There is response at Progressive Geographies to an earlier post at the APPS site about the ‘revise & resubmit’ category used in making decisions about whether to publish articles. It’s interesting to see the different perspectives on what this decision actually means. My experience has been that revising and resubmitting a paper, when offered the chance to do so, is productive. I’ve found that it improves the chance of success. But, as Stuart Elden points out in the Progressive Geographies piece, a revise and resubmit is far from a guarantee of publication. There have been at least a couple of occasions where I’ve tried to make the changes asked of me but I’ve not quite managed it and the paper has ultimately been rejected. This is a bit frustrating because of the timescales as much as anything. But on both occasions where i’ve had a piece rejected at the second round of reviews I’ve ended up with a better article to take elsewhere. I’ve just realised that on both occasions I was also doing something quite explorative and risky, and that the changes asked for were extensive, so maybe that is relevant. On both occasions the editors were also very helpful and encouraging. That also helped soften the blow. So, my experience is that a revise and resubmit is a positive thing but it doesn’t always pay off in the end. This all relates a bit to my post about how tricky it can be to revise articles. Sometimes these revisions are trickier than others.
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2020
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
Categories
Meta