Is Revise and Resubmit Good News? 60-80% Success Rates & What Editors Expect

Last updated: January 9, 2026 | Reading time: 12 minutes

Quick Answer: Is Revise and Resubmit Worth It?

Yes, in most cases. Manuscripts receiving “revise and resubmit” (R&R) decisions have a 60-80% acceptance rate after revision, compared to only 20-30% success when submitting to a new journal. R&R decisions often translate to major revision in practical terms,
requiring substantial work over months.

However, it depends on these factors:

• ✅ Worth it if: Reviewers provide constructive, actionable feedback
• ✅ Worth it if: Required changes are achievable within 2-3 months
• ✅ Worth it if: The journal is a good fit for your work
• ❌ Not worth it if: Reviewers fundamentally misunderstand your research
• ❌ Not worth it if: Changes would compromise your scientific integrity
• ❌ Not worth it if: Timeline conflicts with graduation, funding, or career needs

This guide will help you decide whether your R&R is worth pursuing and how to maximize your acceptance chances.

In This Comprehensive Guide:

• What Revise and Resubmit Means
• R&R vs. Major Revision: Critical Differences
• Success Rates and Data
• Timeline Expectations
• Decision Framework: Should You Revise?
• How to Maximize Success
• What Happens After Resubmission
• If You’re Rejected After R&R
• FAQ

What Does Revise and Resubmit Mean?

A revise and resubmit (R&R) decision means:

• The journal sees potential in your manuscript but requires significant improvements
• Reviewers have identified issues that must be addressed before acceptance
• You have an opportunity to improve and resubmit, but acceptance is not guaranteed
• Timeline: You typically have 2-3 months to revise and respond

How R&R Differs From Other Decisions

Key difference: R&R is more uncertain than “major revision” but still represents genuine interest from the journal.

Revise and Resubmit vs. Major Revision: The Critical Differences

Many authors confuse R&R with major revision because both require substantial work. Understanding the differences helps you assess your situation accurately and set realistic expectations.

The Commitment Level Difference

Major Revision = Implicit Acceptance Agreement
When you receive a major revision decision, the editor is essentially saying: “We want to publish this if you fix these issues.” The commitment is implied—if you thoroughly address reviewer concerns, acceptance is highly likely (70-85%).

R&R = No Acceptance Promise
With revise and resubmit, the editor is saying: “This might be publishable if substantially improved, but we need to see the revision before we can commit.” Acceptance is possible (60-80%) but not assured.

The Review Process Difference

Major Revision:

• Same reviewers check whether you addressed their specific comments
• Editor evaluates the completion and adequacy of responses
• Focused evaluation: “Did they fix what we asked them to fix?”

Revise and Resubmit:

• Full new review cycle as if it’s a fresh submission
• May involve new reviewers with different perspectives
• Comprehensive evaluation: “Is this manuscript now publishable?”

Practical implication: With R&R, you can thoroughly address all comments and still face rejection if reviewers have new concerns or if new reviewers disagree with the approach.

The Editorial Tone Difference

How to tell which you really have:

Read your editor’s decision letter carefully. Look for these signals:

Major Revision indicators:

• “We are pleased to invite you to revise…”
• “We believe the manuscript will be acceptable after revisions…”
• “The reviewers found the work promising and have suggested improvements…”
• Specific, detailed guidance on what changes will make it acceptable

R&R indicators:

• “You may wish to revise and resubmit…”
• “Substantial revision would be required for reconsideration…”
• “The manuscript shows potential but has significant issues…”
• Less specific guidance; more emphasis on “if you choose to revise.”

The language matters: Encouraging tone = higher probability. Lukewarm tone = proceed cautiously.

