How Journal Editors Make Decisions: Inside the Editorial Process (What Increases Your Chances)

Last updated: January 9, 2026 | Reading time: 14 minutes

Many authors believe that peer reviewers alone determine editorial outcomes. In reality, editors make the final call, combining reviewer feedback with journal scope, quality standards, ethical compliance, and editorial strategy. A deeper look at why journals reject manuscripts reveals patterns that early-career and experienced researchers alike can learn from. Understanding how decision-making happens behind the scenes helps authors interpret outcomes more accurately—and make better strategic choices in response.

This article explains the editorial decision process, the factors editors weigh, and why outcomes sometimes differ from what reviewers recommend.

As someone who serves as a manuscript reviewer for multiple journals and has observed editorial processes from both sides, I’ve learned that the decision-making system is far more nuanced than most authors realize. Reviewers provide critical input, but editors operate within a complex framework of priorities that extends well beyond individual manuscript quality.

Who Makes the Final Decision?

In peer-reviewed journals, reviewers offer informed opinions, but editors or the editorial board have the ultimate authority. Editors may accept, request revision, or reject a manuscript based on their judgment—not merely reviewer votes.

Different journals structure their editorial authority differently. In smaller, specialized journals, a single editor-in-chief typically makes all final decisions. This model allows for faster processing but depends heavily on one person’s expertise and judgment. Larger multidisciplinary journals usually employ an editorial board model, where associate editors handle manuscripts in their specific areas while an editor-in-chief oversees consistency. The most rigorous approach involves collaborative decision-making, where complex or borderline cases are discussed by multiple editors—though this naturally takes more time.

Regardless of structure, editors balance multiple factors simultaneously, including the journal’s mission, quality thresholds, and the practical feasibility of publication. They serve a dual role: quality gatekeepers who maintain standards and strategic curators who shape the journal’s identity and direction.

The Editorial Decision Workflow

The path from submission to decision follows a sequence that most authors never see, yet understanding it explains why the process takes so long and why outcomes sometimes seem unpredictable.

Initial Screening

After submission, editors perform a pre-review screening that determines whether your manuscript even reaches peer review. This stage typically takes between three days and two weeks, depending on the journal’s submission volume and editorial resources. To put editorial decisions into perspective, it helps to understand how journals evaluate submissions during the peer review process, including initial screening, reviewer selection, and final editorial judgment.

During this screening, editors assess scope alignment, readiness for review, formatting compliance, ethical clearance documentation, and preliminary novelty. At selective journals, 30-40% of submissions are desk rejected at this stage without ever reaching reviewers.

Here’s what many authors don’t realize: Editors typically spend less than two minutes on initial screening per manuscript. They focus on title and abstract clarity, figure quality and professionalism, whether recent relevant literature is cited, and whether the contribution is clearly stated. First impressions matter enormously at this stage. A poorly formatted abstract or unclear research question can trigger desk rejection before the scientific merit is even evaluated.

The Hidden Challenge of Peer Review Assignment

If your manuscript passes initial screening, the editor begins identifying appropriate reviewers. This seems straightforward but presents significant challenges that explain why the review process often takes months rather than weeks.

Editors select reviewers based on documented expertise in the specific topic area, their track record of completing reviews on time, current availability and review load, geographic and institutional diversity to avoid conflicts, and their competence with the specific methodologies used in the manuscript.

The practical reality creates delays. Editors typically need two or three reviewers but often must invite six to eight candidates because 40-50% decline invitations due to time constraints, and another 10-20% accept but never submit reviews. In narrow fields, the pool of qualified experts is limited and heavily solicited by multiple journals. This reviewer assignment process alone can take two to four weeks before actual review even begins.

Once review reports finally come in, editors don’t simply accept them at face value. They evaluate them alongside the manuscript’s context—submission history, journal priorities, and how this paper compares to competing manuscripts under consideration.

