R&Rs and journal word limits

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a reader writes:

I'm revising a paper (major revisions). The criticisms and comments I received are all incredibly useful. However, I cannot possibly address them all because of a strict word limit of the journal. What are your strategies in cases like this? Can you tell reviewers "your comments x, y, and z are useful, but I could only address x and y because of word limit" ? Should I tell the same thing to the editor?

Good questions! Personally, I think it's a bad idea to tell reviewers and editors that you can't address all of the reviewers' concerns--as that automatically gives the reviewers and editors reasons to reject the paper. Instead, my sense is that it's better to either (1) find a way to get under the word limit, or alternatively, (2) ask the editor(s) whether you can go above the journal's limit, and if so, by how much. But, my sense is that it's also a good idea to give (1) your very best attempt before attempting (2). That is, if I were in the OP's situation, I would revise the paper first, addressing all of the reviewers' concerns. Then I would spend a significant amount of time cutting as many unnecessary words as possible. Then, if after all of that, I can't get under the journal's limit, I would email the editor saying something like, "I have revised the paper, addressing all of the reviewers' comments, but even after a few weeks of trying to cut the paper down, I'm still X words the word limit. Is this okay?".

At that point, of course, if the editors say it's fine, you're good--or if they give you some other number to shoot for, you can try that. And, in my experience, it's almost always possible to cut out a few thousand words with really clever editing. But, if they say, "No, you have to meet the hard limit", it's at that point that I would look for things to cut out. Here, I've found that the best strategy is perhaps to flag tertiary concerns that you can't address in a footnote, saying that due to space constraints, it is beyond the scope of the present paper. That at least enables you to say in your 'response to reviewers' that you didn't ignore their comment, and it gives them some grounds for recognizing that you couldn't address it for good reasons. But still, you definitely want to address all of the referees' major concerns. So again, it may take very careful editing to get below whatever word-count the editor gives you.

But these are just my thoughts. What are yours? It would be especially good to hear from authors who have navigated these issues successfully!

Comments

[postduck]

In this situation I will address the reviewer's worry at length in the reply letter but only address it briefly in the manuscript (e.g. with a "This is beyond the scope of the current discussion" footnote and some references). I'll also make it clear in my letter why I am choosing not to include it in the manuscript.
Even if the word limit is flexible, this is often the right way to go if you want to avoid unnecessary bloat during the review process. You're within your rights as an author to decline to make requested changes if doing so would lead you to write a paper you don't want to write.

[Michel]

For me, it's the same as with you, Marcus, and postduck.

I generally ask for forgiveness rather than permission, though. So if, after addressing everything and spending a lot of time cutting I'm still, say, 400 words over, I'll flag it for the editor with my resubmission and ask for forgiveness. It's usually all from expanding the reference list, anyway--I can cut a lot of content, but I can't really cut much from the references! It's always been OK.

I've only ever had 1 R&R rejected, and I'm reasonably certain that was on grounds of fit (though it shouldn't have been!). It was a frustrating one, because the paper started out only just under the word limit, and addressing referee issues took several thousand words. I still managed to cut back to less than 1k words over, but there was no way to get around it (in my letter to the editor I flagged a section I could cut to get to the word limit, but also noted it would leave a major criticism unanswered). The rejection didn't come with an explanation, so I'm guessing, but I don't think the word limit was the problem.

[CodPots]

I usually just check whether the journal has recently published "regular" papers of a certain length (by regular, I mean not invited or for a special issue). If the journal has published a 12k paper, I assume that my revised paper can be 12k words long.

Also: Perhaps I haven't been doing this right, but I always assumed that word limits concerned the original submission. Otherwise, I don't really understand how some 14-16k words papers end up being published in journals that have an official 10k words limit.

[Tim]

I've also encountered this problem. Once or twice, my revisions were slightly over (less than 1000 words). I didn't say anything, and no one noticed. On other occasions, I made the revisions I thought necessary to the comments and edited, but it was still noticeably over the limit. In those situations, I submit the long version and ask the editor for assistance in identifying content that can be cut to meet word limits. The editors didn't say anything, and the longer version was accepted.

But if you are forced (or simply prefer) to meet the word limit when submitting, the previous techniques work well. You can say a little in the paper, and a longer explanation in your response. Or you can have a long footnote, that should have been an entire section. I think everyone knows that such changes are there because of reviewers.

[Philowhal]

If they don't ask I just don't tell them. If you've been asked to revise the manuscript and it requires more word count to address the reviewer[s] then that's not your problem. If asked I just say I needed additional words to address the reviewer comments and it has never been a problem.