Revise and Resubmit: A Step-by-Step Playbook
Table of contents
A revise and resubmit (R&R) is a journal decision that invites you to address the reviewers' comments and submit a new version of your manuscript for further evaluation. It is not a rejection. In most fields it is the most common path to acceptance; papers are rarely accepted without at least one round of revision.
The difference between an R&R that ends in acceptance and one that stalls is usually not the quality of the science. It is project management. Authors who treat the decision letter as a work plan (with a triage system, a backward schedule, and a response letter that grows alongside the revision) resubmit on time and give the editor an easy yes. This post walks through that process, with particular attention to how editors actually re-evaluate a resubmitted paper.
What does revise and resubmit mean?
Journals do not share a single decision taxonomy, so the same words can mean different things at different journals. Some use four categories: accept, minor revision, major revision, reject. Others add a separate "reject and resubmit" tier, and some use "revise and resubmit" as an umbrella label for any decision that keeps the door open. Always read the body of the letter, not just the label.
That said, R&R usually sits in a predictable place on the spectrum:
- Minor revision. Small, well-defined changes. The editor may verify them without sending the paper back to reviewers.
- Major revision / revise and resubmit. Substantive changes and, usually, a second round of review. Your manuscript keeps its ID and its place in the journal's workflow.
- Reject and resubmit. The current version is rejected. A substantially reworked version may be submitted as a new manuscript, with no guarantee of the same editor or reviewers, and often a reset clock.
If the letter is ambiguous, check the mechanics: a deadline and the same manuscript ID mean you are on a revision track; an instruction to "submit as a new manuscript" means reject-and-resubmit. For how editors decide between the revision tiers, see our guide to major vs minor revision.
How editors re-evaluate an R&R paper
Here is the part authors underestimate. When your revision comes back, the handling editor rarely re-reads your manuscript from scratch. Most open your response letter first and use it as an index: what was asked, what you changed, and where to find it. Then they spot-check the manuscript at the locations you cite. Reviewers, if the paper goes back to them, typically work the same way: response letter first, manuscript second.
Three practical consequences follow:
- The response letter carries the resubmission. It is not an accessory to the revised manuscript; for the editor, it is the primary document.
- Every claim of change must be checkable in seconds. Cite page and line numbers, or quote the revised sentence directly in the response.
- One evasive answer poisons the rest. If a reviewer catches you claiming a change you did not really make, they stop trusting your other responses and start re-reading skeptically.
We cover the mechanics of point-by-point responses in detail in how to respond to reviewer comments.
The R&R playbook: four steps
Step 1: Read the decision letter twice, 24 hours apart
The first read is emotional, for almost everyone. Do not annotate, do not assign tasks, and do not email anyone, least of all the editor. Come back the next day for the diagnostic read. This time, separate the editor's own instructions from the reviewer comments (the editor's carry the most weight), split each reviewer's text into individual actionable comments, and number them: R1.1, R1.2, R2.1, and so on. Long paragraphs often contain three separate requests.
Step 2: Build the triage matrix
Sort every numbered comment into one of three categories: must-do, should-do, or push back with evidence. The next section shows the matrix in full. Do this with your co-authors before anyone starts revising; disagreements about what is "optional" are cheaper to settle now.
Step 3: Plan the work backward from the deadline
The deadline is in the letter. Schedule the tasks that depend on other people first: new experiments, reanalysis, a statistician's input, co-author reviews, language editing. Reserve the final week for assembling the package, not for making changes. If the timeline is genuinely infeasible (say, a requested experiment needs three months of data collection), ask for an extension early. Editors commonly grant reasonable extensions when asked well before the deadline, and rarely look kindly on requests made after it.
Step 4: Draft responses as you revise, not after
The moment you make a change, write its response entry: the comment, what you changed, and where. If you leave the letter until the end, you will re-derive decisions you made weeks earlier, and the entries will come out vague, exactly what makes editors re-read skeptically. A live response document also keeps co-authors aligned on what has been done and what is still open.