Editorial Evaluation Where Judgment Enters

When editors receive reviewer reports, they engage in careful critical analysis that goes far beyond counting votes. They assess whether comments are justified with specific evidence rather than vague criticisms like “this is weak.” They evaluate whether identified concerns are fixable within reasonable revision scope. They judge whether the review demonstrates genuine understanding of the work or reflects misalignment between reviewer expertise and manuscript content. They also consider whether reviewer recommendations align with their actual comments.

A common scenario illustrates this disconnect: a reviewer recommends rejection but their detailed comments describe only minor, fixable issues. Editors frequently override such recommendations, deciding instead to invite major revision. This is why you sometimes receive a “revise and resubmit” decision despite harsh-sounding reviewer language.

In cases where recommendations conflict dramatically—one reviewer says accept, another says reject—or reviews lack sufficient detail, editors may request additional opinions. The decision to seek a third reviewer can add another six to eight weeks to the timeline, but editors prefer delay over poor decisions.

After reading all reviews, editors ask themselves critical questions: Do these criticisms reflect fundamental flaws or merely communication issues? Can revision realistically address these concerns? Does this paper advance knowledge sufficiently for our journal? Would our readers find this valuable? Is the contribution clear and significant enough?

Common Editorial Decisions and What They Really Mean

Receiving reviewer feedback can be overwhelming, especially when comments seem critical or conflicting. Knowing how to respond to peer reviewer comments professionally and strategically is often the difference between rejection and eventual acceptance.

Accept

Outright acceptance is extremely rare, occurring in less than 5% of initial submissions. Editors only publish without revision when a manuscript is exceptionally clear with no ambiguity, demonstrably novel in ways that obviously advance the field, perfectly scoped to fit journal priorities, flawlessly executed in methods and analysis, and so well-written that it requires no editing whatsoever.

This represents an extraordinary achievement that typically reflects either groundbreaking findings or meticulous preparation. Even genuinely strong papers usually receive minor revision requests to allow for small corrections, reference updates, or figure improvements.

Minor Revision

Minor revision indicates the manuscript is fundamentally sound but needs small fixes. Editors typically request clarification of specific sentences or paragraphs, addition of two or three recent references, improvement of figure labels or resolution, correction of statistical reporting details, or brief discussion of limitations.

The key advantage of minor revision is that editors often review the revision directly without sending it back to peer reviewers, leading to final decisions within two to four weeks of resubmission. For authors, this essentially means acceptance is highly likely if you address comments thoroughly. Editors have pre-approved the paper pending these small changes.

Major Revision

When editors issue a major revision or “revise and resubmit” decision, they see genuine potential but recognize the manuscript requires substantial improvement. Common triggers include methodology needing more detail or justification, literature review requiring expansion, results needing clearer presentation, discussion not adequately addressing implications, or contribution statements that need strengthening.

This decision represents an invitation, not a guarantee. The revised manuscript will be re-evaluated—often by the same reviewers who provided initial feedback—and could still be rejected if revisions prove inadequate. What editors are thinking at this stage is: “This could work for our journal, but the authors need to demonstrate they can properly address these concerns.” Editors choose between major revision, minor revision, or rejection based
on manuscript quality and addressability of concerns.

Not all revise-and-resubmit invitations are equal. Before committing weeks or months to revisions, authors should carefully assess the tone and scope of the feedback. Understanding the factors behind a revise and resubmit decision can help researchers allocate their time and energy more effectively.

Rejection After Review

Even with mixed reviewer feedback, editors sometimes conclude that problems cannot be satisfactorily fixed. This happens when fundamental methodological flaws exist that revision cannot repair, when contribution is insufficient for the journal’s impact standards, when scope misalignment becomes apparent during review, when findings are too preliminary or inconclusive, or when authors cannot realistically address reviewers’ concerns within a reasonable time and resources. During the “Under Review” phase, external reviewers provide the detailed evaluation that editors will synthesize into decisions.

This outcome doesn’t necessarily mean the work lacks value—it often means the paper would be more appropriate elsewhere, typically at a more specialized or lower-tier venue where the contribution threshold or methodological standards differ.

