Summary
A conditional editorial decision is often better news than it first appears. When a journal editor identifies problems in a submitted paper and indicates that the manuscript may be reconsidered or accepted once those problems are resolved, the editor is signalling genuine interest in the work. The author's task is then to determine which requested changes are appropriate, how extensive the revision should be and how to communicate a clear plan back to the journal.
This article explains how to respond to letters from editors that fall between outright acceptance and rejection. It covers how to interpret conditional decisions, distinguish between minor and major revision requests, assess whether proposed changes are compatible with the research, and negotiate realistic revision deadlines. It also considers what to do when the editor lists problems but does not explicitly promise reconsideration.
A successful reply should be courteous, concise and specific. Authors should thank the editor, demonstrate that they understand the concerns raised, explain how each issue will be addressed and provide a realistic timescale for resubmission. Where a requested change is unsuitable or impossible, the author should explain the reason professionally and, where possible, propose an alternative solution.
Handled carefully, conditional reconsideration can become a productive negotiation rather than an obstacle. It allows authors to improve their manuscripts while demonstrating professionalism, critical judgement and willingness to work constructively with the journal. A clear response and a thoroughly revised paper can significantly increase the chances of moving from an uncertain decision to successful publication.
📖 Full Length Article (Click to collapse)
Responding to Letters from Editors – Negotiating Conditional Reconsideration or Acceptance
Introduction: When the Editorial Decision Is Neither Yes nor No
Some editorial decisions are easy to interpret. If a journal accepts your article without conditions, the next steps are usually procedural: complete any required forms, approve proofs and cooperate with production. If the manuscript is rejected outright with no invitation to resubmit, the practical response is usually to revise where appropriate and submit the work elsewhere.
The more difficult situation arises when the editor's letter lies somewhere between these two extremes. The manuscript may contain clear strengths but also problems that prevent immediate acceptance. The editor may ask for revisions, indicate that the paper could be reconsidered or suggest that acceptance is possible if specified concerns are resolved.
Such a letter can initially feel disappointing because it confirms that the article is not yet ready for publication. Yet it is often a positive signal. Editors handle large numbers of submissions and generally do not spend time offering detailed, manuscript-specific guidance unless they see value in the work. A carefully reasoned request for revision may therefore represent a genuine pathway toward publication.
The challenge is to respond strategically. Authors need to understand exactly what the editor is offering, decide whether the requested changes are appropriate and then communicate a clear revision plan without either appearing defensive or agreeing to changes that may damage the integrity of the paper.
1. Read the Decision Letter More Than Once
The first reading of a conditional decision is rarely the most useful. Authors naturally focus on negative wording, particularly after investing substantial time in a manuscript. A sentence such as “the paper cannot be accepted in its current form” may overshadow the more important phrase that follows: “but we would be willing to reconsider a substantially revised version.”
Read the entire letter slowly and identify:
- the formal decision category;
- whether reconsideration is explicitly offered;
- whether acceptance appears conditional on specific changes;
- which concerns are described as essential;
- whether reviewer reports accompany the editor's comments;
- the deadline for revision;
- any special instructions for resubmission.
Highlight words such as must, required, essential, recommend, consider and suggest. These often reveal the relative importance of different requests.
2. Understand the Difference Between Reconsideration and Conditional Acceptance
Not all positive-looking revision decisions carry the same level of certainty.
Conditional acceptance generally means that the journal is satisfied with the central research and expects to publish the paper once a defined set of changes has been completed successfully. The remaining work may involve language, formatting, clarification or limited substantive revision.
Conditional reconsideration is less certain. The journal is inviting a revised version but is not promising acceptance. The revised manuscript may return to reviewers, be evaluated again by the editor or even receive another rejection if the concerns are not resolved convincingly.
Reject and resubmit is weaker still. The current manuscript has formally been rejected, but the editor believes that a substantially reworked version may be worth treating as a new submission.
Knowing which category applies helps you judge how much time and effort to invest and how to frame your response.
3. Detailed Criticism Usually Indicates Real Interest
An editor who provides a detailed list of weaknesses is giving you valuable information. Even when the comments are demanding, they tell you what stands between the manuscript and a positive decision.
The issues might involve:
- unclear research questions;
- insufficient methodological detail;
- weak statistical justification;
- overstated conclusions;
- missing or outdated literature;
- poor organisation;
- language problems;
- journal formatting;
- figures or tables requiring revision;
- ethical or reporting statements that need clarification.
