Expert Advice on Resubmitting Your Revised Article to a Journal Editor

Advice on Resubmitting Your Revised Article to the Journal Editor

Receiving a request to revise and resubmit an academic or scientific article is usually encouraging. It means that the journal has not rejected your manuscript outright and that the editor believes the paper may become suitable for publication if specific concerns are addressed successfully. Yet revision is not complete when you have altered the manuscript itself. You must also prepare a clear, professional and persuasive resubmission package that shows the editor and reviewers exactly what you have done.

This stage deserves considerable care. Editors may be managing dozens or even hundreds of manuscripts at different stages of review, and reviewers may return to a revised paper weeks or months after first reading it. You cannot assume that anyone remembers every detail of your original submission, your earlier correspondence or the revisions you said you intended to make. Your response letter therefore serves as a map through the revised manuscript. It should allow an editor or reviewer to understand each concern, see your response and locate the resulting change quickly.

A well-prepared resubmission also demonstrates something broader: that you are a professional author who can engage constructively with criticism, distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions and communicate clearly when scholarly disagreement remains. These qualities matter greatly in peer review.

1) Understand the purpose of the resubmission letter

Your resubmission letter is not simply a note saying that the manuscript has been revised. Its main purpose is to document the revision process in a way that helps the editor determine whether the concerns raised during review have been addressed adequately.

The letter should normally explain:

• that you are resubmitting the revised manuscript,
• the manuscript title and identification number,
• that you have considered all editorial and reviewer comments carefully,
• what major changes you made,
• where those changes appear in the revised paper,
• and why any requested changes were not implemented.

If the journal requests a separate point-by-point response document, provide one. In many cases, the response to reviewers is far longer than the brief covering message accompanying the upload. Follow the journal's system rather than assuming one format is suitable everywhere.

2) Do not assume the editor remembers your manuscript in detail

Authors naturally remember every stage of their own submission because the article may represent years of work. Editors do not have that luxury. Many papers, correspondence threads, reviewer reports and production issues cross an editor's desk every week.

For this reason, start your resubmission correspondence with enough identifying information to place the paper immediately. Include:

• the manuscript title,
• the manuscript ID or reference number,
• the date or decision category of the previous editorial letter if helpful,
• and a concise statement that you are submitting a revised version.

A sentence such as “Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript, ‘[Title]’ (Manuscript ID [number]), in response to the comments provided in your decision letter of [date]” gives the editor immediate context.

This is also why your explanations should be self-contained. Avoid statements such as “We made the changes discussed previously” without specifying what those changes actually were.

3) Re-read the original decision letter before writing your response

Before drafting your resubmission letter, return to the editor's original decision and the reviewer reports. Read them again from beginning to end. Then compare them with the revised manuscript.

Create a checklist containing every substantive issue. It can be useful to divide comments into categories such as:

• editorial requirements,
• Reviewer 1 major comments,
• Reviewer 1 minor comments,
• Reviewer 2 major comments,
• Reviewer 2 minor comments,
• language and formatting requests,
• and technical or administrative requirements.

Mark each item only when you are certain that it has been addressed in both the manuscript and the response letter. This simple procedure reduces the risk of overlooking a comment and submitting an incomplete revision.

4) Respond to every comment individually

One of the most important principles of a successful resubmission is that every comment should receive a response. Even when a suggestion seems minor, unnecessary or based on misunderstanding, do not simply ignore it.

A numbered point-by-point format is usually the clearest approach. For example:

1. Quote or summarise the editor's or reviewer's comment.
2. State whether you agree, partly agree or respectfully disagree.
3. Explain what you changed.
4. Identify where the revision appears.

If no change was made, explain why. Silence is risky because the reviewer may reasonably assume that you overlooked the comment or refused to engage with it.

Keep the responses concise enough to remain readable, but detailed enough to demonstrate that you understood the concern and addressed it seriously.

5) Describe changes precisely rather than vaguely

Statements such as “This has been corrected” or “The manuscript has been revised accordingly” are often too vague. They force the editor or reviewer to search through the paper to discover what you did.

A stronger response might say:

“We agree that the rationale for selecting the control group was insufficiently explained. We have therefore added a paragraph describing the selection criteria and their relationship to the study design in the Methods section, page 7, lines 182–204.”

This tells the reviewer four things immediately: you understood the issue, you agreed with it, you made a substantive change and you have identified exactly where the change can be found.

Where page and line numbers are likely to shift when files are uploaded or converted, follow the journal's preferred system. Some journals ask authors to provide section headings instead.

6) Explain how major criticism strengthened the paper

When revisions have substantially improved the manuscript, say so. This is particularly useful when reviewers requested changes to the study's framing, methodology explanation, analysis or interpretation.

