gantt
title Revision Process Timeline
dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
section Initial Review
Review & Planning :2024-01-01, 7d
section Major Changes
Detailed Planning :2024-01-08, 14d
Implementation :2024-01-22, 21d
section Finalization
Response Letter :2024-02-12, 14d
Peer Review :2024-02-26, 7d
Final Submission :2024-03-05, 1d
Rejection, Correction and Resubmission
A Guide for Authors
Introduction
Biography
- SCOPUS: H index of 57
- WOS: H index of 51
- Google Scholar: H index of 62
- Top 2% researcher: Top Researcher
- Editors:
- Statistical Editor for MJMS (SCOPUS and WOS ESIN)
- Editor for Peer J
- Editor for Frontiers of Epidemiology
The Outcomes Of a the First Submission
- Rejection: Understanding reasons and planning next steps
- Correction: Effective revision and response strategies
- Resubmission: Making informed decisions
Unlikely your submission gets accepted at the first trial. If it does, did you send to a predatory journal?
PART 1: REJECTION
Reality Check: Rejection Statistics
High-Impact Medical Journals (2022-2025) 1
| Journal | Acceptance Rate |
|---|---|
| NEJM | ~5% |
| JAMA | 11% overall, 4% research |
| The Lancet | ~5% |
| BMJ | ~7% overall, 4% research |
| Nature Medicine | <8% |
Key Insight: Rejection is the norm, not the exception!
Acceptance Rates Across Journal Tiers
General Medical Journals 1
- BMJ Open: 47% acceptance rate
- Dove Medical Press: 76% rejection/withdrawal rate
- Elsevier Analysis (2,371 journals): 32% average acceptance
- Overall Reality: 62-90% rejection rates common
Common Rejection Reasons
Editorial Screening (20-30% of manuscripts)
1. Scope/Focus Misalignment
- JAMA Internal Medicine: 78% rejected without review
- Primary cause: outside journal scope
2. Lack of Novelty
- Common fatal flaw
- Work previously published with no novelty
- Insufficient knowledge advancement (too superficial)
Editorial Screening (20-30% of manuscripts)
3. Poor Research Question
- Among top rejection reasons
- Unclear hypothesis
- Data doesn’t answer question
Technical Rejection Reasons
Post-Peer-Review (45-70% of reviewed manuscripts)
- Methodological Flaws
Poor study design for example inadequate controls
Sample size inadequacy
Inappropriate statistical tests
Poor writing
Post-Peer-Review (45-70% of reviewed manuscripts)
- Statistical/Analytical Problems (40-60%)
- Inappropriate analysis methods
- Conclusions not supported by data
- Poor writing
- Writing Quality/Language (15-25%)
- Poor English/grammar
Discipline-Specific Patterns
Medical Specialty Rejection Rates
Post-Rejection Action Plan
Immediate Response Strategy (Days 1-7)
- Emotional Management
- Take 2-7 day cooling-off period
- Avoid immediate emotional responses
- Systematic Review Analysis
- Read rejection letter carefully
- Categorize feedback systematically
- Determine revision potential
- Success Statistics
- 76% rejected manuscripts published elsewhere <2 years
- 70-89% eventual publication rate
Post-Rejection Success Strategies
Decision Framework (Week 1-2)
Option 1: Same Journal
- 50% acceptance rate for invited revisions
- Only if editor shows genuine interest
Option 2: Alternative Journal
- 75-83% eventual publication success
- Target appropriate scope
- Slightly lower impact factor
Decision Framework (Week 1-2)
Long-term Success Factors
- Pre-submission preparation
- take adequate time
- do not rush
- revise and revise and revise
- Collaborative approach
- expert in the field
- expert in the methods
- expert in the analysis
- Use journal selection tools
- general journals
- specific field journals
- article processing fee
PART 2: CORRECTION
Understanding Revision Categories
Success Rates by Decision Type
| Decision Type | Acceptance Rate | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Minor Revision | 91.5-94.7% | 5 days - 4 weeks |
| Major Revision | 40.0-55.2% | 10 days - 3 months |
| Provisional Accept | 98% (“will”) / 90% (“may”) | Variable |
| Reject & Resubmit | ~50% | No fixed deadline |
Point-by-Point Response Strategy
Essential Structure Components
- Opening Summary: Brief overview of major changes
- Systematic Organization: Address each reviewer separately
- Comment-Response Format: Clear labeling
- Location References: Specific page, paragraph, line numbers
Response Template Structure
Dear Dr. [Editor Name],
We thank you and the reviewers for comprehensive feedback on
manuscript "[Title]" (MS#[Number]).
## Major Revisions Summary:
- Re-analyzed data using appropriate statistical methods
- Expanded discussion of limitations
- Clarified methodology in response to reviewer concerns
## Detailed Responses:
### Reviewer 1:
**Comment 1:** [Exact reviewer text]
**Response:** We appreciate this observation. We have [specific
action taken]. The revised text appears on page X, lines Y-Z...Advanced Response Techniques
Addressing Methodology Concerns
Example Response
Comment R2.3: “Statistical analysis approach seems inappropriate.”