Desk Rejection

Desk rejection occurs at initial screening when editors identify clear scope mismatch, inadequate manuscript preparation, or other disqualifying issues. The most common trigger is topic misalignment with the journal’s focus or recent publication patterns. This signals that the paper didn’t warrant consuming valuable reviewer time, though it reflects targeting problems rather than inherent research quality.

Desk rejection often happens within days of submission, leaving authors confused and frustrated. Having desk rejection explained helps researchers understand the editor’s initial screening process and take steps to prevent immediate rejection in future submissions.

How Editors ASSESS Conflicting Reviews

Conflicting reviewer feedback appears in approximately 20-30% of reviewed manuscripts. Rather than mechanically averaging opinions, editors employ strategic approaches to resolve disagreements.

When one reviewer provides a specific, technical critique while another offers vague concerns, editors weight the detailed review more heavily. Reviews saying “this is weak” without justification, or that clearly misunderstand the paper’s core argument, receive less consideration regardless of their final recommendation.

If recommendations diverge dramatically between accept and reject, editors often request a third opinion to break the tie. However, even with conflicting recommendations, reviewers frequently agree on specific problems—perhaps that methodology needs clarification or that the literature review is incomplete. Editors focus on these consensus concerns rather than the divergent recommendations.

The guiding principle: Editors weigh the validity and clarity of critiques rather than counting votes. This requires deep field knowledge and confidence in editorial vision, which is why senior researchers typically serve as editors.

One scenario from editorial practice illustrates this well. Two reviewers evaluated a manuscript—one recommended rejection, the other suggested acceptance with minor revisions. The “reject” reviewer focused on the paper lacking a specific advanced analysis technique, though this wasn’t standard practice in the field. The “accept” reviewer provided detailed, constructive feedback on genuine weaknesses. The editor invited major revision, focusing on the constructive reviewer’s substantive comments while noting that the advanced technique was optional. After revision addressing the real concerns, the paper was eventually published.

The Hidden Factors Beyond Reviewer Comments

Editors consider numerous factors that reviewers never see, and authors rarely recognize.

Journal Strategy and Editorial Priorities

Recent publication patterns matter significantly. If a journal just published three papers on a similar topic, even a solid fourth paper might be rejected to maintain content diversity. Editors actively manage geographic and methodological diversity to balance issue content. They consider whether papers fit upcoming themed collections or special issues. They track subscription and readership trends to ensure published content engages their actual audience.

A concrete example: a well-executed experimental paper might be rejected not because of flaws, but because the journal recently published several similar experimental studies and needs theoretical or computational work to balance the next issue. This strategic curation is invisible to authors but central to editorial thinking.

Practical Publication Constraints

Page budgets still matter for journals with print editions. Issue scheduling affects decisions differently for quarterly versus continuous publication models. Backlog management influences whether editors can accept additional papers without extending publication delays. Even open access versus subscription revenue considerations can influence what types of papers editors prioritize.

Ethical and Policy Compliance

Beyond reviewer opinions, editors verify plagiarism screening results, ethics committee approval documentation, conflict of interest disclosure adequacy, and whether papers meet current data availability and reproducibility standards. These checks can trigger rejection even when reviewers approve the scientific content.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Reputation

While manuscripts are theoretically evaluated independently, practical realities intrude. Authors who previously violated journal policies face extra scrutiny. Established researchers sometimes receive benefit of doubt on borderline decisions. Institutional affiliations can signal resource availability or methodological rigor. Editors strive for fairness but acknowledge that unconscious bias exists and influences decisions at the margins.

Timing and Volume Effects

High submission periods may lead to more selective desk rejections as editors manage workflow. Journals targeting lower acceptance rates to improve impact factors adjust quality thresholds accordingly. Special issue deadlines can accelerate or delay decisions depending on available editorial resources and reviewer availability.

