Revise and resubmit

[gellert]

After submitting very minor revisions requested by a journal, how long do you usually wait to hear back?  I feel like it's been ages with mine!

[fuzzylogician]

If they sent it back to the reviewers it might take as long as the original review did. Did the letter from the editors suggest whether the revision would be sent back or just approved by the editor? I normally treat a r&r round the same as a first-round submission - I email after 3 months and then every 4-6 weeks after that. If I knew it only depended on the editors, I'd probably start emailing earlier, maybe 6-8 weeks after submission. (This may all be useless information because different fields vary greatly in how long they normally take to review papers.)

[Eigen]

From my understanding, an R&R usually goes as a completely new submission, often to a different set of reviewers, at least in my field. 

 

So it should take as long as the original paper did. 

 

This is not to be conflated with a response of recommended for publication with major/minor revisions, which isn't considered a new submission. 

[gellert]

Awesome; thanks guys!

[fuzzylogician]

From my understanding, an R&R usually goes as a completely new submission, often to a different set of reviewers, at least in my field. 

 

In my field it's actually customary to send the paper back to the same reviewers so you really are engaged in a conversation with your reviewers and they get to judge whether or not you successfully dealt with the issues they raised. Sometimes papers are sent to new reviewers in the second round, but I think that's only if for some reason the original reviewer can't take the paper again or if the editors decide they shouldn't. 

[Eigen]

Even for a revise and resubmit? That's considered a rejection with the offer to resubmit in my field.

[fuzzylogician]

Even for a revise and resubmit? That's considered a rejection with the offer to resubmit in my field.

 

Yes. A R&R is technically a rejection but it's by far the most common reply you get on pretty much anything you submit in my field (or, you get flat out rejected). Acceptances are rare in the first round. For the papers I've submitted, all went through an R&R stage and the letter from the editors explicitly said that when I resubmit, the paper will be sent back to the same reviewers who originally read the paper. You are also always required to submit a letter responding to each individual concern raised by the reviewers and detailing how you addressed it in your work (or why you think you don't need to) along with your submission so the reviewers can see how you've taken their comments into account. You can request to have a paper sent to a new reviewer if there is a good reason, though the editors don't have to agree. Same goes for when I review papers - when you submit the review the editor will often ask (and for some journals it's part of the online system) whether you are willing to read a new version of the paper if/when it comes back.

[Eigen]

Ah, gotcha. 

 

That sounds much more like the common "accepted pending major revisions" response in my field, which is much more common than an R&R. 

[qeta]

For sociology journals, what does "major revisions" usually indicate? Does this mean I should move on and try another journal? Or, should I make the major revisions and resubmit, especially since I have been given a number of months to make them? (This is my first experience publishing, hence all the questions.)

[rising_star]

It depends on the journal and what the specific revisions are. You have to decide whether the revisions will improve the paper or if they'll take it in a direction you don't want to go in. If the former, then you should take the time to do them by whatever deadline the journal has set and then resubmit to the same journal. If the latter, you may want to withdraw your paper and submit it elsewhere. In general, you want to publish in the most prestigious journal you can.

[qeta]

Thank you, rising_star.