Resubmitting a revised manuscript to an academic journal is a crucial but challenging task. After receiving the feedback the authors feel the quick urge to submit the manuscript as soon as possible. However, it is necessary to keep in mind that submitting quickly can create mistakes and can lessen the chances of the manuscript being accepted. Understanding and avoiding common mistakes can help your manuscript being accepted and improve chances of success. This article will help you go through all the mistakes one should avoid when it comes to resubmitting their manuscript.
Submitting a poor response letter for resubmission
Some authors tend to make this grave mistake, they submit very poorly written response letters. These letters tend to have unclear vague, or overly defensive responses that can create a bad impression. This creates confusion for the editors about what changes were made why, and why some changes were overlooked. One thing to keep in mind is that the response letter is your direct communication with the reviewers and editors. An unclear or messy response can make it seem like you’re not serious about the comments given by the reviewers. So, the main question is how to avoid it. Structure the response letter professionally and address each comment separately. Additionally, quote the comment and give a detailed response to it. Aside from that give a clear indication of where the changes have been made.
Failing to highlight the changes that were made in the resubmission
When authors submit the revised journal, they fail to highlight the changes that they made in the manuscript. This makes it difficult for the editor to see whether the necessary changes were made or not. Another thing is that reviewers don’t have time to review the entire paper. Hence, they only look at the changes that were necessary to make. To avoid this, submit 2 versions of your paper, one is the clean version and the other is the highlighted version with all the necessary changes that were made.
Making errors during revision
Authors sometimes unintentionally introduce new errors while fixing previous ones, such as typos, miscalculations, or inconsistencies between texts; sometimes they also write contradictory sentences that can also create possible problems in the manuscript and can cast doubts in the reviewer’s mind and cause frustration which lessen your chances of the manuscript being accepted To avoid this it is best to check all your work and cross-reference your work and compare your marked work with the original work and make sure there aren’t any typos or any mistakes in the text you could also use professional software to edit your work.
Tip: Use Grammarly to make all the possible corrections in your manuscript, and also make your writing better
- Being overly defensive with your response
Authors sometimes take the criticism and feedback personally instead of working on it, they tend to give emotional and sarcastic responses, which creates an overall bad impression and indicates that they weren’t serious about the feedback at all. Reviewers are volunteers who give feedback to improve your work and want your paper to get accepted. Having a sarcastic and disrespectful tone can create negative impressions and cause editors to reject your work regardless of how great the content is. To avoid this, keep your tone professional and thank the reviewers for giving their feedback on your manuscript.
Ignoring the journal rules and formatting guidelines
Some authors tend to focus so much on the content that they completely forget the formatting and the rules of the journal because of this even the most strong and high-quality manuscripts can be rejected or delayed always review the journal guidelines and proofread your paper to make sure that the work you submitted is by the guidelines of your paper and include all the necessary documents that are required for the resubmission.
Tip: always have a manual with you to check if you’re following the rules and regulations.
Not updating references or citations:
During the revision process, authors forget to add more references to support their content, which can make it seem disconnected from current research. Having outdated citations and missing citations can make your work seem weak and not authentic. Use reviewers’ suggestions and add as many citations as possible.
Not submitting the manuscript on time
Another way to make a bad impression and how unprofessionalism is to not submit your work on time. Some authors miss the deadline and think they can submit their manuscripts at any time of the day. Missing your deadline without any communication about it will get your manuscript instantly rejected. It’s best to take a look at the deadline and submit it as soon as possible. If you need more time, inform in advance by sending an email to the editor.
Failing to learn from the mistakes:
Authors tend to only submit the revised manuscript and not reflect on their mistakes or how to improve their work for future submissions. It is recommended that you save the reviewers’ comments reflect on what parts of the manuscript were weak and apply what you have learned in the next submission.
Changing content without proper explanation:
Authors revise the content without a proper explanation for why the manuscript had that significant change; these unexplained changes can confuse the reviewers. It is best to mention the changes that have been made and explain how these changes can improve the manuscript effectively so that reviewers have an idea of the changes.
Conclusion:
Resubmitting a manuscript is not just about fixing or responding to the reviewer’s comments it is about showcasing your extensive thorough and quality-based research and improving the flaws and mistakes that have been made by responding professionally you can increase your chances of getting the revised manuscript approved and you can also learn from your mistakes and you can show the editors that you value and care about their review process and thus mastering the resubmission and building a solid reputation which can help you achieve the status of a credible and authentic scholar
