Skip to content

Here’s a New One.

15 November 2013

Well, friends, here’s a new one. My first research paper for MECMC was rejected by the first two journals I sent it to. Not surprising in either case. It was well reviewed both times, but at glam journals where the reviews need to be spectacular to have a chance. So I resubmitted to a well-respected second tier journal, in a field appropriate for the work. I settled on this journal after emailing a bunch of EICs asking if the topic was relevant to their journals. Most never responded, or responded saying that they don’t respond to such questions.

But this journal sent me back a nice reply from the EIC’s personal email address (stamped with that guarantee of authenticity “Sent from my iPhone”), saying that he would like to review the paper and to please submit it through the website. So I did. Fast forward a month, and today I got the review. Drumroll…

“Accept after Major Revisions.”

Um. I’ve never seen that before. I’ve seen “Accept with minor revisions.” I’ve seen “Revise and resubmit.” I’ve seen “Reject and resubmit.” I’ve seen “Major revisions.” I’ve seen “Reject.” (I’ve seen a lot of “Reject.”) But I’ve never seen any “Accept after Major Revisions.” I’ve never heard of it.

Now, the letter from the editor seems to suggest that this is a standard revise and resubmit. Please make the following revisions and we’ll reconsider it, you have one month. Comments from two reviewers, who had some thoughtful and serious things to say. So, I’m hopeful. I’m hopeful that the “Accept” part comes true, anyway. I think I can respond to the review.

Does anyone have any experience with this editorial decision?

6 Comments leave one →
  1. 16 November 2013 07:50

    New one on me.

  2. Bryan permalink
    16 November 2013 11:30

    Not new to me at all, although fewer journals seem to have this category now. My experience is that you address the concerns and you’re set, and it’s not at the level of a full resubmission with new review process.

  3. Syd permalink
    16 November 2013 11:42

    Yes, if you meet all the criteria suggested by the reviewers, then the editor will generally accept. I have had a couple that I received an accept with major revision.

  4. 16 November 2013 15:58

    You had me at “accept.” Not new to me, this is the most common response I get. The editor thinks it is appropriate and the reviewers thought there was merit…but they want to rake you over the coals a bit. You can screw this up by brushing off the reviewer comments, but if you are all set as long as you bend over backwards to address reviewer concerns. Generally, I take “major revisions” to mean that they don’t just want you to revise the text a bit, but are also asking for additional work.

  5. Jeff permalink
    18 November 2013 21:26

    very common option and means they want the paper if the revisions can be made. Revisions are major if they include analysis or substantial additions as compared to making a comment or correcting a figure legend

  6. RGW permalink
    21 November 2013 03:16

    Yep. Have even said this in review. From my p.o.v., this means – good idea, some good work, but it’s incomplete without (these are commonest, some won’t apply to you of course):
    More work to substantiate particular claims that may be ambiguous, or not clear to the reviewer, or that the reviewer thinks don’t necessarily follow from data presented;
    Subsantial overhaul of the text – include omitted refs, address another interpretation of the data, make the english comprehensible;
    Improve certain figures/data that the reviewer thinks are substandard or not clear (at least to them).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: