Revision of 

an Article and How to Deal

with the Rejected Manuscript 12
Vikram Kate and Raja Kalayarasan

Rejection is nothing more than a necessary step in the pursuit

of success. – Bo Bennet

V. Kate (*)
Department of Surgery, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research,
Puducherry 605006, India
e-mail: drvikramkate@gmail.com
R. Kalayarasan
Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical
Education and Research, Puducherry, India

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 123

S.C. Parija, V. Kate (eds.), Writing and Publishing a Scientific Research Paper,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-4720-6_12
124 V. Kate and R. Kalayarasan

Key Points

• Not following the instructions to authors of a journal is a fundamental mistake

and one of the common reasons for revision of the submitted manuscript.
• It is important not to disagree with the reviewer’s comments unless the change
suggested by the reviewer can negatively influence the content of your
manuscript.
• Never forget to incorporate relevant responses to reviewer’s comments in the
revised manuscript.
• Resubmission of the rejected manuscript to the same journal is the least favored
option and should be used only in exceptional circumstances.
• Choosing a correct journal and incorporating the changes suggested by the
reviewers will improve the chance of acceptance of rejected manuscript in a dif-
ferent journal.

12.1 Introduction

Revision of the submitted paper is a critical step in the process of peer review and
getting your article published. Researchers especially those who are in the early part
of the career should learn the art of responding to reviewer’s comments effectively
and submit an impactful revised manuscript to enhance the chance of getting their
revised manuscript published. Most of the young researchers learn the art of paper
writing under the guidance of senior investigators. In common practice, the young
researcher during the residency period gets the full guidance and support of the
senior investigator at the time of writing the original manuscript. Unfortunately,
they don’t get enough guidance on how to respond to reviewer’s comments as the
senior researcher who is the corresponding author mostly does it, and the young
investigator would have already completed his course and left the institute. This
chapter focusses on how to write an effective response to reviewer’s comments with
tips and practical examples. Also, various options to deal with your rejected article
are discussed in this chapter.

12.2 Editorial Decision on Paper: Types

An article submitted for publication in a journal will be reviewed by the reviewers,

and based on their comments the editor takes one of the following four decisions [1]:

• Accept without any changes

• Accept with minor revision
• Resubmit after major revision
• Reject
12  Revision of an Article and How to Deal with the Rejected Manuscript 125

In the current era, it is exceedingly rare for a manuscript to be accepted without

any modifications. If the editorial decision is a minor revision, it is likely that the
manuscript will be accepted once the requested minor changes are done. Usually, the
editor takes the final decision himself without sending the manuscript for peer review
again. Most of the well-written manuscripts with novel conclusions are accepted
with minor revision. When major changes are requested then, the article has to be
resubmitted with revision, and it goes through the process of peer review again by the
same or different reviewers. Authors need to follow the guidelines elaborated in sub-
sequent sections of this chapter to improve the quality of revised manuscript.

12.3 Avoid Basic Mistakes

One of the most common reasons for revision is not following the instructions to
authors of a particular journal. Read it carefully, as these are fundamental mistakes
that leave a wrong opinion about the article. Most of the high-impact journals even
don’t send the articles for peer review if the article is not formatted as per journal
requirements. Some of the key areas that one should focus while reading the jour-
nal’s author instructions are:

• Font type, font size, line spacing, and page margins

• Order of the contents of the manuscript and how to number the pages
• Word limit for abstract and manuscript
• Maximum permitted number of illustrations and references
• Accepted image and video format for illustrations like pictures and videos

Another common mistake that should be avoided is grammatical errors in the arti-
cle. If the reviewer points out that there are multiple grammatical errors in the arti-
cle, apologize for the mistakes and take the assistance of English writing
enhancement software and grammar check software to correct them. If English is
not your native language, before submission of the manuscript, it is advisable to
upload your article in one of the grammar check software for grammatical errors.
Begin your response to reviewer’s comments with a brief covering letter
addressed to the editor thanking the reviewers for their valuable comments and how
you have replied and updated the revised manuscript.