The Human Element in Editorial Decisions

Editing is fundamentally not a mechanical process. Editors bring their own academic experience to bear on every decision, and what makes an editor effective goes beyond technical expertise. The best editors are active researchers who understand current field developments, have extensive publication experience from having navigated peer review themselves, maintain broad perspective beyond narrow subspecialties, possess diplomatic skills for mediating between authors and reviewers, and demonstrate ethical grounding when maintaining standards under pressure.

Many journals encourage collaborative deliberation among editorial board members to maintain fairness and consistency. Some hold regular editorial board meetings where borderline decisions are discussed collectively, policy consistency is reviewed, difficult author appeals are evaluated, and new editorial priorities are established. This collaborative approach helps mitigate individual bias and supports decisions that individual reviewers might not adequately clarify.

Yet despite these consultation processes, editors ultimately bear sole responsibility for their decisions. This includes facing potential author appeals, reviewer criticism when decisions differ from recommendations, and institutional scrutiny regarding editorial standards. The loneliness of this responsibility shapes how editors approach difficult decisions.

Why Editorial Decisions Sometimes Surprise Authors

When Positive Reviews Lead to Rejection

This confusing outcome can occur when reviewers were lenient but the editor recognizes fundamental issues they overlooked. Sometimes scope misfit only becomes apparent during the detailed review process. In competitive journals, the quality bar is simply higher than reviewers indicated. Occasionally, recent policy changes have raised standards between submission and decision.

When Mixed Reviews Lead to Acceptance

This more pleasant surprise happens when editors value one reviewer’s expertise more highly based on their track record and specificity. Sometimes negative reviewers fundamentally misunderstood the approach, a problem that revision can clarify. Often, a paper’s positive aspects clearly outweigh fixable negatives in the editor’s judgment. Strategic considerations also matter—the paper might fill a valuable gap in the journal’s recent content.

When Harsh Reviews Lead to Revision Invitations

Editors sometimes see potential despite reviewer skepticism. They may recognize that problems are fixable with substantial effort even though current presentation obscures this. If the topic is particularly valuable to the journal’s mission, editors are willing to work with authors through multiple revision rounds. Some editors philosophically believe authors deserve a fair chance to address concerns rather than facing immediate rejection.

The underlying editorial perspective is this: “My job is to see what this paper could become, not just what it currently is.”

How Different Paper Types Face Different Standards

Editors adjust their evaluation frameworks based on manuscript type, which explains why contribution standards vary across different research approaches.

For theoretical papers, editors prioritize novelty of conceptual frameworks and whether they genuinely advance understanding. Mathematical rigor matters—derivations must be sound and verifiable. Practical applicability is also considered, particularly whether practitioners can actually implement or build on theoretical advances.

Experimental papers face scrutiny on methodological soundness, especially whether controls are appropriate and confounding factors are addressed. Statistical validity becomes critical—sample sizes must be adequate for claimed conclusions. Reproducibility is increasingly emphasized, with editors asking whether other researchers could replicate findings with the information provided.

Review papers are evaluated on comprehensiveness—whether they cover relevant literature thoroughly without major gaps. Synthesis quality matters more than mere summarization, with editors looking for genuine insights that advance understanding. Recency is essential, as outdated reviews provide little value regardless of quality.

Case study papers present unique challenges. Editors assess whether findings extend beyond the specific case to offer broader insights. Methodological transparency must be exceptional since readers cannot directly verify case-specific details. The theoretical contribution must be clear—what readers learn beyond mere description of the particular situation.

THE Editorial Timelines

Realistic timeline expectations help authors avoid unnecessary anxiety during the waiting period. Initial screening typically takes three to fourteen days while editors review submissions for scope and readiness. Reviewer assignment requires seven to twenty-one days as editors invite candidates and follow up on non-responses. The actual peer review process consumes thirty to ninety days while reviewers evaluate manuscripts around their other commitments. Editorial evaluation adds another seven to fourteen days for synthesizing reviews and reaching decisions. Author notification usually happens within one to three days once decisions are finalized.

The total timeline from submission to decision typically spans eight to twenty weeks, varying widely by journal, field, and reviewer availability. If you haven’t received a decision after twelve weeks, a polite status inquiry becomes entirely appropriate.

