next »

[santommaso]

I've been in your position. Somehow, the frustration miraculously disappears when you see the article in print.

[anonima1]

Ditto. Annoying, yes, but in the end the piece will probably be more clear for having made minor editorial changes
that do not change the substantive meaning.

One thing I wonder is, how the editors view people who are stubborn about these sorts of things. Do some 
hold it against the author the next time they submit a piece? Alternatively, if the authors agrees to make too many changes (i.e., even those that might change the original meaning), will he/she be viewed as "wishy-washy"?

[aprilmay]

This situation isn't that unusual. As others have noted, editors can ask for these types of changes, even if they seem minor issues of writing style to you. Look on the bright side - your article is well on the way to being published!

"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.)"

I find this far more shocking than the editor's requests. Many editors would kick this back, and no good journal in my field would let you get away with that. Always always always provide an item by item list of how you responded to or disagreed with each reviewer comment. This makes life easier on the editor and reviewers. It will dramatically improve your chances of being accepted. 

[aprilmay]

One more suggestion - if the deadline is a problem, you can ask for a short extension.