113 PRS Proofreading and Editing Service PhD Experts • All Academic Areas • Fast Turnaround • High Quality with thanks for the helpful criticism, explain that you understand the problems, and ask if he or she would be willing to reconsider or accept the paper were you to correct those problems (see Letter A.1 in the Appendix below). If the answer you get back is promising, it’s probably well worth revising your paper and resubmitting to the same journal. You’ve opened the door to a positive working relationship and shown your willingness to work toward publication, but you’re going to need to do the job of complying with the journal guidelines much more carefully and accurately this time. You’ve been given a second chance, and it would be unwise to make the same mistake twice – that an editor will remember. Whether you’re resubmitting your paper on the basis of a conditional acceptance or a conditional reconsideration, explain in detail in a letter accompanying your resubmission exactly what you’ve done to improve your formatting, structure and/or referencing style, and address each and every concern itemised in the letter you received (see Letter A.2 in the Appendix below). If there was anything that proved problematic or any ways in which you weren’t able to comply with the guidelines or specific requests, mention them and why the problems couldn’t be resolved as you’d hoped. It’s always good to suggest as well your willingness to revise further if need be. 7.3.2 Language and Clarity Somewhat more challenging to deal with is criticism regarding the accuracy, clarity and style of your written English, especially as this problem can often result in misunderstanding or misinterpretation of your work, which can also lead to criticism of the sort discussed in Section 7.3.3. Any author who takes his or her work seriously enough to prepare and polish it for publication is working to PARt III: commUnIcAtIng wItH JoURnAl edItoRs: sUBmIssIon, AccePtAnce, RevIsIon And ReJectIon