Example of a Covering Letter

Dear Editor,
We thank you for your decision letter on our manuscript entitled “……. manuscript
name….” We have taken into account the reviewer’s comments and provide a point-
by-point answer to each of them. Changes in the revised version of the manuscript
are highlighted. We do realize that the comments of the reviewers have helped
improve this manuscript. We do hope that you will find this revised version suitable
for publication.
With kind regards,
Authors
126 V. Kate and R. Kalayarasan

12.4 Respond to All Comments

One of the common mistakes made by authors is the failure to respond to all the
comments of the reviewers. The simplest way to ensure that it does not happen is to
copy and paste all reviewer comments in the Word document and type your response
below it. Another mistake commonly done by the authors is to respond to all com-
ments but forget to update the changes in the revised manuscript. Failure to incor-
porate the changes in the revised article will delay the acceptance of your manuscript.
When the corrections are updated in the original article, make sure you follow the
instructions of the journal. Some journals would require using track change mode,
while others might need the corrections to be highlighted in different color. It is
advisable to mention the page and line number where the corrections are made in
the manuscript.

Example
Reviewer’s comment: The authors do not mention anything about the need for bile
duct resection and reconstruction in their operations for either GB cancer or
XGC. Has this never been necessary?
Authors reply: Common bile duct excision was selectively performed when there
was direct infiltration or extensive nodal disease in the hepatoduodenal ligament
(to facilitate lymphadenectomy) or in patients with an underlying choledochal
cyst. Three patients in Group A and 41 patients in Group B underwent CBD exci-
sion. The indications for CBD excision added in the methods section on page 7,
lines 7–11 of the revised manuscript and the data of patients who underwent
CBD excision is given in the revised table.

12.5 Can Authors Disagree with Reviewer’s Comments?

A researcher who spends a lot of time in doing a scientific research and writing a
manuscript can easily get offended when they read reviewer’s comments especially
when the comments are a bit harsh. It is easy to get carried away and give inappro-
priate remarks like the reviewer doesn’t have any knowledge about the study and
use apolitical words. However, it is important to realize that it is imperative to
explain in detail why what the reviewer is thinking may not be appropriate or cor-
rect. The author should understand that the reviewer spends the time to read your
paper to facilitate the publication of your article. The analysis of the reviewer’s
comments by the authors should always begin by assuming that the reviewer may
be correct and that the proposed change will improve the paper. Approaching
reviewer’s comments with a nihilistic attitude usually do not aid in achieving the
goal of getting your work published. Before disagreeing with reviewer’s comments,
ask the following questions to yourself and act accordingly:

• Does the change suggested by the reviewer an improvement? If the answer is

yes, make the change proposed by the reviewer.
12  Revision of an Article and How to Deal with the Rejected Manuscript 127

• Does the change suggested by the reviewer not much of an improvement but do
no harm? If the answer is yes, still make the change proposed by the reviewer, as
it is not going to alter the meaning of your article.
• Does the change suggested by the reviewer negatively influence the content of
your manuscript? If the answer is yes, then you can politely disagree with the
reviewer’s comment.

However, scientific evidence rather than vague statements should back your dis-
agreement. Your defense should be scientifically sound so that the editor under-
stands your point of view and make an informed decision about your paper. If an
adverse comment of the reviewer is secondary to the misunderstanding of the facts
already given in the manuscript, make necessary changes in the text to make the
points explicit.
Examples of response to reviewer’s comments when authors do not agree with
reviewer’s comments:

• Reviewer’s comment: The recurrence rates in Group B are more – whereas we

would expect them to be less if not equal to the Lap-group. It reflects the advanced
stage IIIB in group B.
• Author’s reply: While the number of patients with recurrence was more in Group B
compared to Group A there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients
with recurrence [1/24 (0.04%) vs 3/46 (0.06%), p = 1.00, Fisher’s exact test].
• Reviewer’s comment: So the groups are not strictly comparable.
• Author’s reply: The groups were similar for the preoperative findings. On final histo-
pathological examination (HPE) the proportion of patients with the stage IIIb dis-
ease was more in Group B although the difference was not statistically significant.
The two Groups were comparable for demographic and clinical variables. However,
we agree with the reviewer’s comments that the groups were not randomized.
• Reviewer’s comment: The conclusions of this study are not novel.
• Author’s reply: The data regarding LRC is limited in the literature. While few
studies have shown the feasibility of LRC, the majority of these series had either
a small number of patients or did not have a control arm to compare the results.
While the results of the present study are not novel to the conclusions derived
from the previous studies, the present study is the largest LRC series to report the
feasibility and early oncological outcomes of this approach compared to ORC
from a high volume center. The results of this nonrandomized comparative study
will form the basis for future randomized trials.