You might explain that:

• the introduction has been reorganised to state the research gap more clearly,
• additional methodological detail has been added to improve reproducibility,
• a statistical analysis has been repeated using a more suitable test,
• the discussion has been rewritten to avoid overstatement,
• or new references have been included to address an omitted body of scholarship.

The purpose is not to praise your own revision excessively. It is to show the editor that the peer-review process produced meaningful improvements and that you engaged with it constructively.

7) Highlight changes you originally thought would be impossible

Sometimes the first reaction to a reviewer request is that it cannot be done. Perhaps additional analysis appears impossible, a requested comparison seems outside the available data or an editorial suggestion seems incompatible with the structure of the article. During revision, however, you may discover a workable solution.

If this happens, highlight it in your resubmission response. It demonstrates flexibility and serious engagement with the review process.

For example:

“In our initial response, we indicated that a subgroup analysis might not be possible because of the limited sample size. After reconsidering the dataset and consulting our statistician, however, we were able to conduct an exploratory analysis with appropriate caveats. The new results are presented in Table 4 and discussed on pages 14–15.”

This kind of explanation is particularly useful if your earlier correspondence led the editor to expect that the requested change would not be possible.

8) Be especially careful when a promised revision could not be completed

The reverse situation requires even greater care. You may have told the editor that you intended to make a particular revision and then discovered that it was impossible, inappropriate or likely to weaken the paper.

Do not hide the discrepancy. The editor can compare your current response with your earlier correspondence and may be concerned if a promised change has disappeared without explanation.

Instead, explain:

• what you originally intended to do,
• what problem arose during revision,
• why the change could not responsibly be made,
• and what alternative action you took, if any.

For instance, you may have planned to add a new analysis but discovered that the available data did not satisfy the statistical assumptions required. In that case, conducting the analysis merely to satisfy the reviewer would be poor research practice. Explain the limitation clearly and, where appropriate, add it to the manuscript's limitations section.

9) Disagree respectfully when necessary

Authors are not required to implement every reviewer suggestion. Reviewers can misunderstand a study, recommend changes outside its scope or favour a theoretical approach that is not appropriate to the author's research question.

When you disagree, do so professionally. Avoid responses such as “The reviewer is wrong” or “We refuse to make this change.” Instead, acknowledge the suggestion, explain your reasoning and provide evidence.

A constructive response might read:

“We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to replace the current analytical framework with X. After careful consideration, we have retained Y because the research question concerns longitudinal change rather than cross-sectional association. We have, however, added two sentences on page 5 clarifying this methodological choice and citing recent comparative work.”

This approach demonstrates that you did not dismiss the comment casually. You considered it and made an informed scholarly decision.

10) Distinguish between major and minor revisions

Not all comments deserve equal space in your response. Major revisions affecting research design, analysis, interpretation or conclusions should be explained in greater detail. Minor changes involving spelling, references, labels or isolated wording can usually be addressed more briefly.

For example:

“Corrected as suggested. The terminology is now consistent throughout the manuscript.”

This is entirely adequate for a straightforward minor correction.

By varying the level of detail according to the significance of each issue, you make your response easier to read while still demonstrating complete attention to the review.

11) Make your response easy to navigate

A long revision response can run to several pages. Organisation therefore matters enormously. Use clear headings such as:

• Response to the Editor
• Response to Reviewer 1
• Response to Reviewer 2
• Additional Revisions

Number each comment and response consistently. If the journal permits formatting distinctions, you might use italics for reviewer comments and regular text for author responses. Avoid excessive colours or decorative formatting unless the journal specifically recommends them.

The easier your response is to navigate, the easier it becomes for reviewers to verify your work and recommend acceptance.

12) Be transparent about additional changes you made independently

During revision, you may discover problems that neither the editor nor reviewers mentioned. Perhaps a paragraph is repetitive, a table contains a labelling inconsistency or a reference has become outdated. Correcting these issues is sensible.

If the changes are substantial, mention them in a short section labelled “Additional Revisions” or similar. You do not need to document every corrected comma, but significant independent changes should not surprise the editor.

Examples might include:

• updating several references published since the original submission,
• correcting a numerical inconsistency in a supplementary table,
• reorganising a paragraph for clarity,
• or standardising terminology throughout the manuscript.

Transparency reassures the editor that the revision was controlled and deliberate.

13) Check whether the journal wants tracked changes or a clean manuscript

Journals differ in how they want revised files submitted. Some require a version with tracked changes or highlighted revisions plus a clean version. Others ask only for a clean manuscript and rely on the response document to identify changes.

Before resubmitting, check the journal's instructions and the decision letter carefully. Required files may include:

• a clean revised manuscript,
• a marked or tracked-changes manuscript,
• a response-to-reviewers document,
• revised figures,
• supplementary files,
• updated declarations,
• and a new cover letter.