When Journals Use Each Decision

Journals use Major Revision when:

• Core research is sound; execution or presentation needs improvement
• Reviewers generally agree the manuscript has merit
• Specific, addressable concerns identified
• Editor confident revision will satisfy concerns

Journals use R&R when:

• Reviewers are split (some positive, some negative)
• Contribution level is borderline for the journal
• Fundamental questions exist about the approach or framing
• Changes required are so extensive that the result may be completely different

Table: Quick Comparison

Why this Distinction Matters for Your Decision

If you have a major revision:

• You should almost always proceed (barring impossible requests)
• Focus on thoroughly addressing each comment
• Acceptance is highly likely with a good-faith effort

If you have R&R:

• Carefully evaluate whether extensive revision is worth an uncertain outcome
• Consider opportunity cost vs. submitting elsewhere
• Only proceed if you can substantially improve the manuscript, and the journal is important to your goals

Gray area: Some journals label everything as “major revision” when they really mean R&R, and vice versa. Trust the editor’s tone and commitment level more than the label itself.

R&R Success Rates: What the Data Shows

Acceptance Rates After R&R

Research on academic publishing patterns shows:

• 60-80% of R&R manuscripts are eventually accepted after one or more revision rounds
• 15-20% are rejected after revision (usually due to insufficient changes)
• 5-10% are withdrawn by authors who decide not to pursue the revision

Factors that increase acceptance probability:

• Addressing all reviewer comments thoroughly
• Submitting within the deadline
• Writing a detailed point-by-point response letter
• Showing respect for reviewer feedback even when disagreeing
• Making genuine improvements, not cosmetic changes

Factors that decrease acceptance probability:

• Ignoring or dismissing reviewer concerns
• Making minimal changes and hoping for acceptance
• Missing the revision deadline
• Defensive or argumentative tone in the response letter
• Adding new data or analysis that raises new questions

Success Rates by Field

R&R acceptance rates vary by discipline:

Why the variation? Fields with more empirical/quantitative standards tend to have higher R&R success rates because revisions are more straightforward.

How Long Does Revise and Resubmit Take?

Typical R&R Timeline

Including revision time, the complete timeline from initial submission to acceptance often extends beyond the typical peer review duration.

Phase 1: Initial Review

• Original submission to R&R decision: 2-4 months

Phase 2: Your Revision

• Time given to revise: 2-3 months (sometimes 6-8 weeks)
• Actual time most authors need: 6-10 weeks

Phase 3: Re-Review

• Resubmission to second decision: 4-8 weeks
• Often faster than initial review (reviewers already familiar with paper)

Total Timeline (Submission to Acceptance):

• Best case: 4-5 months
• Typical case: 6-8 months
• Worst case: 10-12 months (if multiple revision rounds)

Time Management Strategy

Week 1-2: Assessment and Planning

• Read all reviewer comments carefully
• Categorize feedback (easy fixes, substantial work, disagreements)
• Create a revision plan with deadlines
• Decide if revision is feasible

Week 3-8: Active Revision

• Address substantive comments first
• Conduct additional analyses if needed
• Rewrite problem sections
• Update figures and tables

Week 9-10: Response Letter and Final Polish

• Write a detailed point-by-point response
• Proofread the revised manuscript
• Check formatting and compliance
• Submit before the deadline

Pro tip: Use 80% of your deadline, not 100%. If you have 3 months, plan to submit in 10 weeks. This buffer accounts for unexpected delays.

Decision Framework: Should You Revise or Submit Elsewhere?

When R&R Is Worth It

Scenario 1: Constructive, Actionable Feedback

• Reviewers identify specific issues with clear solutions
• Comments are respectful and scientifically sound
• You can see how to address each concern

Scenario 2: Good Journal Fit

• The journal is your top choice for this work
• Your paper aligns well with journal’s scope
• Impact factor or prestige justifies the effort

Scenario 3: Manageable Timeline

• You have time to do the work properly
• Deadline doesn’t conflict with major commitments
• No urgent career pressure (graduation, tenure)

Scenario 4: High-Quality Manuscript Base

• Your original submission was well-prepared
• Issues are about depth/clarity, not fundamental flaws
• You believe in the core contribution

Example: “Reviewer 1 asks for additional statistical analyses to support our claims about X. Reviewer 2 wants clarification on our methodology. Both are reasonable and doable in 8 weeks. This is our top-choice journal. We should revise.”