12.6 How to Deal with the Rejected Manuscript

Rejection of a submitted manuscript is a common phenomenon in every scientific

researcher’s career. It is important to understand the common causes of rejection of
article to minimize the possibility of your article getting rejected. Of the multiple
reasons summarized in Table  12.1, improper study design is one of the most
128 V. Kate and R. Kalayarasan

Table 12.1  Common reasons for rejection of the submitted manuscript in a journal
S.No Reason Comments
1 Relevance of the topic Unimportant topic or research question with little clinical
relevance, lack of novelty
2 Poor study design Flaws in methodology with inadequate description, biased
protocol, inappropriate statistical tests
3 Improper manuscript Poor organization, grammatical and spelling errors, use of
writing inappropriate acronyms or terminology
4 Lack of interpretations Interpretation not concordant with the data and erroneous
conclusions
5 Wrong selection of Submitted manuscript beyond the scope of the journal
journal
6 Noncompliance of the Not following the instructions to authors of a particular
author journal
7 Plagiarism Articles are rejected even before sending for a peer review
8 Blacklisted author For scientific misconduct

common causes for rejection of the manuscript [2, 3]. Since rejection is inevitable
even for senior researchers, one should be aware of available options after rejection
[4]. Every author has some choices after a manuscript is rejected by a journal.
Broadly they can be classified as:

• Appeal the rejection and resubmit it to the same journal.

• Submit it to another journal.
• File the manuscript without resubmission.

12.7 A
 ppeal the Rejection and Resubmit It to the Same
Journal

This option is not recommended as it has the least success rate. If the editor of the
journal is interested in publishing your manuscript, he would have asked you to
resubmit it after major corrections. As an author, you have every right to appeal the
rejection. However, the appeal should be backed by strong scientific reasons and not
emotional factors. The success of resubmission to the same journal depends on the
cause for rejection. The appeal is unlikely to succeed if the article is rejected for the
following reasons:

• The article is beyond the scope of the journal.

• Lack of novelty or originality of the research unless the reviewer has misunder-
stood the novel findings.
• Flaw in the study design as it cannot be modified after completion of the study.
12  Revision of an Article and How to Deal with the Rejected Manuscript 129

Also, if the journal had rejected your article without sending for peer review or
informed you that they are not interested in accepting any future versions of the
manuscript, respect their decision and submit it to a different journal. However,
resubmission to the same journal can sometimes be successful. In the author’s expe-
rience, one of the high-impact surgery journals had initially rejected an article on
corrosive stricture esophagus because the disease condition is not of interest to its
readers. However, with proper reasoning, the article was considered for publication
in the same journal. The comment is given below with slight modifications as an
example:

Reviewer’s comment: Your manuscript entitled “…manuscript name.” was reviewed

by three reviewers. Overall, the comments were favourable. However, the corro-
sive esophagogastric injury is not common in this part of the world and hence
your article may not be of interest to the potential readers of this journal. We
regret to inform that your article cannot be considered for publication in “…
Journal name…”.
Author’s reply: We thank you for your decision letter on our manuscript entitled
“…. manuscript title”. While we agree that the given disease condition is not
common in the West, the reader profile of your esteemed journal is not restricted
to the West but many Asian countries. Since the current series is the largest series
published yet in the field of corrosive esophagogastric injury, publication of our
article in your esteemed journal would help clinicians to manage these complex
problem. Considering the favorable comments of the reviewers, we request you
to reconsider your decision to reject our manuscript for publication in your
esteemed journal.

Whenever an appeal is made to the same journal, it is important to be polite with

your comments and not to belittle the reviewers with harsh comments.

12.8 Submit It to a Different Journal

It is the best option to choose for your rejected manuscript. It is important to under-
stand that 70% of all manuscripts that are rejected are eventually published in
another journal [5]. Submission can be done to a different journal without making
any changes to the original manuscript or after revision. Resubmission without any
correction is easy, but it is not usually recommended. There is every chance that
your article might go to the same reviewers through the different journal, and it
significantly reduces your chance of acceptance. This option is recommended only
when the manuscript was rejected because it was submitted to a wrong journal.
Article rejected after peer review is an excellent opportunity to improve your
manuscript. The reviewer’s comments are valuable suggestions to make critical
130 V. Kate and R. Kalayarasan