Practical Implications for Authors

Understanding editorial decision logic transforms how authors approach the publication process and interpret outcomes.

Reading Between the Lines

Decision letters contain subtle signals that reveal editor intentions. When editors write “we encourage resubmission,” they genuinely want your revision and are signaling genuine interest. Phrases like “you may wish to consider other venues” indicate rejection is firm and resubmission would be unwelcome. When letters mention “substantial concerns remain,” editors have identified major problems that revision must address. Language like “with appropriate revision” signals that problems are fixable and editors are open to seeing improved versions.

Making Strategic Response Decisions

Deciding whether to revise or submit elsewhere requires strategic thinking. Revise for the same journal when editors explicitly invite resubmission, when reviewer comments are specific and addressable, and when the timeline is reasonable for your situation and resources. Submit elsewhere when scope concerns were raised that revision cannot fix, when reviewer comments are contradictory or impossible to satisfy simultaneously, or when rejection language is firm and final without invitation to resubmit.

Improving Journal Targeting

Before each submission, read at least ten recent articles from your target journal. Examine editorial board member expertise areas to understand coverage. Review stated aims and scope carefully, comparing your work against actual published examples rather than generic mission statements. Look at special issue topics to identify emerging editorial priorities.

Writing for Editors, Not Just Reviewers

Craft cover letters and abstracts with editorial concerns in mind. Lead with your contribution statement rather than burying it in later sections. Explain specifically why this work fits the particular journal rather than generic claims of importance. Highlight recent citations from the journal to demonstrate familiarity with their content. Acknowledge potential concerns proactively, showing you’ve thought through limitations and alternative interpretations.

Responding to Reviews Strategically

Knowing that editors mediate between you and reviewers changes response strategy. Focus on addressing the editor’s underlying concerns, not just appeasing reviewers mechanically. Identify which reviewer comments the editor likely considers most critical based on specificity and technical depth. Frame disagreements appropriately, providing evidence and reasoning rather than defensive reactions.

What Editors Wish Authors Understood

Throughout editorial service, certain misunderstandings repeatedly create friction between editors and authors. Addressing these directly might improve the relationship.

First, editors genuinely want to accept good papers. They aren’t adversaries trying to reject your work for arbitrary reasons. Editors take satisfaction in publishing research that advances their journal’s mission and field. Rejection is never the preferred outcome—it represents wasted effort for everyone involved.

Second, reviewer comments aren’t instructions to be followed blindly. Reviewers provide guidance reflecting their perspectives, but editors determine which suggestions are essential versus optional. Authors should address substantive concerns while using judgment about peripheral suggestions.

Third, scope fit matters more than quality alone. A brilliant paper submitted to the wrong journal will be rejected regardless of scientific merit. Strategic targeting is as important as research quality.

Fourth, editors read manuscripts directly, not just through reviewer summaries. While reviewer input is valuable, editors form their own judgments by engaging with the actual work. This is why decisions sometimes differ from reviewer recommendations.

Finally, professional communication creates lasting impressions. Authors who respond respectfully to rejection or revision requests, who ask reasonable questions without being combative, and who treat editorial decisions as professional judgments rather than personal attacks build positive reputations that benefit future submissions.

The Editor as Strategic Curator

Journal editors make decisions by blending reviewer input with their own assessment of scope, novelty, quality, and strategic fit. Whether a manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected reflects editorial judgment, not simply reviewer votes.

The editorial role requires balancing multiple competing demands. Editors must maintain quality standards while managing limited reviewer resources. They curate coherent journal identity while remaining open to innovative approaches. They nurture productive reviewer relationships while protecting them from inappropriate manuscripts. They support author development while enforcing policies. They meet publication timelines while ensuring thoroughness. Above all, they advance field knowledge while serving their specific journal’s mission.

Authors who understand this complex balancing act can submit more strategically to appropriate venues, interpret decisions more accurately without taking rejection personally, respond to feedback more effectively by addressing underlying concerns, build better relationships with editorial teams through professional communication, and increase their overall publication success rate through accumulated strategic improvements.