Response: We appreciate this observation. After biostatistician consultation, we agree and re-analyzed using linear mixed models per Smith et al. (2023). New analysis in revised Table 2 (page 8), discussed in Results (page 12, lines 15-28). This strengthened conclusions by accounting for repeated measures.
Handling Disagreements Professionally
Scope Limitations Example
Professional Disagreement
Comment R1.5: “Authors should include long-term outcomes.”
Response: We acknowledge the importance of long-term data. However, this extends beyond current study scope designed as a 6-month pilot study. We have added this as a limitation (page 16, lines 8-12) and suggested it as important future research direction.
Publisher-Specific Requirements
Major Publishers
- Different fonts/colors for comments vs responses
- Include manuscript tracking number
- Separate “clean” and “tracked changes” versions
- Address editor comments first
- Journal-specific templates when provided
- Formal letter formatting
- Consistent citation style
- Word count change statements
- Label “COMMENT” (bold), “RESPONSE” (regular)
- Journal-specific submission systems
- Detailed change descriptions
Medical Journal Standards
ICMJE Guidelines Compliance
- Authorship criteria: substantial contributions
- Conflict of interest disclosure
- Data sharing for clinical trials
- Uniform manuscript preparation
ICMJE Guidelines Compliance
Clinical Trial Requirements
- Registration number in abstract
- CONSORT checklist compliance
- Protocol as supplementary material
- Patient flow diagram
Quality Control Checklist
✅ Do:
- Have co-authors review
- Cross-reference all changes
- Verify page/line accuracy
- Address every comment
- Maintain professional tone
❌ Avoid:
- Defensive tone
- Incomplete responses
- Inaccurate references
- Unrequested changes
- Ignoring editor comments
Optimal Revision Timeline
PART 3: RESUBMISSION
Resubmission Decision Framework
Primary Decision Factors
- Type of Editorial Decision
- Fixed deadline = effectively major revision ✅
- No fixed deadline = true rejection with invitation ⚠️
- Outright rejection = do NOT resubmit ❌
- Scope of Required Changes
- Minor: Technical corrections ✅
- Major: Additional analyses ⚠️
- Fundamental: Complete overhaul ❌
Primary Decision Factors
- Reviewer Feedback Quality
- Constructive, specific = favorable ✅
- Fundamental concerns = alternative journal ⚠️
Risk Assessment Matrix
Success Probability Tiers
| Probability | Indicators | Action |
|---|---|---|
| High (>70%) | Minor revision, constructive feedback | Resubmit same journal |
| Moderate (40-70%) | Major revision with guidance | Consider carefully |
| Low (<40%) | Outright rejection, fundamental issues | Try different journal |
Same Journal vs. Different Journal
Same journal
1. Advantages
- Editorial continuity
- Established investment
- Same reviewers understand
- No restart needed
2. Success Rates
- 80% eventual publication
- 25.3% original research acceptance
- 71% per submission (assoc. professors)
Same Journal vs. Different Journal
Different Journal
1. Indicate when
- Scope mismatch indicated
- Fundamental disagreement
- Resources insufficient
- Better IF match elsewhere
2. Strategic Considerations:
- Disclosure requirements
- Ethical transparency
- Transfer services available
Publisher Resubmission Policies
Major Publishers
- Allows resubmissions with disclosure
- Cite previous submission in cover letter
- Justification required
- Accept from other journals
- Disclose submission history
- Manuscript transfer services
- Format-free submission (350+ journals)
- Transfer desk services
- Clear preprint policies
Timeline Optimization
Journal-Specific Requirements
| Journal | Minor Revision | Major Revision |
|---|---|---|
| J Med Libr Assoc | 1 month | 2 months |
| Med Decision Making | - | 3 months |
| AJR | - | 128.6 ± 83.8 days |
Strategic Timing
- Faster = demonstrates commitment
- Delays = suggests low priority
- Extensions: request early (1 week notice)
Success Factors Analysis
Factors Correlated with Higher Success
- Academic rank: Associate professors highest
- Systematic response: Address all comments
- Prompt resubmission: Maintain enthusiasm
- Clear improvement: Show enhancement
- Professional communication: Collaborative tone
Common Failure Factors
What NOT to Do
Process Errors:
- Ignoring reviewer suggestions
- Unchanged manuscripts
- Excessive delays
- Poor communication
Content Errors:
- Inadequate methodology fixes
- Overstated conclusions
- Missing limitations
- Inconsistent terminology
Manuscript Transfer Services
Publisher Tools
- Taylor & Francis: Article Transfer Service
- Seamless transfer with review history
- No resubmission fees
- Springer Nature: Transfer desk
- Review report portability
- Editorial board overlap
- Journal Selection Tools:
- Elsevier Journal Finder
- Springer Journal Suggester
- JANE (free tool)
RESOURCES & TOOLS
Essential Publisher Resources
- Author Hub: https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors
- LaTeX and Word templates
- AI-powered journal matching
- Professional editing services