Instead of interpreting the list simply as criticism, treat it as a map showing what the journal needs in order to continue considering your article.
4. Do Not Promise Changes Before Assessing Them
Authors sometimes respond quickly with a message promising to make every change requested. This may appear cooperative, but it can create problems if some requests later prove inappropriate or impossible.
Before replying substantively, review each point against:
- the data actually collected;
- the original research design;
- the manuscript's central argument;
- disciplinary standards;
- ethical limitations;
- available time and resources.
If co-authors are involved, discuss major revisions with them first. A corresponding author should not promise changes that affect methods, interpretation or conclusions without agreement from the research team.
5. Separate Straightforward Revisions from Difficult Ones
Some editorial requests can be accepted immediately. These often include:
- correcting grammatical or typographical errors;
- bringing references into journal style;
- clarifying abbreviations;
- correcting headings;
- improving figure captions;
- adding missing administrative declarations.
Other requests require much more careful consideration, such as:
- reanalysing the data;
- changing a statistical model;
- collecting additional data;
- removing a central interpretation;
- rewriting the theoretical framework;
- substantially shortening or expanding the paper.
Breaking the letter into these categories makes the negotiation more manageable.
6. Conduct Your Own Critical Review at the Same Time
Do not restrict the revision process to the specific items named by the editor. A critical editorial letter is also an opportunity to reassess the manuscript as a whole.
For example, if the editor says that the Discussion overstates one conclusion, inspect the rest of the manuscript for similar overstatement. If one part of the Methods is unclear, check whether related methodological details are also difficult to follow.
A strong revision often improves both the points explicitly mentioned and the broader weaknesses those comments reveal.
7. Decide Which Requests You Will Accept
Once each request has been examined, place it into one of three categories:
- Accept fully – the requested change is justified and will improve the paper.
- Accept in modified form – the concern is valid, but a different solution is more appropriate.
- Decline respectfully – the requested change would be scientifically inappropriate, impossible or inconsistent with the evidence.
This simple categorisation becomes the basis for both your revision plan and your reply to the editor.
8. Begin Your Reply with Appreciation
Your response should begin courteously. Even if the editorial letter was critical, the editor has invested time in evaluating your work and, in the case of a conditional decision, is continuing to consider it.
A suitable opening might be:
This establishes a professional tone without sounding excessively submissive.
9. Show That You Understand the Problems
Before describing your proposed changes, make it clear that you understand the editor's concerns.
For example:
This reassures the editor that you have read the letter carefully and are not treating the revision as a superficial exercise.
10. Explain What You Plan to Change
If you intend to accept the requested revisions, explain them specifically rather than simply saying that the manuscript will be revised.
For example:
This demonstrates a concrete plan and gives the editor confidence that the revised manuscript is likely to address the concerns meaningfully.
11. Negotiate Rather Than Simply Refuse Difficult Requests
If you cannot follow one of the requests exactly, identify the concern behind it and propose an alternative.
Suppose the editor asks for new data collection, but the original study has ended and the participants cannot be recontacted. A constructive response might be:
This shows flexibility without making an impossible promise.
12. Provide Evidence When You Disagree
If you believe a requested change would be inappropriate, support your position with scholarly reasoning.
You might write:
Editors are far more likely to accept a reasoned alternative than an unsupported refusal.
13. Confirm the Revision Deadline
If the editor provides a deadline, determine whether it is realistic before promising compliance. Minor revisions may be completed quickly, but major methodological changes may require substantially more time.
If you can meet the deadline, confirm it clearly:
If you need additional time, ask early rather than waiting until the deadline has nearly expired.
14. Suggest a Deadline if None Is Given
When no revision period is specified, it can be helpful to suggest one yourself. This shows organisation and commitment while giving the editor a clear expectation.
For moderate revisions, a period of two to four weeks may be reasonable. Extensive revisions involving new analysis or consultation with co-authors may require longer.
A suitable sentence might be:
Avoid promising an unrealistically fast turnaround simply to appear efficient. A rushed revision that fails to satisfy the editor is far more damaging than a reasonable request for additional time.
15. Clarify the Journal's Intent When Reconsideration Is Ambiguous
One of the most important situations to handle carefully is an editorial letter that identifies numerous problems but does not clearly state whether a revised manuscript will be reconsidered.
Before investing weeks in substantial revisions, it is reasonable to seek clarification.