Incorrect or missing files can delay processing even when the academic revisions themselves are excellent.

14) Review every revised table, figure and cross-reference

Revisions often have consequences elsewhere in the manuscript. Adding a table can change numbering. Removing a figure can leave a stale cross-reference in the text. New analyses may require changes to the abstract or conclusion.

Before resubmission, verify:

• all table and figure numbers,
• captions and legends,
• references to tables and figures in the text,
• appendix numbering,
• equation numbering where relevant,
• and cross-references between sections.

These checks are particularly important after substantial restructuring.

15) Update the abstract, title and keywords when necessary

Authors sometimes revise the body of a paper significantly but forget that the title and abstract still describe the earlier version. If the revised article now contains new analyses, a narrower claim or a modified conclusion, the abstract must reflect those changes accurately.

Likewise, the title may need adjustment if the editor requested a change in emphasis. Keywords should remain aligned with the manuscript's final focus.

The abstract is often the first part of the revised manuscript that the editor rereads, so inconsistencies can create immediate uncertainty about whether the paper has truly been revised.

16) Recheck the reference list after revision

Peer-review revisions frequently add new citations. Others may be removed when sections are rewritten. This creates opportunities for mismatches between in-text citations and the reference list.

Confirm that:

• every in-text citation has a matching reference entry,
• every reference-list entry is cited in the text,
• new references follow journal style,
• author names and publication years are accurate,
• and DOI or URL information is correct where required.

A revised article should look more polished than the original submission, not less.

17) Maintain a courteous tone even after difficult review comments

Some reviewer reports are frustrating. Comments may be terse, repetitive, contradictory or, occasionally, unnecessarily harsh. Your response should nevertheless remain calm and professional.

Avoid sarcasm, irritation or emotional language. You are writing not only to the reviewer but also to the editor, who will judge how effectively you engage with scholarly criticism.

Useful phrases include:

• “We thank the reviewer for raising this point.”
• “We agree that the previous wording was unclear.”
• “We appreciate this suggestion and have revised the section accordingly.”
• “After careful consideration, we have retained the original approach for the following reasons…”

Professional courtesy does not require agreement. It requires communicating disagreement in a way that keeps the discussion focused on evidence and scholarship.

18) Avoid excessive flattery

Thanking editors and reviewers is appropriate, but repeated praise can sound formulaic or insincere. You do not need to call every suggestion “excellent,” “insightful” or “extremely valuable.”

A balanced opening such as “We thank the editor and reviewers for their careful and constructive comments, which helped us improve the manuscript” is usually sufficient.

Thereafter, focus on substance. Editors are primarily interested in whether you made the necessary changes and whether your reasoning is convincing.

19) Resubmit well before the deadline whenever possible

Revision deadlines matter. Journals often specify a period of several weeks or months, depending on whether the decision involves minor or major revision. Missing the deadline can lead to administrative closure of the submission or require you to request an extension.

Plan backwards from the due date. Allow time for:

• co-author review,
• additional analysis,
• rewriting,
• reference checking,
• proofreading,
• and final file preparation.

Avoid leaving upload and technical checks until the final hour. Submission systems occasionally produce unexpected problems, especially when large figures or supplementary files are involved.

20) Ask for an extension early if genuinely necessary

If you cannot meet the deadline because additional experiments, analyses or co-author consultations are required, contact the editor before the deadline expires. Briefly explain the reason and request a realistic extension.

Editors are often willing to accommodate reasonable requests, particularly when the extra time will result in a stronger revision. What matters is communication. Silence followed by a late submission is much less professional than an early request.

21) Proofread the revised article again

A manuscript that was carefully proofread before first submission can contain many new errors after revision. Moving paragraphs, adding references, rewriting sentences and inserting new results frequently introduces inconsistencies.

Your final review should check:

• grammar, spelling and punctuation,
• sentence clarity,
• terminology,
• tense consistency,
• abbreviations,
• references,
• tables and figures,
• and journal formatting.

Pay special attention to newly written passages. These sections have not benefited from the same number of earlier revision rounds as the original manuscript.

22) Mention professional proofreading when relevant

If an editor or reviewer specifically criticised the quality of the English and you subsequently used a professional academic proofreading or editing service, it can be useful to mention this in your response.

For example:

“In addition to the substantive revisions described below, the manuscript has undergone professional academic proofreading to improve grammatical accuracy, clarity and consistency.”

If you have obtained a proofreading certificate and the journal requests or welcomes such documentation, include it with the resubmission. A certificate does not guarantee acceptance, but it can reassure the editor that concerns about language quality have been addressed seriously.

23) Make clear that you are willing to undertake further revisions

Even after a substantial revision, another round of changes may be necessary. Avoid writing as though your work is now beyond further discussion.

