Managing revisions and re-review

Back to An editor’s guide to the peer review process

Once authors have revised their article in response to the reviewers’ comments and resubmitted to your journal, two key questions for you to consider are:

  • Can you make an immediate decision on the suitability of the revisions or do you need further expert advice? As the Editor, you can decide whether the authors’ response to reviewers is sufficient. Avoiding sending papers back out for re-review helps save reviewer time and means authors get a decision more quickly.
  • If re-review is needed, can the previous reviewers be asked? It is best practice to avoid inviting new reviewers to look at resubmitted papers, unless the previous reviewers are unable to re-review or if specialist advice is required.

Below we outline some approaches to managing these stages of the peer review process, including details of the system tools that can help you. We’ve also produced a short video that walks you through these steps (you will need to enter your name and email address to view the video).

If you have Reviewer Selection or Journal Editorial Office support set up on your journal, you can also seek their help at revision and re-review. Further details are in the video.

Identifying revised submissions

Revised articles are usually listed on the system in the same place as new submissions but can be identified by an ‘R’ and a number at the end of the manuscript ID: e.g. XXXX-2020-0212R1 or XXXX-2020-0212.R1

The R indicates that it’s a revised version, followed by a number to tell you which revision it is (i.e. R1 first revision, R2 second revision etc).

You can also view the version history. In ScholarOne Manuscripts, the version history is on the right side of the article pages. In Editorial Manager, select ‘View Reviews and Comments’ to see details of previous versions.

Questions to consider at revision

1. Can you make an immediate decision on the author’s revisions yourself?

  • Do you have the expertise to assess their response to the reviewers’ comments and make a decision?
  • Have the authors made changes in the article as well as in the response?

2. If you need to seek advice from previous reviewers:

  • Are you clear about why you need their advice?
  • Do you need to adapt your invitation email to highlight that it is a revised version of a paper they have seen before?

3. If the previous reviewers aren’t able to re-review:

  • Is it essential to get additional assessment from a subject expert or could this be done by a member of your Editorial Board?
  • Could you ask a new reviewer to assess just one particular element, rather than the whole article?

Inviting previous reviewers to re-review

  • You’ll be able to find the details of those who reviewed the previous version in the system (see details below).
  • Only invite the number of reviewers that you need and change the number of required reports as needed – the article will then appear in the correct list when the reports are returned.
  • Make it clear to the reviewer that it is a re-review and that they have seen the article before.
  • Personalizing the email, highlighting the specific advice you need from the reviewer, will encourage them to agree to review and will ensure you get the specialist help you need.

Identifying previous reviewers in Scholar One

(R0) after a reviewer’s name indicates that they reviewed the first version of the article. The number of required reviews can be changed on the right-hand side.

Identifying previous reviewers in Editorial Manager

Previous reviewers can be found by choosing ‘Select from Previous Reviewers’. The number of required reviews can be changed under ‘Review Settings’.

Watch: Managing revisions and re-review