How do you follow up with the editor and reviewers after submitting your revised paper?

✓Upon receiving notification of the revised paper submission, promptly acknowledge the receipt. ✓Send a polite thank-you email to the editor expressing your appreciation for their time and consideration.

After submitting your revised paper, wait for the designated timeframe. Then, send a polite email to the editor expressing gratitude for the opportunity to revise and inquire about the status of your manuscript. Include specific details like the title and manuscript number. Acknowledge the editor's workload and avoid pressuring for a timeline. Offer to provide further information if needed, and thank them for their time.

Before any follow-up ensure that you are following the journal timelines, it is only when you find there is delay in response even after the said deadline then you can reach out to the editor either through their web portal or through given email address in a polite matter.

It's best to wait a decent amount of time after turning in a revised academic paper before sending an editor a polite, short follow-up email. Thank them for their time, give a short outline of the changes that were made in response to their comments, and say that you are looking forward to hearing about the review's progress. Attach a point-by-point answer document that highlights the most important changes, and let them know again that you're ready to give them more information if they need it. Keep a polite and professional tone the whole time, and remember that the editors have a lot to do. Use a clear subject line and, if necessary, follow up regularly to show that you are patient and persistent.

Following up with the editor and reviewers after submitting your revised paper involves several key steps: 1. Wait for confirmation of receipt of the revised manuscript. 2. Send a polite follow-up email to the editor after a reasonable time. 3. Summarize significant revisions made in a follow-up email. 4. Be respectful and patient throughout the process. 5. Express gratitude for feedback, regardless of the outcome. By following these steps, you can effectively follow up with the editor and reviewers after submitting your revised paper, ensuring that your manuscript receives timely consideration and feedback during the peer review process.

✓Monitor the status of your revised paper through the journal's submission system or any provided tracking mechanisms. ✓If there's a designated timeframe for the review process, be aware of it and inquire about any delays if necessary.

To keep track of your paper's progress, regularly check the submission system or journal website. Look for any updates on the status of your manuscript, like "Under Review" or "Revisions Requested." If you don't see any changes after a while, it's okay to politely ask the editor about the status via email. Remember to be patient and stay positive while waiting for updates. Tracking the status helps you stay informed and ensures you're aware of any next steps needed for your paper.

To be responsive during the revision process, after you have a first round of reviews back, create a table listing each reviewer's comments and detail how you addressed each comment one by one. Include any comments you find inappropriate or cannot address. For example, if you made a specific methodological decision, provide a supporting reference to justify your approach. This table proactively clarifies questions and reduces the need for further communication with the editor, demonstrating a thorough and professional approach to revisions. Even if they smallest changes need made, let them know you made those changes.

Several issues have resulted in an increase in time from submission to “in press”. These include an increased # of submissions, limited #s of reviewers, etc. This timeframe is often 9 to 12 months with more prestigious & traditional publication outlets as compared to "pay to play outlets" & predatory journals. Patience & vigilance are the name of the game. Be on the lookout for communications from the editor; 1) follow-up within the required timeframe, 2) complete requested revisions, author forms etc., 3) if needed contact the editor periodically to communicate your interest in a timely period from submission to publication, & 4) if the timeframe is extended past 12 months communicate that the manuscript may need to be withdrawn.

✓Be patient during the review process. It often takes some time for reviewers to assess your revisions and provide feedback. ✓If the editor or reviewers have additional questions or requests, respond promptly and thoroughly. ✓Demonstrating responsiveness can facilitate a smoother review process.

✓If you receive feedback or requests for further revisions, carefully consider the comments and make the necessary adjustments. ✓If you disagree with certain feedback, be prepared to negotiate with the editor or reviewers. Provide well-reasoned justifications for your choices ✓If a decision is not favorable, and you believe it's warranted, explore the possibility of an appeal following the journal's guidelines

If you receive feedback that you disagree with, stay calm and respectful. First, carefully read the comments and consider how you can address them constructively. If you still disagree, prepare a clear and polite appeal letter outlining your reasons. Provide evidence supporting your points and suggest potential compromises if applicable. Remember, negotiations should focus on improving the quality of your work and finding common ground with the reviewers and editor.