When to Submit Elsewhere

Scenario 1: Fundamental Misunderstanding

• Reviewers clearly didn’t understand your work
• Comments suggest they’re not experts in your specific area
• Feedback contradicts established practices in your field

Scenario 2: Unreasonable Demands

• Reviewers request entirely new studies or datasets
• Changes would require 6-12 months of additional work
• Suggestions would fundamentally change your research question

Scenario 3: Poor Journal Fit (Realized Too Late)

• Reviewer comments reveal the journal isn’t right after all
• Editorial letter suggests scope concerns
• You’d be forcing fit rather than natural alignment

Scenario 4: Better Opportunities Elsewhere

• Another journal invited submission
• A special issue perfectly matches your work
• Time-sensitive findings need faster publication

Scenario 5: Career Timing Issues

• The graduation or job market timeline is tight
• Funding period ending soon
• Mental health or personal circumstances require moving on

Example: “Reviewer 1 wants us to collect entirely new data with a different population, which would take 12 months. Reviewer 2 suggests our theoretical framework is wrong (it’s standard in our field). This journal may not be the right fit. We should find a more appropriate venue.”

The Decision Matrix

Use this scoring system:

Interpretation:

• 50-65: Strong case for R&R
• 35-49: Borderline—consider both options carefully
• Below 35: Probably submit elsewhere

How to Maximize Your R&R Success Rate

Strategy 1: Address Every Single Comment

Create a point-by-point response document:

Reviewer 1, Comment 1: "The authors should clarify their sampling methodology on page 5."

Response: We have added a detailed explanation of our sampling methodology in Section 2.3 (page 6, lines 145-168). We now specify [details]. We thank the reviewer for identifying this gap in clarity.

Changes made: Section 2.3, pages 6-7, lines 145-168

Never ignore or skip comments, even minor ones. Address each explicitly.

Strategy 2: Distinguish Between Agreement and Disagreement

When you agree:

• Thank the reviewer
• Explain what you changed
• Show the improvement

When you disagree:

• Acknowledge their perspective respectfully
• Explain your reasoning with evidence
• Cite supporting literature if relevant
• Offer a compromise if possible

Example of respectful disagreement:

Reviewer 2, Comment 5: "The authors should use Method X instead of Method Y."

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. However, we respectfully maintain our choice of Method Y for the following reasons: (1) Method Y is the established standard in this research area (see Smith et al., 2023; Jones et al., 2024), (2) our pilot testing showed Method X produced inconsistent results with our data type, and (3) Method Y allows direct comparison with the benchmark studies we cite. We have added clarification in the Methods section explaining this choice (page 8, lines 189-195).

Strategy 3: Show Substantial Improvement

Minimal changes signal you’re not taking feedback seriously. Show genuine effort:

• Rewrite unclear sections entirely, not just add sentences
• Conduct additional analyses if reviewers identified gaps
• Improve figures and tables based on feedback
• Expand the literature review with recent citations
• Tighten writing throughout, not just in flagged areas

Track your changes:

• Use track changes mode in Word
• Highlight changed sections in yellow
• Include a “summary of major changes” document

Strategy 4: Write a Respectful, Professional Response Letter

Response letter structure:

Dear Editor [Name],

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript "[Title]" (Manuscript #[ID]). We appreciate the thoughtful feedback from the reviewers and believe the manuscript is substantially improved as a result.

Below, we provide point-by-point responses to all reviewer comments. We have addressed each concern and made corresponding changes to the manuscript. Major revisions are highlighted in the manuscript for your convenience.

---

**REVIEWER 1**

[Point-by-point responses]

**REVIEWER 2**

[Point-by-point responses]

---

**SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES**

1. Added new statistical analysis (Section 3.4)
2. Expanded literature review (Section 1.2)
3. Clarified methodology (Section 2.3)
4. Improved Figure 3 with additional labels
5. Restructured Discussion for clarity

We believe these revisions have strengthened the manuscript significantly and hope it now meets the standards for publication in [Journal Name].

Sincerely,
[Your Name and Co-authors]

Strategy 5: Submit Before the Deadline

Don’t wait until the last day:

• Technical issues happen
• Shows professionalism
• Gives the editor confidence in your commitment
• Allows time for follow-up questions

Ideal timing: Submit 1-2 weeks before the deadline

What Happens After You Resubmit?

