What a revise-and-resubmit decision really means

The short answer

A revise-and-resubmit decision, often shortened to R&R, means the editor is not ready to accept the manuscript but sees enough potential to consider a revised version. You are being invited to address the reviewers’ and editor’s concerns and send the paper back, usually for another round of review. It is an encouraging outcome, but it is not an acceptance, and it does not commit the journal to publishing the revised paper.

What the label means in practice depends on the journal. At many journals in the social sciences, humanities, and business, “revise and resubmit” is the usual name for a substantial revision. Other journals call the same outcome “major revision,” and some use “reject and resubmit” for a revised paper that will be handled as a new submission. The letter itself, not the label, tells you what the editor expects.

Common editorial decisions

The definitions below describe how these terms are commonly used. Your journal’s own wording and process take precedence.

Accept

The journal will publish the manuscript, sometimes after small technical or formatting corrections. Some journals use “conditional acceptance” when final acceptance depends on completing specific items.

Minor revision

The manuscript is close to acceptable and needs limited changes, such as clarifications, small additions, or corrections. The editor may check the revision without sending it back to reviewers, although some journals do re-review.

Major revision

Substantial changes are needed, such as additional analyses, reframed arguments, or a restructured discussion. The revised manuscript is usually reviewed again, often by the original reviewers.

Revise and resubmit

An invitation to revise substantially and resubmit for further review. At many journals it is equivalent to a major revision; at others it signals more uncertainty about whether the paper can reach the journal’s standard.

Reject and resubmit

Sometimes called rejection with encouragement to resubmit. The current version is declined, but the editor would consider a substantially revised manuscript, typically as a new submission that may receive a new manuscript number and new reviewers.

Reject

The journal will not consider the manuscript further after review. Some publishers suggest transferring the paper to another of their journals. Many also have a formal appeals process, although appeals are generally considered only when authors can show strong grounds, such as a clear error or important new information.

Desk reject

The editor declines the manuscript without sending it for external peer review, often because it falls outside the journal’s scope, does not fit its priorities, or does not meet basic submission requirements.

What an R&R does and does not imply

Reading too much or too little into the decision can lead to poor planning. It helps to separate what the decision usually signals from what it does not.

What it usually signals

• The editor considers the research question and contribution relevant to the journal.
• In the editor’s view, the reviewers’ concerns are potentially addressable.
• The paper remains under consideration, provided you resubmit within the stated time.

What it does not signal

• It does not promise acceptance. A revised paper can still be rejected if the editor finds the changes inadequate, as Taylor & Francis’s overview of the peer-review process (external link) notes.
• It does not mean every reviewer supports publication. One enthusiastic and one skeptical report can lead to the same decision as two lukewarm ones.
• It does not mean only the same reviewers will see the revision. Editors sometimes add a new reviewer, particularly when the original reports disagreed.
• It does not oblige you to accept every suggestion. You may disagree, provided you give reasons.

Deadlines and extensions

Decision letters usually state a date by which the revised manuscript should arrive. Revision windows differ by journal and by the scale of the changes requested, so check your letter rather than relying on general expectations. Some journals close the file, or treat a late revision as a new submission, once the deadline passes.

If you need more time, for example to collect additional data or run new analyses, write to the editorial office before the deadline. Explain briefly why, and propose a realistic new date. An early, specific request is much easier for an editor to consider than a late or open-ended one.

Resubmit or go elsewhere?

Revising for the same journal is often the sensible choice: the editor has already invested time in the paper, and the reviews describe what is needed. Still, it is a decision, not an obligation. Questions worth discussing with your co-authors include:

• Can you address the central concerns with the data and resources you have, or would they require a new study?
• Would the requested changes alter the paper’s core question or argument in ways the author team cannot support?
• Is the timeline realistic given teaching, clinical, fieldwork, or other commitments?
• Does a thesis, grant, or promotion deadline make a faster route more important than this particular journal?
• Is the journal still the right fit, given what the reviews reveal about its readers and expectations?

If you decide to submit elsewhere, formally withdraw the manuscript before submitting it to another journal. The ICMJE recommendations on overlapping publications (external link) state that authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time, and journal policies commonly prohibit it as well. The reviews you received can still improve the next version, and our guide to choosing a journal beyond its impact factor can help you reassess your options.

Plan the revision as a project

An R&R often involves several co-authors, new analyses, and many small edits. Treating it as a short project helps prevent missed comments and last-minute inconsistencies.

1. Read the decision letter and reviews, then pause for a day or two before responding.
2. Summarize the editor’s priorities in a few lines and agree on them with your co-authors.
3. Log every comment in a response matrix, categorize it, and assign an owner. Our guide on how to respond to reviewer comments point by point explains the method.
4. Set internal dates for analyses, drafting, and co-author review, with a margin before the journal’s deadline.
5. Revise the manuscript, then draft the response from what actually changed.
6. Check the manuscript, response letter, and cover letter against each other for consistency.
7. Prepare the files the journal requests and obtain every co-author’s approval before resubmitting.

Keeping perspective

An R&R is a normal and often productive part of peer review. It tells you the paper has a realistic route to publication at that journal if the main concerns can be resolved, and it gives you specific, expert feedback to work from. Treat the decision as information: read it carefully, decide deliberately, and plan the work.

For an overview of where revision sits among the other stages, see the stages of publishing a research paper. If you would like help organizing a complex revision, Revise and Resubmit’s reviewer response and resubmission support can work alongside your author team.