The triage matrix: must-do, should-do, push back
The examples below are composites based on common feedback patterns, not quotes from real reviews.
| Category | Rule of thumb | Composite examples |
|---|---|---|
| Must-do | The editor flagged it, or it touches the validity of a core claim | Add the missing control analysis that is feasible with existing data; correct for multiple comparisons; temper a conclusion the data do not support |
| Should-do | Clearly improves the paper at moderate cost | Restructure the introduction so the contribution appears earlier; add recent related work; redraw a cluttered figure; clarify inclusion criteria |
| Push back with evidence | Beyond the paper's scope, contradicts the study design, or would not change the conclusions | A demand for a second cohort or new species; a reframing toward the reviewer's preferred theory; an added experiment that duplicates evidence already in the paper |
Two rules govern the third row. First, you must still respond to every comment; silence reads as evasion. Second, a pushback needs reasons and evidence, not just preference: cite your data, your design logic, or the literature, and concede any part of the point that is fair. Editors accept well-argued declines routinely; our guide to the rebuttal letter for a journal shows how to phrase them.
Before you resubmit, running the revised draft through Thesify Reviewer shows you what a fresh reviewer would flag, including weaknesses introduced during the revision itself.
What if reviewers contradict each other?
Contradictions are routine: Reviewer 1 wants the methods shortened, Reviewer 2 wants more detail. You have three moves, in order of preference:
- Satisfy the underlying concern of both. Often the contradiction is superficial; move the detail to a supplement, and both reviewers get what they actually wanted: a readable main text and a complete record.
- Choose one and justify it to both. In the response letter, address each reviewer, acknowledge the other's request, and explain the choice.
- Email the editor for a steer. Do this when the contradiction is structural (one reviewer wants the paper reframed and the other explicitly opposes it) so that following both would mean rebuilding the paper twice.
Keep the email to the editor short: reference the manuscript ID, quote the two comment numbers, state your proposed plan in two or three sentences, and ask one specific question. Editors can answer "we propose to follow R1 on framing; do you agree?" in minutes. They cannot answer "what should we do?" A focused question now is far cheaper than a failed resubmission later.
The resubmission package
Editors expect a complete, self-checking package. The standard contents:
- Revised manuscript, twice. A tracked-changes (or highlighted) version and a clean version. Check the journal's instructions; conventions differ.
- Point-by-point response letter. Every comment quoted verbatim and numbered, followed by your response and the location of the change.
- Updated cover note. Brief: thank the editor and reviewers, summarize the two or three biggest changes in a few sentences, and flag anything the editor needs to know: an agreed extension, a change to the author list, or a one-line note on any request you declined and why.
- Journal forms. Updated declarations, data availability statements, or checklists, if required.
As a final check, a structured pass with an AI peer review tool can confirm that the revised manuscript actually answers what the reviewers asked, rather than what you remember them asking.
How long does a revise and resubmit take?
It varies widely by field and journal, so treat any specific number with suspicion. Journal deadlines for revisions commonly range from a few weeks for minor revisions to several months for major ones; some humanities and social science journals allow longer, and conference cycles compress the whole process into days or weeks. Your own working time depends mostly on whether new data or analyses are needed.
After you resubmit, re-review adds further time. It is often faster than the first round, because the reviewers already know the paper, but that is a tendency, not a promise. If timing matters for a defense, a job market, or a funding report, ask the editorial office what their typical revision-to-decision interval looks like. Most will tell you.
FAQ
Is revise and resubmit good news?
Yes. It means the editor considers the paper potentially publishable and has invested reviewer time in improving it. In most fields, very few papers are accepted without at least one revision round, so an R&R is the normal route to acceptance, not a detour from it.
How long do I get for an R&R?
The deadline is stated in the decision letter and varies by journal and revision tier: commonly a few weeks for minor revisions and up to several months for major ones. If the requested work cannot fit the window, ask for an extension before the deadline. Editors usually grant reasonable requests.
Do I have to make every change the reviewers ask for?
No. You must respond to every comment, but you may decline specific requests if you give an evidence-based rationale. Editors arbitrate disagreements, and papers are regularly accepted with some requests politely declined, provided the reasoning is sound and the tone stays professional.
What happens after I resubmit: same reviewers?
Usually the editor invites the original reviewers, and sometimes only the most critical one. For minor revisions, the editor may check the changes alone. Occasionally a new reviewer is added, which can introduce new comments. Policies differ by journal, so write the response letter to persuade a careful skeptic either way.
Before you submit, see your paper the way reviewers will. Thesify Reviewer runs a pre-submission review of your manuscript. It flags the issues peer reviewers are most likely to raise, from unclear contributions to methodological gaps, before a journal ever sees it. Try Thesify Reviewer