Possible Outcomes

1. Accept (30-50% of R&R resubmissions)

• Your revisions satisfied all concerns
• Paper moves to production/proofing
• Timeline: 2-4 weeks to acceptance notification

2. Minor Revision (30-40% of R&R resubmissions)

• Revisions were good, but need small tweaks
• Usually just one more round (1-2 weeks)
• Very high probability of acceptance

3. Major Revision Again (10-15% of R&R resubmissions)

• Revisions didn’t fully address concerns
• OR reviewers raised new issues
• More work is needed, but still possible to succeed

4. Reject (5-15% of R&R resubmissions)

• Revisions insufficient
• New issues emerged
• Fundamental concerns remain

Red Flags That Suggest Rejection Risk

• ⚠️ You didn’t address all comments
• ⚠️ Reviewers asked for data you didn’t have
• ⚠️ You disagreed with most feedback
• ⚠️ Submitted last-minute with minimal changes
• ⚠️ Defensive tone in response letter

What to Do If You’re Rejected After R&R

Getting rejected after investing months in revision is discouraging, but it happens to 20-40% of R&R resubmissions. Here’s how to move forward productively.

First 48 Hours: Process the Disappointment

Allow yourself to feel frustrated. You invested significant time and effort. Disappointment is legitimate and normal.

Don’t respond immediately. Avoid emailing the editor or making hasty decisions about next steps while emotions are high.

Read the decision letter carefully. Once you’re calmer, identify:

• Why was the revision rejected? (Inadequate changes? New concerns? Fundamental issues?)
• What feedback can improve the manuscript for the next venue?
• Were there any positive comments you can build on?

Assess What Went Wrong

Common reasons for post-R&R rejection:

1. Insufficient response to major concerns

• You addressed minor comments thoroughly, but major issues superficially
• Reviewers felt core problems remained unfixed

Lesson: Prioritize the most important 20% of comments that drive 80% of concern.

2. New problems introduced during revision

• Extensive rewriting created inconsistencies or errors
• New analyses raised additional questions

Lesson: Thorough proofreading and co-author review before resubmission.

3. New reviewers with different perspectives

• Fresh reviewers evaluated the manuscript differently
• They focused on aspects that original reviewers didn’t flag

Lesson: This is the risk of R&R’s full re-review process—sometimes unavoidable.

4. Fundamental disagreement couldn’t be bridged

• You addressed comments, but reviewers still questioned the core contribution
• The manuscript-journal fit was never quite right

Lesson: This journal may not have been the right venue.

Strategic Next Steps

Option 1: Submit to a Different Journal (Most Common Choice)

When this is the right move:

• ✅ You thoroughly addressed concerns, but the journal’s bar remained too high
• ✅ New reviewers had completely different priorities
• ✅ The revision substantially improved the manuscript
• ✅ You’re confident the work is publishable elsewhere

How to approach the next submission:

• Use the substantial improvements you made during R&R revision
• Incorporate helpful reviewer feedback
• Target a journal where reviewers might be more receptive to your approach
• Consider slightly lower-tier journals where your contribution exceeds the bar

Timeline advantage: Your manuscript is now significantly stronger. The next venue may give you a minor revision or even accept, making the R&R effort worthwhile despite initial rejection.

Option 2: Return to the Same Journal (Only in Specific Cases)

When to consider this:

• The rejection letter explicitly invites resubmission after further revision
• You can address the remaining concerns with moderate additional work
• The journal is absolutely critical for your career (e.g., the field’s top journal)
• You have new data or analysis that resolves core concerns

How to approach:

• Email the editor first to gauge receptiveness before investing more effort
• Clearly explain what additional changes you’ll make
• Set realistic expectations about the timeline and outcome

Success rate: Low (~30-40%) but possible in the right circumstances.

Option 3: Move On to New Research (Sometimes the Right Call)

When to consider:

• The manuscript has consumed excessive time and energy
• You’ve lost conviction in this version of the work
• Career circumstances require focusing elsewhere
• The research is becoming outdated as time passes

It’s okay to:

• Archive this project and move forward
• Mine useful components for future work
• Recognize when to cut losses strategically

Not every manuscript gets published, and that’s okay. Sometimes the right decision is accepting this and investing energy in more promising projects.

