Receiving the Journal Editor’s Decision Letter

This is the first in a new series of blogs on “Dealing with Reviewer’s Comments”. As an academic, you will have experienced, or be about to experience, the ups and downs of publication. A decision letter from a journal editor is a critical point in that process and knowing how to deal with that letter effectively to improve your manuscript is crucial for your publication skillset.

Over the years, I’ve come across a lot of reviewer’s comments. As an Editor, I’ve considered hundreds of reviewers’ assessments in the context of my own reading of a manuscript, consolidated comments across reviewers, and identified those comments that go to the heart of the manuscript’s contribution. As a Reviewer, I’ve written millions of these comments, ranging from fatal flaws to minor suggestions. And as an Author, I’ve read thousands and thousands of comments, some of which have made me smile, others which have made me cry, and others which have left me completely befuddled. So in this blog series, I’ll use these experiences to outline ideas for dealing with interpreting the reviewer’s comments, prioritising the comments, organising yourself and your co-authors’ response, and dealing with some of the most common issues. These blogs will give you the tools necessary for your publication toolkit.

But first, there’s the decision letter itself.

Receiving a decision letter is definitely an emotional experience. When I know that a decision is coming soon, I find myself constantly checking emails, even when I know (rationally) that I shouldn’t. Perhaps you’ve looked up your manuscript number on the journal’s submission portal, perhaps the estimated time for a review is coming up, perhaps your co-author has been notified. In these situations, you’re likely to be on edge - waiting and hoping with your fingers crossed.

Then the moment arrives and there is a decision letter in your email inbox. You might be excited and optimistic to open it - or you might feel anxious and sick. Both of these are normal reactions and you shouldn’t add to your concern by worrying that your reaction is over the top. If you’re feeling at all nervous then I’d recommend opening it in a safe situation. Trying to manage your emotions in the middle of a meeting or just before teaching will be tough, regardless of the decision.

Initial Reactions

Once you’ve opened the email, scan quickly through the decision letter but make sure you read the important sentences carefully. Rejections can be easy to spot - they are usually phrased with an apology, “I am sorry to tell you that we cannot accept your manuscript…”. Revise-and-resubmit (R&R) decisions, however, can be couched in ways that sound like a rejection at first - for example, “I am sorry to tell you that we cannot accept your manuscript in its current form” - but continue with the hope-giving words, “however we would encourage you to revise your work and resubmit your manuscript addressing the reviewers’ comments.” I’ve known many people who have scanned a letter too quickly, thinking that it’s a rejection, and have missed that it was actually an R&R decision. Unless you’ve already gone through one (or probably more) revisions, it’s unlikely to be an acceptance decision - unfortunately, publishing in our field is generally a very long process.

Now you know the overall decision, it’s generally a good idea to put it away for a while and let the emotions subside a little. If it’s an acceptance then it’s time to relax and celebrate! Well done for getting it through the process! If it’s an R&R then it’s time to recoup and celebrate! Well done for getting it this far and for persisting! If it’s a rejection then it’s time to take stock and celebrate! Well done for putting your work out there and for being resilient! A valued colleague of mine, who unfortunately passed away a few years ago, was well-known for saying “Celebrate every step”. It’s a really important lesson and one that we usually forget when we’re thinking about publications. But a rejection letter is just as much a reason for celebration as an R&R or acceptance letter is. It shows that you are engaging in the academic process, being a part of research dissemination, and continuing to believe in yourself. It takes a lot of resilience to keep making yourself vulnerable and open to rejections, so make sure you appreciate that and acknowledge the hard work you are doing.

Initial Assessment of the Comments

Now that the emotions have settled, you can read the letter and reviewers’ comments a bit more objectively. If the manuscript you submitted had already been reviewed by a friendly reviewer (and read here to see why that’s always a good idea), then the comments you receive from the journal reviewers will generally be high quality. You might disagree with them, you might not understand why they said what they said, or you might not be able to address them in your situation; but you should always accept that the reviewers have acted in good faith and that their comments are worthwhile. Reviewers are academics, just like you. If they comment on something that is already in the manuscript or that you think you have addressed, then you haven’t explained it well enough for a busy academic to understand. In this series of blogs, I’ll be going through some of the most common comments that you’re likely to come across and how you can deal with them.

Of course, just like you, reviewers can have bad days too. So while you should always read the reviewer’s comments and consider what you can do to improve your work, you should also take some comments with a grain of salt. Occasionally, reviewers will make personal comments. It doesn’t happen often, but if it does, then either contact the editor (particularly if the comments are harmful or prejudicial) or try to ignore them. Also occasionally, reviewers will ask you to include citations of particular journal articles that do not seem related to the topic; instead, they will tend to either be published in the journal or will feature one author repeatedly. In the case of the former they may be wanting to lift the impact rating of the journal, in the case of the latter they may be wanting to lift their own, or a colleague’s citation rates. In both cases, this is an unethical practice and you can ignore these comments. Most often, a reviewer’s bad day will simply mean that they didn’t read through your work as thoroughly as you would like, resulting in comments that aren’t as useful as you would like. But this is something you can deal with, take heart!

What Next?

In this series, we will cover a range of issues. We’ll talk about whether you should revise your work following a rejection or just send it straight back out again. We’ll talk about how to prioritise the comments and how to organise your revision process. We’ll talk about what reviewers are looking for in an R&R response. And we’ll go through the big issues, the common comments that you’re likely to come across, such as “what is your theoretical framework?”, “your conceptualization and operationalization are not aligned”, “the quotes don’t match the interpretation”, and other concerns that I’ve seen time and time again. I hope that by the end of this series you’ll have a clearer idea of what reviewers are looking for and be in a much better position to address them.