You might write:
This is not confrontational. It simply ensures that both author and editor understand the status of the paper.
16. Do Not Demand a Guarantee of Acceptance
Although clarification is reasonable, authors should not expect an editor to guarantee acceptance before seeing the revised paper. Even when the editorial letter sounds encouraging, the revision may reveal new issues or reviewers may remain unsatisfied.
A realistic objective is to establish that the journal is genuinely willing to reconsider the manuscript if the listed problems are addressed.
17. Distinguish Between Negotiation and Argument
Negotiating an editorial decision means discussing how concerns can be resolved while preserving the integrity of the research. It does not mean attempting to pressure the editor into changing the decision.
Constructive negotiation uses language such as:
- “We propose...”
- “We would be willing to...”
- “We respectfully suggest an alternative approach...”
- “We would appreciate clarification regarding...”
Avoid language such as:
- “The editor must accept...”
- “We refuse to make...”
- “The reviewers are clearly wrong...”
- “We expect publication if...”
The first group keeps the conversation collaborative; the second turns it adversarial.
18. Keep the Initial Reply Concise
If you are replying before completing the revisions, there is usually no need to send a full point-by-point response at that stage. The purpose is simply to acknowledge the decision, confirm your understanding and outline your plan.
A good initial response may contain:
- thanks for the editor's comments;
- a brief acknowledgement of the main concerns;
- confirmation that you intend to revise;
- any necessary clarification or negotiation;
- a proposed deadline.
The detailed response belongs with the revised manuscript.
19. Prepare the Revision Systematically
Once the editor has confirmed the path forward, convert every comment into an action item. A revision table can be especially useful:
Suggested revision columns:
- Editorial or reviewer comment
- Action required
- Person responsible
- Location in manuscript
- Status
- Final response wording
This is particularly helpful for multi-author papers because it prevents comments from being overlooked.
20. Respond to Every Point at Resubmission
When the revised paper is ready, include a detailed response explaining how every concern has been addressed.
For each point:
- quote or summarise the original comment;
- state what you changed;
- identify where the change appears;
- explain your reasoning if the request was not followed exactly.
A vague statement such as “all comments have been addressed” forces the editor to search for changes and may create unnecessary frustration.
21. Make the Revised Manuscript Easy to Evaluate
Many journals ask for both a clean manuscript and a version with changes visible. Follow the requested format precisely.
If tracked changes are used:
- ensure changes are easy to distinguish;
- remove private author comments;
- check that deleted text has not damaged formatting;
- update page and line numbers before preparing the final response;
- confirm that figures, tables and references remain correctly numbered.
The goal is to minimise the work required for the editor to verify that the concerns have been resolved.
22. Use Revision as an Opportunity to Improve the Whole Article
Conditional reconsideration provides a valuable second chance. Do not limit yourself to mechanical compliance with the editor's list.
Once the major revisions are complete, assess:
- whether the abstract still reflects the revised paper;
- whether the title remains accurate;
- whether new analysis requires changes to the Discussion;
- whether the conclusion needs to be moderated or strengthened;
- whether additional citations have created inconsistencies;
- whether the word count remains within journal limits.
A revised manuscript should feel like a coherent new version, not a patchwork of responses.
23. Pay Particular Attention to Language and Presentation
If the editor has already identified problems with clarity or language, the revised version should demonstrate substantial improvement. Do not correct only the examples mentioned in the letter.
Review the manuscript for:
- grammar;
- spelling;
- punctuation;
- sentence structure;
- terminology;
- paragraph organisation;
- reference consistency;
- journal formatting.
Professional human journal article editing can be particularly useful at this stage because errors introduced during revision are easy for authors to overlook.
24. What If the Editor Changes the Requirements?
Occasionally, a revised manuscript may receive a second decision containing new requests. This does not necessarily mean the first revision failed. New issues can become visible once earlier problems have been resolved.
Assess the new requests in the same way:
- Are they reasonable?
- Do they improve the article?
- Are they compatible with the original research?
- Does the journal still appear genuinely interested?
Multiple rounds of revision are common in scholarly publishing, particularly for complex papers.
25. Know When to Stop Negotiating
There are circumstances in which further revision may no longer be worthwhile. For example, if the journal repeatedly requests fundamental changes that would transform the research into a different study, submitting elsewhere may be more sensible.
