next »

[87735501111]

Weird situation here  - went through r&r, with reviewers who thought the work was fine, and I did most of the editor's suggestions. Now this same editor has read it again and kicked it back to me with another round of comments and a short deadline.

So what to do? I know editors get busy, but when I have turned in a revised manuscript where I have made all of the changes and streamlined my argument, does the editor then get to ask for a whole bunch of new changes? (They seem excessive to me, given the initial editorial comments were already done.)

Advice anyone?

[octoprof]

Weird situation here  - went through r&r, with reviewers who thought the work was fine, and I did most of the editor's suggestions. Now this same editor has read it again and kicked it back to me with another round of comments and a short deadline.

So what to do? I know editors get busy, but when I have turned in a revised manuscript where I have made all of the changes and streamlined my argument, does the editor then get to ask for a whole bunch of new changes? (They seem excessive to me, given the initial editorial comments were already done.)

Advice anyone?

Do what the editor wants.  The editor can do as he or she pleases.  After the reviewers are happy, you still have to make the editor happy. Either do the changes or come up with something better to please the editor. I suggest the former strategy.

[lizzy]

I understand your frustration, but the editor has all the power here, seeing as s/he makes the final decision about publication. So if you want to publish there, I agree with Octo that you'll need to make the revisions.

It's too bad that the editor couldn't have requested these changes earlier. Could it be that the revisions you made based on the readers' reports altered things that the editor now wants addressed?

[offthemarket]

If the editor gave you a short timeline, it's like that she doesn't think of these as major changes.  If you want it published with this venue, then make the changes.

[87735501111]

Yes, my main annoyance is that this is not a good time for me to urgently put in so many hours for r&r, but I suppose that is the way of things.  

Lizzy: it could be that my changes made things shift in a way that triggered comments from the editor, but it mostly seems to be new stuff. Also, some things that annoyed me, such as line edits that altered my writing style (as in, both ways would be clear, but this is how I write, and that is how they write...) with a few edits that changed the meaning away from what I had intended.

My concern is that by making changes, this person will think they can give me a 3rd round of suggestions. My fear stems from the fact that editorial comments included with the peer review comments were very positive, suggesting minimal work, but the comments to my revised work were quite extensive. Hopefully this is an irrational fear.

Perhaps my own fault for not providing an extensive item by item list of the exact changes that I made in response to prior comments. (You'd better believe that's what I'm going to do this time though.)

Well, back to work. Thanks for the support!

[the_honey_badger]

You revised according to the comments, re-submitted and now it needs a bit more work. This isn't unusual at all. This can happen one or two times even with an accepted article.

Your revisions (as others noted) might have made other portions less clear or even repetitive.  More than that, revising provides a different text to evaluate. Things that are either obvious now or emerged because of revision are another issue.  I'd be happy that whatever it is that is called for is so minor that it has a short deadline and seems to be headed for publication.

[offthemarket]

So there are specific line edits to language and other small detailed things?  It sounds like the paper is as good as accepted and now the editor is doing both you and the journal a favor by making the paper even better right before it's sent off to the press.

I agree, multiple rounds of edits are annoying.  But I do like it when a the rare editor goes to the trouble of whipping out an editing pen and gets down to work on the paper for the nitty gritty to make it better.

[octoprof]

My concern is that by making changes, this person will think they can give me a 3rd round of suggestions. My fear stems from the fact that editorial comments included with the peer review comments were very positive, suggesting minimal work, but the comments to my revised work were quite extensive. Hopefully this is an irrational fear.

The peer review comments and editorial comments are immaterial to what the EDITOR wants. The Editor has the final say.

Dude, the editor can give you as many suggestions or orders or edits as the editor wants. However, if you do not make these changes, then the editor may never publish your lovely manuscript. 

Just do it. The editor is doing the editor's job. Now do yours.

[drj_b]

I had the same problem for an article that was accepted for a special issue of an academic journal, whose editor was someone I already knew from previous academic interactions (a conference, colleagues in common).

First two rounds were fine, I took it as a matter of course. Some of them even improved the article to be sure. But after two rounds of this, the comments and suggested revisions kept on coming, including a series of strongly worded recommendations (demands) about a footnote that had nothing to do at all with anything the editor or reviewers had previously commented on. It was a historical footnote (literally haha) about a tangential but closely related development in a particular religious tradition.

When I hesitated and instead asked WHY he felt it was important to change it, he revealed that he had shown my article (but not the others in the special issue) to a religious official (not a reviewer, not someone from our field, not a scholar, not on the board of the journal). This religious official vehemently disagreed with how I described/ interpreted the events in question and demanded that I change it.

I felt this was so far beyond the pale that I had no problem telling the editor that I was unwilling to make any further changes and that if he wasn't going to publish the article as is, then I would gladly withdraw it. It was published with the footnote intact. Nevertheless I swore never to work with that person again.

[shrek]

I think that a strategy is to make some but not all of the changes. I go through and make the changes I agree with. Next, I will look and see which changes I can make and live with them-- I will make some but not all of these. If it changes my style but I might have said it this way that's one thing, but sometimes it's a style that I feel changes my "voice" then no, I don't do those (and I don't comment on it, I just don't do it). When I see a suggested change that changes the meaning or intention then I don't make those either. Sometimes tho' it signals to me that the reader (in this case the editor) didn't understand. And so I try to make changes that will better explain what I originally intended. So, it's a change but not the one the editor said. There, I will make a comment in the cover letter that I made x change to better convey y.

So, don't think you have to make all the changes the way the editor wants. You don't. Be gracious, be tactful, and you should be okay.

[seniorscholar]

When editing a collection, I made extensive last-minute suggestions to four people, largely because I could see at that point ways to add coherence to the collection, even though each of the essays had been reviewed by a specialist in the specific area. One person withdrew the essay. The other three, when they saw page proof, thanked me profusely for improving their work and providing a coherent book.

The choice is yours.

[msparticularity]

I have worked with one editor who made a fair number of suggestions after acceptance. Many really were helpful to clarity. In the couple of cases where the changes actually changed meaning, I emailed back and explained my concerns and we worked out a different wording together that addressed his concerns about clarity.

I suggest that you make the easy changes, think about many/most of them, and communicate your concerns about any that actually change meaning.

[87735501111]

Thanks everyone. I feel much better and will make changes. I wonder if this was a subfield thing, because while I had heard of sending back for a second round of reviews, I hadn't witnessed or heard of this much editorial editing after r&r. So it was good to hear that this is not uncommon. (Thinking that this was 'weird' was part of what had me annoyed.)

And hey, at least nobody is sending my work out to the clergy for external review. Eek.

[drj_b]

And hey, at least nobody is sending my work out to the clergy for external review. Eek.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always look on the bright side of life, that's what I say!

[octoprof]

Thanks everyone. I feel much better and will make changes. I wonder if this was a subfield thing, because while I had heard of sending back for a second round of reviews, I hadn't witnessed or heard of this much editorial editing after r&r. So it was good to hear that this is not uncommon. (Thinking that this was 'weird' was part of what had me annoyed.)

And hey, at least nobody is sending my work out to the clergy for external review. Eek.

Once the reviewers are finished (no matter how many rounds), you will almost always see this editorial editing stuff. Editors have no reason to do it sooner since they don't know if your manuscript will eventually be accepted.