Following the submission of your research paper to your target journal, an Academic Editor is typically invited to carry out a pre-check of your manuscript. This serves to assess your paper’s scientific integrity and alignment with journal scope.

During this stage, the Academic Editor may request revisions before peer review or move the manuscript forward to peer review. During the peer review stage, reviewers may also request further revisions before publication.

Revising your research paper after submission can be intimidating, especially if you are an early career researcher unfamiliar with the process. But approaching editorial or reviewer comments practically can help you overcome the revision stages and achieve publication.

In this article, we walk authors through the full revision workflow, including understanding what major and minor revisions require, reading and categorising reviewer comments, writing a professional point-by-point response letter, and resubmitting.

What does ‘revision’ of your research paper mean?

Receiving your research paper back after submission and being told that revisions are required can feel deflating, but it is a natural and very common part of scientific publishing. Editorial or reviewer comments help you see the blind spots or weaknesses in your research argument. By integrating these comments into your work, you improve your manuscript and uphold broader scientific integrity.

It is important to understand that a revision decision is not a rejection of your research paper. Rather, it is an invitation to create a more comprehensive and scientifically sound work based on the underlying potential of your paper.

Major vs minor revision

How you approach revising a research paper largely depends on the scale of revisions required.

During the peer review stage, reviewers submit review reports to the Academic Editor after assessing your manuscript. Based on the contents of these reports, the Academic Editor then requests either minor or major revision.

Minor revision

In the case of minor revision, your paper will in principle be accepted so long as the reviewers’ and Academic Editor’s comments have been addressed. Generally, minor revision means that the core argument, data, and methods are solid. Small technicalities, such as confusing sentences, grammar and spelling mistakes, missing references, or numerical errors are typical examples of minor revisions.

For minor revisions after submission to an MDPI journal, authors are given 5 days to revise based on the comments. Extensions may be granted on request.

Major revision

In the case of major revision, the reviewers understand the potential of your paper but feel that substantial changes must be made before it can be accepted for publication. Examples of major revisions may include rewriting sections, reanalysing data using different statistical models, or strengthening the core argument or theoretical framework.

Up to two rounds of major revision are usually allowed per manuscript. More rounds of revision may be necessary if recommended by the Academic Editor.

For major revisions after submission to an MDPI journal, authors are given 10 days to revise based on the comments. Again, extensions may be granted on request.

Reject and encourage resubmission

An article for which additional experiments and extensive revision are needed to support the conclusions will be rejected. In such cases, authors may choose to resubmit their manuscript to the same journal in their own time upon the completion of comprehensive revision.

Revised manuscripts submitted to the same journal will be assigned a new manuscript ID.

Reading and categorising reviewer comments

A good tip before starting to address any reviewer comments is to categorise them. This will not only help you keep track of what it is that needs to be addressed, but it will also help organise the changes in terms of difficulty, time required, etc., making revising your research paper much easier.

Look for common links between different comments and start organising them into categories. You might have categories such as:

• Factual corrections.
• Theoretical oversights.
• Structural rewrites.
• Stylistic suggestions.
• Clarification requests.

The way you approach organising your categories will most likely depend on the number and content of the comments themselves. However, establishing a reliable base of categories that cover most of your paper’s issues is a solid start.

Writing a point-by-point response letter

Once you have categorised your reviewers’ comments, it is time to address the changes using a point-by-point response letter. This is a structured document submitted alongside the revised manuscript that responds to each individual comment and demonstrates how you have addressed the issues outlined by the reviewers. Point-by-point response letters are a standard practice in academic publishing when revising a research paper.

Remember to respond to each comment by quoting the reviewer and showing the change you made. Try and maintain a professional, grateful tone; never become defensive about your manuscript. If reviewer comments are conflicting, try and determine whether the comments actually oppose each other or are just pointing to underlying weaknesses in your paper from different perspectives. If you still believe the comments are contradictory, choose the approach that best preserves the scientific integrity of your research. In a case where you disagree with any comments, give a justification for why you do so.

Use Word tracked changes so editors can easily verify every revision against your response letter.

Resubmission

After addressing all reviewer comments, you can now resubmit your paper. If submitting to an MDPI journal, you can resubmit your paper by logging in to your SuSy (Submission System) account. Locate your manuscript under the revision section, then upload the revised version alongside the response letter and any other relevant materials.

In rarer cases, a resubmission may be rejected. You can appeal this by submitting a completed appeal form to the Editorial Office within three months of the decision date. You must provide a detailed justification for the appeal, including point-by-point responses to the comments that contributed to the rejection decision and supporting evidence where applicable.

MDPI Author Services and revision support

Revising a research paper can be tough, especially after you have dedicated so much time to the manuscript. That is where professional editing services can step in and support you.

At MDPI Author Services, we specialise in helping researchers prepare their paper for submission and publication. Our Academic Editing Service provides four rounds of editing carried out by PhD specialist editors. This service includes a review of structure, terminology, a technical review report, and free layout editing. Click here for a free quote.

Subscribe to the Author Services Newsletter for tips, discounts, and updates.