The editor’s role is simultaneously gatekeeper and facilitator. Their fundamental goal is publishing the best possible research while maintaining journal standards and mission. Understanding their perspective transforms the entire publication process from an adversarial relationship into a collaborative effort toward shared goals.

The Editor’s 5-Minute Assessment: What They Look For First

When your manuscript arrives, editors conduct a rapid initial screening. Here’s what they evaluate in the first 5-10 minutes:

1. Scope Alignment (First 2 minutes)

Questions editors ask:

• Does this fit our journal’s focus area?
• Would our readership care about this topic?
• Have we published similar work recently?

Where they look:

• Title
• Abstract
• Keywords
• Introduction (first page)

Decision point: If scope doesn’t fit, desk rejection happens here.

2. Novelty and Contribution (Minutes 3-5)

Questions editors ask:

• What’s new here?
• Does this advance the field meaningfully?
• Is the contribution clear and significant?

Where they look:

• Abstract (especially contribution statement)
• Introduction (research gap, objectives)
• Conclusion

Red flags:

• Incremental findings without clear importance
• Generic gap statements
• Unclear or buried contribution

3. Methodological Soundness (Minutes 6-8)

Questions editors ask:

• Do the methods match the research question?
• Are there obvious methodological flaws?
• Is the sample size/data adequate?

Where they look:

• Methods section (skim)
• Abstract (methods summary)
• Results (do they support claims?)

Note: Editors aren’t looking for perfection—they’re screening for obvious fatal flaws that would waste reviewer time.

4. Presentation Quality (Minutes 9-10)

Questions editors ask:

• Is this well-written and clear?
• Does it follow our formatting guidelines?
• Are figures and tables professional quality?

Where they look:

• Overall writing clarity
• Section organization
• Figure quality
• Reference formatting

Red flags:

• Poor English that prevents understanding
• Missing sections or incomplete submission
• Unprofessional or illegible figures

5. Strategic Fit with Current Priorities (Final assessment)

Questions editors ask:

• Do we need this topic right now?
• How does this fit our publication mix?
• Will this attract readers/citations?

Where they look:

• Recent journal issues
• Editorial board priorities
• Journal metrics and goals

Context: Even good papers may not fit current strategic direction. The Decision Timeline: From Submission to Review

Stage 1: Administrative Processing (Day 0-2)

• Manuscript uploaded to system
• Automated checks (plagiarism, format)
• Administrative completeness review

Outcome: Proceeds to editor or flagged for issues

Stage 2: Editor Assignment (Day 2-5)

• Editor-in-Chief or Managing Editor assigns to Associate/Section Editor
• Based on expertise match with topic
• Editor receives notification

Outcome: Handling editor identified

Stage 3: Initial Editor Screening (Day 5-12)

• Editor reads abstract, introduction, conclusion
• Conducts the 5-minute assessment above
• Makes initial decision

Possible outcomes:

• Send to reviewers (60-70%) – Sees potential for acceptance
• Desk reject (30-40%) – Doesn’t fit scope or isn’t ready

Stage 4: Reviewer Selection (Day 12-30)

If sent for review

• Editor identifies 5-10 potential reviewers
• Sends invitations
• Waits for acceptances (most decline)
• Continues until 2-3 reviewers accept

Timeline varies: This is where most delays occur

Stage 5: Peer Review (Week 4-12)

• Reviewers read manuscript thoroughly
• Evaluate methods, results, significance
• Write detailed comments
• Provide recommendation (accept, revise, reject)

Timeline: 2-8 weeks per reviewer, but highly variable

Stage 6: Editorial Decision (Week 12-16)

• Editor reads all reviewer reports
• Synthesizes feedback
• Makes final decision
• Writes decision letter

Timeline: 3-10 days after receiving last review

Possible outcomes:

• Accept (5-10% of submissions)
• Minor Revision (15-20%)
• Major Revision (20-30%)
• Revise & Resubmit (10-20%)
• Reject (30-40%)

