111 PRS Proofreading and Editing Service PhD Experts • All Academic Areas • Fast Turnaround • High Quality Determining whether you should or should not revise your paper to resolve the problems indicated in a response from a journal editor can be difficult, even if the letter says that your paper will be published if you make the changes. If an editor’s demands mean that an author would need to compromise what he or she believes to be the integrity of his or her research, data and/or argument, for example, a scholar is well advised to consider the matter carefully. If acceptance after complying is not a certainty, it may be best to move along to another journal first, and if acceptance is a certainty after conditions are met it may prove necessary to write a carefully crafted response explaining what can and cannot be changed and why. If a compromise can be negotiated with the editor, even ethical and intellectual hurdles can be surmounted. Just as each paper is unique, each letter from an editor is unique, and reading information that you really would rather not have received at all with an open, objective and thoughtful mind, especially when your own writing is the focus, can be difficult. After first reading a disappointing letter from an editor, regardless of whether it is a rejection or a call for revision, it’s best to set it aside (or close the email message) and take some time to calm down and regain distance. Go for a walk or enjoy a bubble bath, eat some ice cream or work out at the gym, watch a funny movie or read some Jane Austen – whatever it takes to soften the blow and bring you to a more objective perspective. Then read the letter again with your focus on understanding exactly what about your paper was criticised and what sort of suggestions might have been offered for improvements. Have an experienced colleague – ideally one who read or is willing to read your paper for you – read the letter as well and offer ideas. Then reread your paper critically paying special attention to any details or sections singled out as problematic in the letter. Some decisions about how to proceed with revisions will be PARt III: commUnIcAtIng wItH JoURnAl edItoRs: sUBmIssIon, AccePtAnce, RevIsIon And ReJectIon