A professional closing might state:

“We hope that the revisions satisfactorily address the concerns raised, and we would be pleased to make any further changes the editor considers necessary.”

This communicates confidence without implying entitlement to acceptance.

24) Prepare a concise cover message for the resubmission system

If the journal provides a separate response-to-reviewers file, the accompanying cover message can remain brief. It should normally include:

• a statement that the revised manuscript is being resubmitted,
• thanks for the opportunity to revise,
• a short summary of major changes,
• confirmation that a detailed point-by-point response is attached,
• and a courteous closing.

Do not duplicate several pages of reviewer responses in the cover note unless the journal specifically asks for them there.

25) A practical structure for your response letter

A clear response document might follow this structure:

1. Opening paragraph: identify the manuscript and thank the editor and reviewers.
2. Summary of major revisions: briefly list the most important changes.
3. Response to editor: address any editorial comments separately.
4. Response to Reviewer 1: reproduce or summarise each comment and answer it individually.
5. Response to Reviewer 2: follow the same structure.
6. Additional revisions: note any substantial changes made independently.
7. Closing: express hope that the revised manuscript is now suitable and willingness to make further revisions.

This arrangement is familiar to editors and reviewers and makes comparison with the revised paper straightforward.

26) Keep a complete record of the revision process

Save copies of:

• the original manuscript,
• the editor's decision letter,
• reviewer reports,
• the revised manuscript,
• the response letter,
• and all subsequent correspondence.

Clear version control is particularly important for multi-author papers. Use descriptive filenames rather than relying on files called “final,” “final2” and “really-final.”

If the journal requests another revision, these records will help you reconstruct exactly what was changed at each stage.

27) Remember that revision is part of scholarly collaboration

It is easy to view peer-review comments as obstacles standing between you and publication. A more productive perspective is to see the process as a structured scholarly conversation. Reviewers may identify ambiguities because future readers would encounter the same problem. An editor may request a shorter discussion because the central contribution is being obscured. A methodological question may expose an assumption you had not explained sufficiently.

You are not obliged to accept every suggestion, but engaging seriously with each one usually improves both the article and your skills as a researcher and writer.

Conclusion

Resubmitting a revised article to a journal editor is a crucial stage in the publication process. A successful revision must do more than alter the manuscript: it must demonstrate clearly how the editorial and reviewer concerns have been addressed and why any remaining differences are justified.

Do not assume that the editor remembers your paper or earlier correspondence in detail. Identify the manuscript clearly, respond to every comment, explain substantial changes precisely and provide page, line or section references wherever useful. If you were able to make changes you originally considered impossible, highlight that progress. If a revision you previously promised could not responsibly be completed, explain why with particular care and transparency.

Throughout your correspondence, remain professional, concise and courteous. Scholarly disagreement is entirely acceptable when supported by evidence and reasoned explanation. Ignoring comments, hiding incomplete revisions or responding defensively is far more likely to damage your chances than a respectful decision not to follow a particular suggestion.

Finally, check the complete resubmission package carefully. Ensure that revised tables, figures, references, abstracts and supplementary files are accurate; submit within the deadline; and proofread newly revised language before uploading the final files. A clear response letter and polished manuscript make the editor's work easier and demonstrate that you have treated the peer-review process seriously.

A request for revision is not a guarantee of publication, but it is an important opportunity. By responding systematically and presenting your revised article professionally, you give the manuscript the strongest possible chance of progressing from revision to final acceptance.

Why Our Editing and Proofreading Services?

At Proof-Reading-Service.com we offer the highest quality journal article editing, dissertation proofreading and online proofreading services via our large and extremely dedicated team of academic and scientific professionals. All of our proofreaders are native speakers of English who have earned their own postgraduate degrees, and their areas of specialisation cover such a wide range of disciplines that we are able to help our international clientele improve and perfect academic manuscripts for successful publication.

Many of the carefully trained members of our manuscript editing and proofreading team work predominantly on articles intended for publication in scholarly journals, applying painstaking journal editing standards to help ensure that references and formatting conform to journal instructions for authors and to correct grammar, spelling, punctuation and typing errors. This enables our clients to present their research in the clear and accurate manner expected by journal editors and peer reviewers.

Our scientific editing services for authors of scientific journal papers are especially popular, but we also provide manuscript proofreading and editing across scholarly disciplines. We have team members who specialise in medical editing, while some of our experts dedicate their time to dissertation proofreading, PhD thesis editing and journal article proofreading. Whether you are revising an article after peer review, preparing a conference paper, polishing a progress report or completing another scholarly manuscript, a qualified member of our professional team can provide valuable assistance and greater confidence in your written work.

If you are preparing an article for an academic or scientific journal, or planning one for the near future, you may also be interested in our Guide to Journal Publication, available through our Tips and Advice on Publishing Research in Journals website.