The art of revising for premier journals

Abstract

While many authors do get pass desk rejection and are invited to submit a revision, not all authors do so with success, both at the first attempt as well as in subsequent attempts. In other words, authors may still receive rejections even after revising their manuscripts, both in the first round as well as subsequent rounds of revision. Though such rejections, especially in later rounds, are less frequent but nonetheless painful when it happens due to the effort and time that authors have invested to produce the revision, it must be understood that revised manuscripts that are not done well will make it difficult, if not impossible, for the editorial and review team to allow such manuscripts to continue progressing in the peer review process, let alone recommending an acceptance. To put it simply, it is really not possible for editors and reviewers to accept a manuscript with continued errors (e.g., factual, formatting, and language errors in the main text, figures, tables, references, and/or appendices) and unresolved issues (e.g., unconvincing argument, conduct, and conclusion), especially when they are caught. Noteworthily, peer review is a voluntary process in which editors’ and reviewers’ investment (e.g., effort and time) should be respected (Dolnicar, 2021), and thus, their service should be called upon judiciously (Lim, 2021).

To support authors who wish to produce a good revision and get published in premier journals (i.e., the aim), this article curates a set of actionable guidelines that authors can rely on to revise really well for premier journals (i.e., the way the aim is achieved). These guidelines are informed through a triangulation of experiences as an author, an editor, and a reviewer for premier journals (i.e., the source of rigor in achieving the aim). Authors who take a leaf out of these guidelines should have a better chance of convincing editors and reviewers that their revisions are truly up to mark for potential publication in premier journals (i.e., value of achieving the aim).

Decision letters are sent out at various times of the day—for example, early in the morning, during the day, or in the wee hours of the night—depending on where authors and editors live in the world. More often than not, a decision letter is accompanied by a long list of comments and suggestions from editors and reviewers, which may be overwhelming in the first instance of receiving and reading that letter. In this regard, it may be a good idea to have a quick read of the review feedback, preferably during the day and not before sleep, and then to take a step back to reflect before discussing and working with peers on a revised version of the manuscript, be it for the same journal (i.e., when there is an invitation to submit a revision) or another journal (i.e., when there is no invitation to submit a revision). In other words, authors should have a calm mind and an objective view of the review feedback before attempting to revise their manuscript, otherwise, authors may make the mistake of not being able to see the rationale behind the feedback given by editors and reviewers, and thus, irking the latter two when revised submissions show a lack of maturity and understanding in addressing the feedback that was given, which may, in turn, result in a rejection after revision.

Moreover, it is inarguably a bad idea to start a conversation with the editor about potential disagreements with the review feedback as soon as the decision letter is received. Often times, such conversations, which indirectly question the decision made by editors, are initiated due to anger and frustration, and thus, tend to make a really poor impression on editors, who (should) have read the manuscript and reviews before arriving at the decision that was rendered. It is also unnecessary to reach out to editors to ask questions (e.g., is it a good idea to do this or that?) that could be easily addressed in the revision itself (e.g., logical rationales supported by prior literature to explain why an approach was adopted over another). Though it is true that conflicting feedback may have been provided by different reviewers, editors will often state their stance in terms of which reviewer feedback that authors should lean towards, otherwise, it is implied that authors can make their own stance with valid justifications and support, keeping in mind the different options that are available. It is also important to note that editors are very busy people who have many submissions and revisions to process in addition to their day-to-day jobs as an academic with continuing learning and teaching, research and development, and leadership and service responsibilities. Therefore, authors should only be reaching out to editors for issues that they really cannot handle on their own without the intervention of editors and their editorial office (e.g., missing review attachment in the email and the journal system).

Once a revision has been completed and submitted in the journal system, authors should wait patiently for the outcome of the re-review process. As mentioned, peer review is a voluntary process, and thus, editors and reviewers should not be rushed into returning their reviews—doing the opposite can backfire and result in an unfavorable decision (e.g., a decision made based on a single reviewer who may have recommended a rejection or a risky major revision). There are also times when the original reviewers could not continue in the review process (e.g., declining re-review invitation or not returning a review despite accepting the re-review invitation), which in turn, prolongs the review process as editors may need to find new reviewers before returning a decision to authors. The typical review and re-review process is usually three months (and may go up to six months), and thus, authors who wish to follow up with editors and the editorial office should only do so after three months have passed. More importantly, authors should not be waiting only for the review outcome of their submitted manuscripts; instead, they should continue progressing on new research projects and manuscripts so that their research pipeline continues, and by extension, their research-intensive academic careers.

The current issue of Global Business and Organizational Excellence (GBOE) features three highly interesting studies.

Using grounded theory, Castillo (2022) conducted in-depth interviews with 20 senior executives and managers from six different multinational companies from the financial sector to shed light on how corporate social responsibility (CSR) is managed through social learning. The study highlighted that CSR management is a double-loop social learning process involving CSR influencers, alignment process, strategy development, and the evaluation of the outcomes resulting from the CSR strategy.

Using the job demands-resources (JD-R) theory, Chigeda et al. (2022) examined the effects of work-related stress, life-work balance support, and emotional intelligence on the continuance of organizational commitment among workers in under-resourced organizations. Using a survey of 212 workers, the study revealed that work-related stress, life-work balance support, and emotional intelligence have a positive and significant effect on organizational commitment continuance, and that emotional intelligence also significantly moderated the relationship between work-related stress and life-work balance support with organizational commitment continuance, which, when taken collectively, provide useful pathways to help under-resourced organizations to retain their employees.

Using a descriptive-analytical qualitative research design, Cuenca et al. (2022) leveraged on secondary data and performed 14 semi-structured interviews with the top management teams of seven organizations that have formally declared humility as an essential value to their corporate philosophy. The study showed that organizations infused with an organizational culture of humility typically have an awareness of their own limitations, a culture of learning, innovation, and praise, clear self-assessments of strengths and weaknesses, shared behaviors, and support for third-party contributions and feedback practices, which, when taken collectively, can be organized into a Humble Organizational Culture (HOC) model.

To this end, it is hoped that this article will serve as a useful guide to help authors succeed in their revision and publish in GBOE and premier journals at large. It is also hoped that readers will enjoy the articles in GBOE’s latest issue focusing on the social learning aspect of CSR (Castillo, 2022), organizational commitment continuance (Chigeda et al., 2022), and the organizational culture of humility (Cuenca et al., 2022).

Weng Marc Lim is responsible for conceptualization and writing (original draft preparation, review, and editing).

The author declares no conflict of interest.