be a team player. When discussing each critique that required a change in your piece you will want to make sure that you present the following information. You will want to provide a summary of the critique, provide information about how you responded to the comment with information on where the change occurs, and how your change resolves the concern voiced in the initial critique. Again, make sure that you discuss each critique that requested a change in your piece, even if you chose not to make the change. If you chose not to make a requested change, be clear about the reason why. Make sure that you have chosen your battles with the journal’s editorial staff for justifiable reasons.