Consider moving on if:
- the journal cannot confirm genuine reconsideration;
- the required revisions are incompatible with the research design;
- the editor's expectations reveal a serious scope mismatch;
- the requested changes would take disproportionate time for little realistic chance of acceptance.
Withdrawal should be polite and formal. Confirm that the journal has closed the submission before sending the manuscript elsewhere.
26. A Model Structure for Your Initial Reply
Subject: Response to Decision on Manuscript [ID]
Dear Dr [Editor Name],
Thank you for your detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript, “[Title].” We appreciate the opportunity to revise the paper and are grateful for the guidance provided.
We understand that the principal concerns relate to [brief summary of main issues]. We have reviewed these points carefully and intend to revise the manuscript accordingly. In particular, we plan to [brief description of key revisions].
With regard to [specific difficult request], we would like to propose [alternative solution], because [brief evidence-based reason]. We hope this approach will address the underlying concern while remaining consistent with the design of the study.
We expect to complete the revisions within [time period]. Please let us know if this schedule is acceptable.
Thank you again for your consideration. We look forward to submitting the revised manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Affiliation]
27. Conditional Decisions Reward Professional Communication
The scientific quality of the manuscript remains the central issue, but communication also matters. Editors are more likely to work productively with authors who respond clearly, meet deadlines and demonstrate serious engagement with criticism.
Professional conduct includes:
- acknowledging the editor promptly;
- avoiding defensive language;
- asking sensible questions when necessary;
- providing realistic timelines;
- explaining disagreements with evidence;
- returning a carefully prepared revision.
These habits help establish trust and can make subsequent rounds of editorial discussion much easier.
28. Final Checklist Before Replying to the Editor
Before sending your response, ask:
- Have I identified the exact editorial decision?
- Is reconsideration or conditional acceptance clearly stated?
- Do I understand every major concern?
- Have I discussed important revisions with co-authors?
- Do I know which requests I can accept fully?
- Have I identified any request that requires an alternative?
- Can I justify disagreements with evidence?
- Is the proposed revision deadline realistic?
- Do I need clarification before investing in major revision?
- Is my reply concise, courteous and professional?
Conclusion
A letter offering conditional reconsideration or acceptance occupies an important middle ground in academic publishing. It may not provide the immediate satisfaction of unconditional acceptance, but it is often a strong indication that the journal sees genuine value in the manuscript and is willing to invest further editorial attention in it.
The most effective response is neither passive compliance nor confrontation. Authors should read the decision carefully, assess every requested change against the integrity of the research and decide which revisions can be accepted, modified or reasonably declined. Straightforward corrections should be made willingly, while more substantial requests deserve critical thought and, where appropriate, consultation with co-authors or methodological experts.
Communication with the editor should be courteous and specific. Thank the editor for the guidance, demonstrate that you understand the concerns, explain your revision plan and confirm a realistic timetable. Where the journal's intention is unclear, seek confirmation that a substantially revised manuscript will receive genuine reconsideration before investing extensive time in the work.
Conditional editorial decisions are ultimately negotiations about how to transform a promising manuscript into one that meets the journal's standards. Authors who approach that negotiation with professionalism, evidence-based judgement and willingness to improve their work significantly increase the likelihood that an uncertain decision will become a successful publication.
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 with research editing to improve and perfect all kinds of 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 ensure that the references and formatting used in each paper are in conformity with the journal's instructions for authors and to correct any grammar, spelling, punctuation or simple typing errors. In this way, we enable our clients to report their research in the clear and accurate ways required to impress editors and achieve publication.
Our scientific proofreading services for the authors of a wide variety of scientific journal papers are especially popular, but we also offer manuscript proofreading services and have the experience and expertise to proofread and edit manuscripts in all scholarly disciplines, as well as beyond them.
We have team members who specialise in medical proofreading services, and some of our experts dedicate their time exclusively to dissertation proofreading and manuscript proofreading, offering academics the opportunity to improve their use of formatting and language through the most exacting PhD thesis editing and journal article proofreading practices.
Whether you are preparing a first journal submission, revising a manuscript after an editorial decision, drafting a response to reviewers or negotiating conditional reconsideration, a qualified member of our professional team can provide invaluable assistance and give you greater confidence in your written work.
If you are in the process of preparing an article for an academic or scientific journal, or planning one for the near future, you may also be interested in the Guide to Journal Publication, which is available on our Tips and Advice on Publishing Research in Journals website.
