The first time I received an acceptance based on major revisions from a peer-reviewed journal, after looking at the lengthy list of revisions I was instructed to make before the article could be published, I didn’t exactly feel like celebrating.
After submitting my article for publication, after four months, I had finally received an acceptance. However, having already revised the article once based on comments from an initial rejection from another journal, I wasn’t sure if I should be happy about this response. While it was nice to have avoided a flat out rejection, the amount of work required to revise seemed extensive.
“Should I be happy about this?” I asked a more experienced colleague.
“Definitely” she replied.
We discussed how I had finished my dissertation in 2015, but by the time I could publish all of the articles based on my dissertation research, it would be 2017. As a researcher and practitioner of over 10 years, she assured me that this timeline was normal. I guess the waiting game is just a regular part of the publishing process and going through the peer-review process for 6 to 12 months before an article is published is not unusual.
To avoid revising, I considered submitting my article to another journal, but conversations with colleagues indicated that getting published without any major revisions happens quite rarely, if ever, so why risk losing another 6 months waiting for a response from another journal (which could potentially be a rejection), if I could instead spend a few weeks revising based on reviewers’ comments and resubmitting to the same journal. At least this way, I could have some kind of a guarantee that my article would be published, eventually.
Revise to Resubmit
Then came the excruciating part—interpreting contradictory reviewer comments and revising a paper that you had hoped you would never have to look at again! However, keep in mind that this painful process is one that all writers, regardless of genre, go through. For instance, in an interview, JoJo Meyes, a best-selling novelist and writer of Me Before You explains how she “gets sick” of the characters she was once “in love” with during the tedious and brutal process of editing a novel that in her mind is “finished.”
Sometimes, journal editors compile reviewer comments and synthesize them to give you general guidelines for revision, but they may not always have time to do so. In my case, I had to interpret the comments on my own and decide which ones to accept and which ones to reject.
You may think that you cannot just “reject” reviewer comments, but you can, as long as you provide a clear rationale for doing so. Since generally, your revised article goes back to the same reviewers, if you decide not to make changes based on certain comments, it is best to reply to the reviewers’ comments with an explanation of your rationale for your revision choices.
Here is my list of suggestions for revision based on peer reviewers’ feedback:
1) Think of the review process as a conversation in which you do not have to agree with everything the reviewer says. Do not assume that you have to make all of the changes the reviewer requires. Sometimes, reviewers, in their haste reading lengthy articles, may miss certain information that is already stated in the article. In those instances, you can simply reply to the comment and point the reviewer to the relevant sections and page numbers of your paper.
2) Sometimes, a reviewer may not agree with a certain approach you took in your study; they may disagree with the sufficiency of the sample size or the overall research design. However, if you have your own reasons for considering your approach appropriate, you can simply reply to the reviewers’ comments with an explanation of your rationale. You can also support your reply with references to relevant sources.
3) Sometimes, reviewers may refer you to outside sources and articles that you may have missed in your literature review. This is great and can be very helpful. Once you read the article, if you find it relevant to your study, you can integrate it into your literature review. If you find that it is not applicable, then you can reply to the reviewer’s comments and explain why it is beyond the scope of your study.
4) If you get “revise and resubmit,” it is unlikely that you have to make major changes that might undermine the overall purpose and findings of your study. While I did say that you do not have to accept all changes the reviewers require, it may also be worthwhile to make whatever changes you could agree with in order to reach your goal of publication.
5) Do not be surprised by contradictory comments.
While one reviewer, in regards to my research questions, said “You have no real basis for these questions.”
The other reviewer said: “This section was really clear and helpful! I appreciate how granular the headers are as a reader.”
When you are in graduate school, you think that when it comes to research, there is a “right” or “wrong” way to go about it. However, when you graduate and become a teacher or researcher, you may see that you could get 10 researchers in the field together and you could have a debate about ten different “right” methods of conducting a study. This may be an exaggeration, but not a big one.
Yes, there are certain best practices that researchers may agree on when it comes to research methods, but one of the best pieces of advice I received from a mentor at the Dartmouth Summer Research seminar was that the key, when it comes to choosing and explaining your research methods, lies not in what is intrinsically a “good” or “bad” method, but in your ability to clearly explain your rationale for your methodological choices and how they relate to answering your research questions. This may include a detailed explanation of your data collection instruments, choices of statistical analysis, and so on.
Thus, if a reviewer questions your methods during the peer review process, the problem may not necessarily lie in the actual method you used, but in the lack of clarity within your explanation of your choices.
6) If you do get criticism about a specific choice you made in your methods and data collection procedures, which you can no longer change because obviously, the study has been completed, then you can simply acknowledge this in your “limitation” section under “discussions.”
7) Sometimes, when you find yourself writing long paragraphs as a response to one of the reviewer’s comments, consider integrating those responses into the actual paper because chances are other readers may have the same questions and comments, so you might as well address them within the text of the article.
Following the steps above, I revised and resubmitted my journal article for another round of reviews. This time, I had more feedback from the editor regarding which of the reviewer’s comments I needed to further address, which I could ignore, and which of my comments to the reviewers needed to be integrated into the text.
Again, I responded to some comments using the Reply to Comments function in Word, and made the subsequent changes suggested. Finally, in a month, I got my first acceptance with no further changes!
Now that it’s over, I can say that my first peer-review process was challenging and at-times frustrating. However, it was also a rewarding learning experience. It was also nice to receive feedback from the editor that was positive and kind while also being constructive. This acceptance has given me just enough momentum to work on my second article, which has also been accepted, but needs extensive revision.
What have you learned from the peer review process? Please share your experiences in the comments section below.
Recent Comments