changes in your article. New reviewers are likely to identify the same mistakes
pointed out by the original reviewer and rejection after peer review gives you a
chance to address those issues before submission. Careful attention should be paid
to the reviewer’s comments to improve your manuscript. Whenever the article is
rejected for poor writing, identify the mistakes. Examples of poor manuscript writ-
ing are the use of clinical slang, jargons, and local terminology in the article. Any
data that reveal patient information should be strictly avoided. Before resubmission
to a new journal, make sure that the details like the cover letter, reference format,
and other contents of the manuscript are modified as per new journal’s
instructions.
When you resubmit, you should choose an appropriate journal. For example, if
you want to present a rare presentation of a common tumor given its advanced stage,
you should select a journal published from a country where such presentation is not
common. For example, “a case report of advanced gallbladder cancer presenting
with cholecystocutaneous fistula” or a “case report of advanced gastric cancer
presenting with inguinal node metastasis” is more likely to get published in a
Western journal compared to a tropical journal where these presentations are not
uncommon [6].

12.9 Filing the Manuscript Without Resubmission

If the article is rejected in two or more journals, it is easy to get frustrated and
feel that your paper is not worthy for resubmission in any journal. Filing the
manuscript without resubmission is an easy decision to take; however, it is not
recommended as you are dumping your scientific research. The failure to publish
the results and outcome of any original scientific is a loss to the scientific com-
munity. Your results might be precious to other investigators by providing the
missing link to a research question or to head off fruitless avenues of research.
Keep improving the quality of your manuscript based on the reviewer’s com-
ments. If one journal rejects your article, try another one and another one and yet
another one till you find the ideal match for your manuscript. If you are not sure
which journal to select for your article, choose a journal with broad scope and
low selectivity. If the results of your study are not novel, select journals which do
not give importance to the novelty of research but to the methodology and data
analysis. Open access journals are an option; however, financial constraints
might be a limiting factor. The last option is to upload your research paper in
online digital repository sites like Figshare. The articles uploaded in these sites
will be citable and freely accessible (Fig. 12.1).
12  Revision of an Article and How to Deal with the Rejected Manuscript 131

How to deal with a rejected manuscript

Manuscript rejected

After peer review Before peer review

Analyse the Analyse the cause

reviewer’s of rejection
comments

Comments related Comments related to

Inappropriate Poor manuscript
to poor manuscript the scope of the journal
journal writing
writing and analysis and reader’s interest

Strongly disagree Agree

with reviewer’s
comments

Submit to a Resubmit to same Submit to a Submit to a

different journal journal with full relevant journal different journal
after revision justification without revision after revision

Fig. 12.1  Shows an algorithmic approach to deal with a rejected manuscript

12.10 Conclusion

Responding to reviewer’s comments is an art that every investigator needs to master.

An article sent for revision should be viewed positively as it indicates that the editor
is still interested in considering your manuscript for publication in their journal.
Following the guidelines and practical tips on how to respond to reviewer’s com-
ments elaborated in this chapter can enhance the chance of getting your article
accepted for publication. Rejection of an article is an inevitable outcome even for
reputed researchers. However, rejection is not the end of the world for a manuscript.
Understanding the common causes of rejection of an article and relentless efforts to
convert your article into a luminary manuscript can help achieve the ultimate goal
of publication in a reputed journal.

Case Scenario

An original article entitled “Modified Frey’s procedure versus standard Frey’s pro-
cedure for chronic pancreatitis – a randomized controlled trial” was submitted to the
“Journal of Chronic Pancreatitis.” After peer review, the editorial decision on paper
132 V. Kate and R. Kalayarasan

was to resubmit after major changes with point-to-point response to comments of

the reviewers.
Which of the following is true or false?

1 . Can I selectively respond to only reviewer’s comments that I feel relevant?

2. Can I disagree with reviewer’s comments?
3. Will the editor update the manuscript with changes based on my response to
reviewer’s comments?
4. Will my revised manuscript be subjected to peer review again?

References
1. Bhargava P, Agrawal G. From the editor’s desk: a systematic guide to revising a manuscript.
Radiol Case Rep. 2015;8:824.
2. Garg A, Das S, Jain H. Why we say no! A look through the editor’s eye. J Clin Diagn Res.
2015;9:JB01–5.
3. Ali J. Manuscript rejection: causes and remedies. J Young Pharm. 2010;2:3–6.
4. Peh WC, Ng KH. Dealing with returned manuscripts. Singap Med J. 2009;50:1050–2.
5. Chew FS.  Fate of manuscripts rejected for publication in the AJR.  AJR Am J  Roentgenol.
1991;156:627–32.
6. Heller M, Kontzialis M, Anderson A, Bhargava P. From the editor’s desk: common errors in
submission of case reports. Radiol Case Rep. 2015;7:771.