You don't have to accept every suggestion from a reviewer. The key is to choose your battles wisely and push back strategically. Implement the suggestions that make sense, and for the few you strongly disagree with, write a tactful explanation of why you won’t be making those changes. Your goal is to come across as appreciative of the feedback, even if you don’t actually feel that way! By graciously accepting as many suggestions as possible (e.g., 'We appreciate this thoughtful suggestion from the reviewer and agree it has improved the paper...'), you gain more leverage to push back against the changes that really matter.

It's understandable that any rejection feels unreasonable, so allow yourself time to sit with those feelings. Then return to the comments. It may be on subsequent readings you agree with the reviewer's comments, or at least can appreciate their reasoning. However, it's not unusual for reviewers to get things wrong or misinterpret things. In which case it is fine to note where any errors or misunderstandings have arisen; note any clarifications you could make to ensure your paper's easier to follow; and request a reconsideration. For example, on one of my joint publications a reviewer rejected the paper for our translation of a questionnaire designed specifically for this purpose. A fair but firm clarification from us led to publication.

✓Adhere to the submission and revision guidelines provided by the journal ✓This includes formatting, referencing, and any other specific requirements. ✓Ensure that your revised paper aligns with the journal's expectations for content and style.

These are useful ideas - but are often not followed when originally submitting (hence the rejection). So while it's good to consider when asking for a resubmit, it may be if the original instructions that were clearly given weren't provided it's not a shock a desk (or other) rejection will occur. With so many people submitting papers and reviewers being overworked and unappreciated, second chances may not be given for those who didn't follow clear instructions the first time. Along with carefully following these instructions, asking for help to understand them, tailoring papers to specific journal specs; training on writing for publication is also worthwhile.

Be kind to the Managing Editor (and I'm not just saying that because I am one!) - they are often just the messenger, and were likely not extensively involved in the decision about whether to publish or reject a paper. Keep them in the loop with what's going on at your end – whether that's delays or you'd like clarification about something – and they are usually happy to help make it work.

It's crucial to maintain a good relationship and politeness and clarity is vital in all academic exchanges. This does not mean you need to beg, fawn, or flatter. This is unlikely to change anything. Instead, be clear about what you would like to happen or what you have attended to, in the briefest and clearest terms. If there are examples of reviewers being prejudiced, rude, inconsistent, or otherwise unprofessional you don't have to meet like-with-like. Bullying behaviour isn't okay from authors - or reviewers. However, it is absolutely acceptable to draw the editors attention to poor conduct from reviewers, citing publication and reviewing guidelines. Escalating if necessary.

Maintaining a good relationship with the editor and reviewers is essential for successful publication. Be responsive to their feedback and communicate politely and professionally throughout the process. Express gratitude for their time and guidance, and acknowledge their contributions to improving your work. Respond promptly to emails and requests for revisions, and always adhere to the journal's guidelines and deadlines. Building rapport and demonstrating professionalism fosters trust and collaboration, enhancing the publication experience for all parties involved.

When submitting a revised paper, ensure you are submitting something that is close to publishable as possible. I have seen papers where the author(s) did not even update their reference style to the journal's specifications. So, if everything else is approved (content and methodology and results), you do not want things like grammar, writing, and citation styles to be returned for another revision. Further, a cover letter is useful when submitting a revised paper. Especially if it synthesizes all the changes made based on a previous review. Sometimes the editor or main peer reviewer will read this first before doing another review of the paper.

Serving as a manuscript reviewer is one of the best ways to become familiar with the publishing process & to write better manuscripts. Doing so equips you to gain insider knowledge. Being a reviewer is a win-win. Reviewers are the lifeblood of journal publishing & being a reviewer helps one to acquire valuable skills, increases visibility in one's field, & enhances professional credibility.

Another tip is to ensure that your record-keeping and folders are well-organised. Some reviewers may request additional clarifications or explanations for the methods section. Keeping organised records will save time and effort when responding to reviewers.

In addition to these steps, it’s a good idea to provide updates to the editor if there are any significant developments related to your paper, such as acceptance or rejection from another journal. Finally, if you have any questions or concerns about the review process or feedback received, don’t hesitate to seek clarification from the editor. Effective communication with the editor and reviewers is key to facilitating a constructive review process and ensuring the successful publication of your revised paper.