Learning for Future Submissions

Post-rejection reflection questions:

1. Journal selection: Was this truly the right venue, or did I aim too high/specific?
2. Initial submission quality: If I could start over, what would I strengthen before initial submission?
3. Revision strategy: Did I genuinely address major concerns, or did I try to minimize changes?
4. Response letter: Did I demonstrate deep understanding of concerns or just mechanical compliance?
5. Timeline: Did rushing the revision compromise quality?

Document lessons learned. Keep notes on what worked and what didn’t for your next submission.

Sample Email: Withdrawing After Rejection

If you decide not to resubmit:

Subject: Re: Decision on Manuscript [ID] - Thank You

Dear Dr. [Editor Name],

Thank you for your consideration of my revised manuscript "[Title]" (ID: [ID]) and for the opportunity to revise and resubmit.

While I'm disappointed the revision did not meet the journal's standards, I appreciate the reviewers' thoughtful feedback, which has significantly improved the work. I will not be resubmitting to [Journal Name] at this time and plan to seek publication elsewhere.

Thank you again for the time and effort invested by the editorial team and reviewers.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

Keep it brief, professional, and gracious. Burning bridges helps no one.

The Silver Lining

The R&R process, even ending in rejection, often produces:

• A substantially stronger manuscript that succeeds at the next journal
• A deeper understanding of your research area through reviewer engagement
• Better writing and argumentation skills from extensive revision
• Realistic assessment of your work’s contribution level
• Clearer sense of appropriate journal targets

Many successful publications started as rejections elsewhere. The path to publication is rarely linear. Use rejection as refinement, not failure.

Real Example: Rejection → Success Story

Situation: Ecology paper received R&R, the author spent 3 months revising thoroughly, still rejected because a new reviewer questioned the fundamental study design.

Author response: Withdrew gracefully, submitted to a specialized ecology journal within 2 weeks using an improved R&R version.

Outcome: Minor revision decision within 6 weeks, accepted 2 months later. The paper became one of the author’s most-cited publications.

Lesson: The “failure” at Journal A created success at Journal B. The extensive R&R revision work wasn’t wasted—it made the manuscript excellent for the right venue.

Bottom line: Rejection after R&R stings, but it’s a normal part of academic publishing. Successful researchers don’t avoid rejection—they process it productively and move forward strategically.

Common Questions About Revise and Resubmit

Can I get a deadline extension?

Yes, if you have legitimate reasons:

• Major illness or personal emergency
• Unexpected data collection delays
• Institutional review board (IRB) approval delays

How to request:

• Email editor 2-3 weeks before deadline
• Explain the specific reason
• Request a reasonable extension (usually 4-6 additional weeks)
• Show you’re actively working on revisions

Success rate: 80-90% if requested early with a valid reason

What if reviewers disagree with each other?

Common scenario: Reviewer 1 says, “Add more detail.”, Reviewer 2 says, “Too long, cut sections.”

How to handle:

1. Address both concerns separately in the response letter
2. Find a middle ground when possible
3. Defer to the editor’s guidance in the decision letter
4. Acknowledge the tension explicitly

Example response:

We recognize that Reviewer 1 requested additional detail while Reviewer 2 suggested reducing length. We have attempted to balance these concerns by adding methodological detail (as Reviewer 1 suggested) while streamlining the introduction and discussion (as Reviewer 2 suggested). The net result is a manuscript of similar length but improved focus.

Should I contact the editor during revision?

Generally, no, unless:

• You need a deadline extension
• Reviewer requests are unclear or contradictory
• You need clarification on editorial guidance
• Technical submission issues

Don’t contact to:

• Argue about reviewer comments
• Ask if your revisions will be accepted
• Complain about the review process

What if I can’t complete the revision?

You have three options:

1. Request extension (as discussed above)

2. Withdraw and submit elsewhere

• Email editor to formally withdraw
• Explain briefly (optional)
• Thank them for their consideration

3. Submit an incomplete revision with an explanation

• Not recommended—likely to be rejected
• Only if necessary

Most common choice: Withdraw if you can’t do justice to the revision. Better to submit complete work elsewhere than rush a poor revision.