- Author Services: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/
- Format-free submission (350+ journals)
- Unified submission portal
- Article transfer service
- Author Hub: https://www.elsevier.com/researcher/author
- Researcher Academy (free e-learning)
- Editorial Manager system
- Language editing services
Medical Journal Resources
High-Impact Journals
NEJM
- Rigorous accuracy checking
- Digital image requirements
- AI disclosure mandatory
JAMA
- ICMJE compliance
- Numbered references
- Author statements
BMJ
- Open peer review
- Structured abstracts
- Patient consent required
Professional Editing Services
Recommended Services
Editage
Website: https://www.editage.com/
- Three editing levels
- 500,000+ researchers served
- 365-day unlimited re-editing
- Subject-matter experts
American Journal Experts (AJE)
Website: https://www.aje.com/
- Native English editors
- AI-enhanced tools
- Springer Nature partnership
- 100% satisfaction guarantee
Free Resources
Essential Tools
- PubMed Central: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
- Submission documentation
- NIH Public Access Policy
- Technical requirements
- ORCID ID: Required by all major publishers
- Unique researcher identifier
- Streamlined submissions
- Reporting Standards:
- CONSORT (clinical trials)
- STROBE (observational)
- PRISMA (systematic reviews)
- CARE (case reports)
Quality Assurance Checklist
Pre-Submission Review
Content:
Technical:
Success Metrics & Benchmarks
Performance Tracking
| Revision Type | Target Success | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Minor | 91.5-94.7% | 2-4 weeks |
| Major | 40.0-55.2% | 1-3 months |
| Reject & Resubmit | ~50% | Prompt preferred |
Track Your Performance
- Document all outcomes
- Note reviewer feedback themes
- Monitor time-to-acceptance
- Analyze success/failure patterns
Advanced Strategies
Positioning for Top-Tier Journals
Key Success Factors:
- Clinical Significance: Clear patient impact
- Methodological Rigor: Robust design
- Novel Contributions: Beyond existing knowledge
- Broad Appeal: International relevance
Pre-Submission Strategies:
- Editorial contact for borderline fit
- Conference presentations
- International collaborations
- Media readiness
Common Mistakes to Avoid
Critical Errors
Methodological:
- Inadequate sample size
- Inappropriate statistics
- Missing controls
- Poor randomization
Presentation:
- Overstated conclusions
- Inadequate limitations
- Poor figure design
- Inconsistent terminology
Process:
- Wrong journal scope
- Ignoring formatting
- Inadequate responses
- Poor resubmission timing
SUMMARIES
Essential Success Principles
- Normalize Rejection
- 62-90% rejection rates are common
- Even quality research gets rejected
- Persistence Pays
- 70-90% manuscripts eventually publish
- Strategic approach crucial
- Systematic Approach
- Evidence-based revision strategies
- Significantly improve success
- Professional Communication
- Respectful, collaborative tone
- Throughout entire process
Immediate Action Steps
Today
This Week
This Month Action Plan
Essential Tasks
- Develop Pre-Submission Checklist
- Content, technical, ethical review
- Practice Response Writing
- Point-by-point format
- Professional tone
- Build Support Network
- Peer reviewers
- Mentors
- Statistical consultants
- Plan Data Management
- Repository selection
- Sharing strategy
For Epidemiology & Public Health Researchers
Discipline-Specific Recommendations
- Follow STROBE guidelines religiously
- Emphasize population health impact
- Collaborate with biostatisticians early
- Position within broader public health context
Success Mindset
- Treat rejection as learning opportunity
- Invest time in thorough preparation
- Build systematic processes
- Maintain professional persistence
Remember
Final Thoughts
Most successful researchers have faced multiple rejections.
The key is:
- Learning from each experience
- Applying evidence-based strategies
- Improving submission success over time
- Never giving up on quality research
References & Further Reading
Key Publications
Wong, GLH. (2019). Tips for Responding to Reviewers’ Comments. Gut and Liver, 13(1), 7-10. DOI: 10.5009/gnl18361
Noble, WS. (2017). Ten simple rules for writing a response to reviewers. PLOS Computational Biology, 13(10). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005730
Provenzale, JM. (2010). Revising a manuscript: ten principles to guide success. AJR, 195(6), W382-W387. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.10.5553
Springer Nature Common Rejection Reasons: https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/campaigns/common-rejection-reasons
Taylor & Francis Author Services: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/
ICMJE Recommendations: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/
Thank You!
Questions?
For More Information:
- Springer Nature: https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors
- Taylor & Francis: https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/
- Elsevier: https://www.elsevier.com/researcher/author
- PubMed Central: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Manuscript Writing Wokshop 2025