In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:
I wonder whether it is considered permissible to send a revised version of a manuscript after it has already been sent to peer review.
Some background: I recently revised and resubmitted a manuscript to a journal, and the editor already sent it back to the reviewers. Since then, I noticed that I could significantly improve two paragraphs of the paper to elucidate a crucial principle for my argument. The changes I intend to do would not affect the conclusion but only make it clearer how I arrived there. I am worried that my paper might get rejected if the reviewers find these two paragraphs confusing.
Do you think it makes sense to contact the editor and ask I could reupload the paper in this kind of circumstances? If not, what would be my best course of action? Curious to hear what others in the field think of this or whether someone has done something similar.
This is an interesting question. I recently had an R&R under review at a journal that I had similar concerns about, but I did nothing and the paper was accepted. In retrospect, I think I was probably just being too self-critical--though I think it's understandable to be that way, given how high journal rejection rates are. So, I guess I'm inclined to think that if the OP's concern is merely that the two paragraphs "could be clearer", it may not be worth their while to do anything. It might be a different story, I think, if they found a fatal error or something--which could definitely be worth trying to do something about. But, in any case, if the reader is that concerned, I suppose it couldn't hurt to ask the editor. Or could it? I don't know.
What do you all think?
I don't think it's worth anyone's time in this scenario. The referees won't reject it based on two paragraphs; they'll just note that the argument there could be clearer. Even if the paper is accepted outright, you'll have the chance to fix those paragraphs.
Posted by: Michel | 10/18/2021 at 11:57 AM
This isn't directly an answer to the question, but exactly for this reason, I have a policy of never sending something out until I've sat on it for a week.
It's amazing what a fresh pair of eyes can see.
Posted by: Postdoc | 10/18/2021 at 01:39 PM
Postdoc: sitting things on a week is a good policy. But still, for all that, my experience is that no matter how long one sits on something, one still nearly always finds things to quibble with post-submission. This, it seems to me, is just the way of things. No paper is ever perfect, and it's easy to fixate on things post-submission, no matter how much time or care one has taken. That's my experience, at any rate.
Posted by: Marcus Arvan | 10/18/2021 at 01:44 PM
I have never done what OP is suggesting. And I agree it wouldn't be worth the energies of all involved--and might piss someone off!
In the past, I have had a revise-and-resubmit paper get accepted where one of the reviewers just noted that the added prose was slightly inferior to the original prose. That observation didn't get in the way of the paper getting accepted. And I was able to improve the added prose before final submission.
Posted by: Tim | 10/18/2021 at 07:29 PM
It is a very bad idea to contact the editor after you have resubmitted your revised manuscript. I usually refer a paper within three days of agreeing to do it. This would effectively render my assessment irrelevant. And there is NO WAY I would review a manuscript again, after I have submitted my evaluation.
Posted by: one referee | 10/19/2021 at 08:53 AM