Alternative Scenario: When to Cut Your Losses

Sometimes the best decision is to move on:

Red Flags to Abandon R&R

1. Reviewer hostility or bias

• Comments are dismissive or disrespectful
• Reviewers seem to have an agenda against your approach
• Feedback contradicts accepted standards in your field

1. Impossible demands

• New experiments requiring 12+ months
• Access to data/resources you don’t have
• Complete redesign of the study

1. Your conviction wavers

• You no longer believe in the fit
• You’ve lost confidence in this version of the work
• The required changes feel forced or inauthentic

1. Career circumstances change

• Job market timing is critical
• Graduation deadline approaching
• Funding period ending
• Better opportunities elsewhere

When in doubt: Get an outside perspective from a mentor, colleague, or trusted peer. Sometimes we’re too close to see clearly.

Real Success Stories and Lessons Learned

Success Story 1: The Patient Revision

Situation: Social science paper received R&R with extensive reviewer feedback after 4 months of initial review. Requests included an additional literature review, a new theoretical framing, and an expanded discussion of limitations.

Author decision: Spent 10 weeks doing a thorough revision, added 15 new references, rewrote the entire discussion section, and created a detailed 8-page response letter.

Outcome: Accepted after second review (6 weeks). Total time: 10 months from submission to acceptance.

Lesson: Taking extra time to do revisions properly pays off. Reviewers notice effort.

Success Story 2: The Strategic Withdrawal

Situation: Engineering paper received R&R, but Reviewer 2 demanded entirely new experimental validation that would take 8 months. Reviewer 1’s comments were reasonable, but Reviewer 2’s were unrealistic.

Author decision: Withdrew after 2 weeks of consideration. Submitted to a more specialized journal where the methodology was standard. Received a minor revision decision after 2 months, accepted 3 months later.

Outcome: Paper published 5 months after withdrawal, 7 months sooner than the R&R path would have taken.

Lesson: Sometimes withdrawing saves time and leads to better outcomes.

Final Recommendation: The 48-Hour Rule

Don’t make R&R decisions immediately after receiving reviews.

Day 1: Read decision letter and reviewer comments. Feel whatever emotions come (frustration, relief, anxiety).

Day 2: Read again with fresh eyes. Start categorizing comments into:

• Easy fixes
• Substantial work
• Disagreements
• Unclear requests

Day 3-4: Consult with co-authors and mentors. Get an outside perspective.

Day 5: Make your decision using the framework in this guide.

Emotional clarity leads to better strategic decisions.

FAQs

Is revise and resubmit the same as reject and resubmit?

These terms are often used interchangeably, though “reject and resubmit” sometimes has a more discouraging tone. Both mean: the current version is not acceptable, but a substantially revised version might be reconsidered through a new review cycle. Focus on the editor’s tone in the decision letter rather than the exact terminology—an encouraging letter signals better prospects regardless of which term is used.

What percentage of revise and resubmit manuscripts are eventually published?

Overall, 60-80% of R&R manuscripts are eventually published after revision, though this includes publications at the original journal (60-70%) and successful publications elsewhere after initial rejection (10-20%). Success rates vary by field: biomedical sciences ~70-80%, social sciences ~60-75%, humanities ~55-70%. Thorough revision addressing all major concerns significantly improves your individual probability.

How long does the R&R process take from start to finish?

The complete R&R timeline typically spans 6-8 months: 2-4 months for initial review leading to R&R decision, 2-3 months given for your revision (though most authors need 6-10 weeks), and 4-8 weeks for re-review after resubmission. Total time from initial submission to final acceptance is usually 6-8 months, though 10-12 months is possible if multiple revision rounds are required. Plan accordingly for career timelines.

Key Takeaways

• R&R has a 60-80% acceptance rate—much better than starting over
• Address every comment thoroughly—show genuine engagement with feedback
• Timeline matters—typical revision takes 6-10 weeks, plan accordingly
• Know when to walk away—not all R&Rs are worth pursuing
• Respectful disagreement is okay—explain reasoning with evidence
• Quality over speed—submit a strong revision before the deadline, not rushed work on the deadline

Bottom line: Revise and resubmit is worth it when feedback is constructive, the timeline is manageable, and the journal fit is good. Use the decision framework and maximize your success by treating the revision with the same care as your original submission.