What Increases Your Acceptance Chances

Factor 1: Perfect Scope Match

Impact: Highest predictor of success

How to achieve:

• Read 10+ recent articles from target journal
• Verify your topic appears regularly
• Match their style (theoretical vs. applied, etc.)
• Cite recent papers from the journal

Factor 2: Crystal-Clear Contribution

Impact: Very high

How to achieve:

• State novelty explicitly in abstract
• Include dedicated “contribution” paragraph in introduction
• Explain “so what?” early and often
• Avoid burying your contribution in results

Factor 3: Rigorous Methodology

Impact: High

How to achieve:

• Use established, validated methods
• Justify any novel approaches thoroughly
• Address limitations proactively
• Provide sufficient detail for replication

Factor 4: Engaging Writing

Impact: Medium-high

How to achieve:

• Clear, concise sentences
• Logical flow and organization
• Strong opening that hooks editor/reviewers
• Professional figures and tables

Factor 5: Strategic Timing

Impact: Medium

How to achieve:

• Submit to special issues on your topic
• Time submission with field conferences
• Avoid holiday periods if possible
• Check journal’s current publication mix

Common Editor Decision-Making Patterns

Pattern 1: The Quick Desk Reject (Day 3-7)

Trigger: Obvious scope mismatch, poor preparation

Editor thinking: “This doesn’t fit. Better to reject quickly than waste reviewer time.”

How to avoid: Proper journal selection, thorough preparation

Pattern 2: The Conflicted Decision (Week 12-16)

Trigger: Mixed reviewer recommendations (e.g., one “accept,” one “reject”)

Editor thinking: “I need to make the call. Which reviewer is right? What’s best for the journal?”

Typical outcome: Major Revision or Revise & Resubmit

What it means for you: Show editor you can address concerns

Pattern 3: The Enthusiastic Accept (Week 8-12)

Trigger: All reviewers recommend acceptance with minor changes

Editor thinking: “This is exactly what we want. Let’s get this published.”

Typical outcome: Accept or Minor Revision

How to increase odds: Submit polished, well-targeted work

What Editors Wish Authors Knew

1. Editors Are on Your Side

Editors want to publish your work—if it fits. They’re not adversaries looking for reasons to reject.

2. Reviewer Availability Is the Biggest Challenge

Finding willing, qualified reviewers is harder than evaluating manuscripts. This causes most delays.

3. Scope Fit Matters More Than Quality

A brilliant paper on the wrong topic will be rejected. An adequate paper on a perfect topic has better chances.

4. We Notice When You’ve Read Our Journal

Citing recent articles from the target journal signals you understand the fit.

5. Preparation Shows Respect

Following guidelines carefully signals professionalism and increases confidence in your work.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do editors read the entire manuscript?

Initial screening: No—just abstract, intro, conclusion, and skim methods/results

Post-review: Yes—editors read thoroughly before making final decision

Can I contact the editor to advocate for my manuscript?

Generally no. Unsolicited contact is usually inappropriate and won’t change decisions.

Exception: You can inquire about status after 8+ weeks of review with no update.

Do prestigious author affiliations influence decisions?

Ideally no, but unconscious bias can exist. Editors try to evaluate work on merit alone.

Best practice: Strong science and clear writing matter more than affiliation.

What if I disagree with the editor’s decision?

Appeals rarely succeed unless you can demonstrate factual error.

Better approach: Use feedback to improve and submit to different journal.

Key Takeaways

• Editors conduct rapid initial screening – First 5-10 minutes determine desk reject vs. review
• Scope alignment is the #1 factor – Perfect fit matters more than perfect quality
• Clear contribution statements are critical – Don’t make editors hunt for novelty
• Timeline varies by journal type – High-impact journals decide faster (3-6 weeks)
• Editors want to publish your work -They’re not adversaries, they’re gatekeepers maintaining standards

Bottom line: Understanding editorial decision-making helps you submit strategically, increasing acceptance chances by targeting appropriately and presenting your work compellingly.