Doing the Revisions

  • Michael Hanna


Many inexperienced researchers get discouraged and/or lazy when their paper is sent back with a long list of criticisms and an ambiguous cover letter from the Editor. Sometimes, they give up and simply submit the same (unchanged) manuscript to another journal. That is usually a bad decision, because an opportunity to improve and publish the paper (with the previous journal) is thereby lost and the new journal is unlikely to offer a more positive assessment. A paper is not “done” until some journal actually publishes it, and part of the work for every paper is making revisions after peer review. Virtually no manuscript ever gets accepted as is on the first submission [1–8]. So no matter how good your paper is, the reviewers will find at least a few details that should be improved. More likely, they will find a long list of substantial deficiencies in your manuscript. But if you are lucky, they will be insightful, specific, and constructive about how the paper should be improved. Revision often requires a substantial amount of time and effort [3]; (especially when insufficient time and effort was invested before submission). But the process of review and revision should increase the quality.


  1. 1.
    MacDonald NE, Ford-Jones L, Friedman JN, Hall J. Preparing a manuscript for publication: A user-friendly guide. Paediatr Child Health. 2006; 11: 339-342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pierson DJ. The Top 10 Reasons Why Manuscripts Are Not Accepted for Publication. Respir Care. 2004; 49: 1246-1252.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Williams HC. How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004; 51: 79-83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morgan PP. The joys of revising a manuscript. CMAJ. 1986; 134: 1328.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeMaria A. Manuscript Revision. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57: 2540-2541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Langdorf MI, Hayden SR. Turning Your Abstract into a Paper: Academic Writing Made Simpler. West J Emerg Med. 2009; 10: 120-123.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cummings P, Rivara FP. Responding to Reviewers’ Comments on Submitted Articles. Arch Pediatr Adolec Med. 2002; 156: 105-107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kravitz RL, Franks P, Feldman MD, Gerrity M, Byrne C, Tierney WM. Editorial Peer Reviewers’ Recommendations at a General Medical Journal: Are They Reliable and Do Editors Care? PLoS One. 2010; 5: e10072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauchner H. The Rush to Publication: An Editorial and Scientific Mistake. JAMA. 2017; 318: 1109-1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lock S. How editors survive. BMJ. 1976; 2 (6044): 1118-1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Making the most of peer review. Nat Neurosci. 2000; 3: 629.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Philadelphia: American College of Physicians; 1978, 2017. Accessed on 12 January 2018 at:
  13. 13.
    Council of Science Editors. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update, 3rd Revised Edition. Wheat Ridge, CO: Council of Scientific Editors; 2012.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    ALLEA – All European Academies. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, Revised Edition. Berlin: ALLEA; 2017. Accessed on 5 November 2017 at:
  15. 15.
    Graf C, Deakin L, Docking M, Jones J, Joshua S, McKerahan T, Ottmar M, Stevens A, Wates E, Wyatt D. Best practice guidelines on publishing ethics: a publisher’s perspective, 2nd edition. Int J Clin Pract. 2014; 68: 1410-1428.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Booth WC, Colomb GC, Williams JM. The Craft of Research, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1995, 2008.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Elefteriades JA. Twelve Tips on Writing a Good Scientific Paper. Inter J Angiol. 2002; 11: 53-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rockman HA. Waste not, want not. J Clin Invest. 2014; 124: 463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ploegh H. End the wasteful tyranny of reviewer experiments. Nature. 2011; 472: 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roberts WC. Revising Manuscripts After Studying Reviewers’ Comments. Am J Cardiol. 2006; 98: 989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berk RN. Preparation of Manuscripts for Radiology Journals: Advice to First-Time Authors. AJR. 1992; 158: 203-208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Woolley KL, Barron JP. Handling Manuscript Rejection: Insights From Evidence and Experience. Chest. 2009; 135: 573-577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bourne PE. Ten Simple Rules for Getting Published. PLoS Comput Biol. 2005; 1: e57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Hanna
    • 1
  1. 1.Mercury Medical Research & WritingNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations