Responding to editorial feedback.

If you have submitted an article, after a long wait you will finally hear from the editor.

You will be sent the reactions of referees. Your writing may be accepted as it is. Some improvements may be asked for, or many improvements. Finally, it may be flatly rejected. If it has been rejected outright, remember that the editorial process is meant to be a learning experience for you. Whatever editorial feedback there is may contain valid ideas about your work. You might not otherwise think of such ideas, since you probably are no longer objective about a project that has taken so much of your time.

Be nice.

Whatever you decide to do after getting an editorial reply, remember that in all cases, it is very important to be nice to whoever took the trouble to consider your work. If your work is accepted and praised as the best thing since Einstein, it is easy to be courteous. When further work is demanded in the form of revisions or rethinking, some researchers feel impatient. Express this impatience to your friends, fellow students, family, and ajarns, but do not transmit this emotion to any editor. An editor’s job is to publish the best work possible, and the point of accepting an article and asking for changes is not just to annoy its author, but to improve things. And everything, no matter how good, can be further improved. Even if you receive a flat rejection, some aspect of the feedback may offer a useful clue about your approach either to this article or your future work. It may help you to avoid repeating errors for the rest of your academic career. So pay attention and see what can be taken from an editor’s words.

You cannot argue with an outright rejection.

If an editor rejects your article without any suggestion that it could be accepted if rewritten, try to find some construction comments in the rejection. See how you can improve your work before sending it elsewhere. Never waste time trying to persuade the editor who rejected you, arguing that you are a wonderful and brilliant person, and your friends and family adore you. No editor will be swayed by this kind of appeal, especially if it is written in anger and outrage. It is like trying to persuade your relatives who hate durian fruit that they really love durian fruit; you are wasting your time. Work instead to make your work better, and send it elsewhere.

Try to accept almost all editorial suggestions.

When an editor informs you that changes must be made for an article to be publishable, take that as a serious and literal comment. Make sure you understand the suggested changes and why they should be made. If you are sure that an editorial suggestion is wrong and will not improve the article, then you must back up your view with facts. It is a waste of time and effort to ignore all comments and just submit your article in unchanged form to another journal, in the hopes that some other editor and referees will accept it as it is. The flaws that some readers found in your work may be seen by others. It is always best to try at least to please an editor who has expressed interest in publishing your research after it is improved. Worst of all, if you overlook all the referees’ comments, the next journal you send the article to may send it to one or another of the same referees, who will immediately see that you did not accept their advice before. They will not like your work any better after making this discovery.

Pretend you did not write the article.

If you have trouble being objective and not getting upset when your work is criticized, then pretend it was written by a friend of yours who is away and cannot defend his or her own work. You are responsible for promoting this lovely person’s work, but you do not want to create any enemies doing so. This approach may keep you far enough away emotionally to be able to remain cool while your efforts are criticized or even rejected.

Take careful note of your revisions.

If you are asked to revise an article, then be sure to include a letter in which you go point-by-point over the referees’ suggestions and explain how you revised accordingly, or in the rare case, why you did not revise. Your language should be extremely polite, and you should always “respectfully suggest” rather than just suggest. Say “thanks” a lot, especially for all the thoughts about how to improve your work. Let the referees know that you think their ideas are good, valid, and interesting. Especially if you feel you must reject an idea, first say something positive such as “We agree that this is a very important point.” Try to keep a positive angle on everything you write, to show that you feel the whole revision process is useful and rewarding. By submitting an English-language article, you have entered the international scholarly community. You have become partly responsible for the tone and manners of that community. Some ajarns are fiery-tempered and have bitter antagonisms, but it is always better to be thought of as a polite person, especially at the start of your scholarly career. Remember that while it was a lot of work writing your article, it was also work to read and respond to it.

Try to be prompt.

While it may be painful to start making changes right away to your beloved article, remember that an editor has many articles and authors to deal with and unless you reply quickly, you may be partially forgotten. The sooner you provide a corrected version of your article, the sooner editorial space can be found for it, so that it can appear in print. Usually if you respond carefully to each editorial suggestion and accept the advice, then the waiting time will be much shorter than it was when you first sent your article in for consideration. Set aside a few days for yourself to work through the referees’ feedback.

What happens if your referees do not agree?

It is possible that when going through all the advice you have received point-by-point to prepare your detailed response to the editor, you find that referees offer contradictory advice. Thanking them politely for their excellent input and ideas, and showing how eager you are to incorporate all their useful suggestions, you may inform the editor that a contradiction exists. You can ask the editor to solve the problem, or offer your own solution, making it clear that it would be impossible to accept both suggestions.

What to do if a referee’s comments seem nasty or insulting.

Referees volunteer time without being paid to consult on your paper and others, taking time from their busy lives. On rare occasions their comments may seem too brusque, if you feel that this lack of politeness prevented the referees from understanding the quality of your paper, it may be worth pointing out to the editor. The best that can happen in that case is that different referees may be appointed to read your paper, although little or nothing may change in terms of your paper being published. Even referees who may not seem to care about your feelings can know a lot about their fields of speciality. They may not be nice, but they may be correct all the same.

What if the editor demands a shorter version of your article?

If your article turns out to be too long, try not to panic or despair. Editors may ask for a shorter version not because they hate you or your work or think it is unimportant, but because they have very limited space in their journal. It may be worth trying to figure out if an otherwise useful or pertinent section of your article may be left out without damaging your overall conclusions and original contributions. If so, then it may be worth shortening your article, even drastically, to follow an editor’s suggestion.

(all images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons).