The Philosophers' Cocoon

A safe and supportive forum for philosophers.

Owned & Moderated by Marcus Arvan (University of Tampa)

Contact: marvan@ut.edu

Blog mission & moderation policy

IMPORTANT NOTE on how to ensure anonymity in commenting
Job-Market Reporting Thread (2025-26)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2025-26)

recent posts

about

Norms for revise-and-resubmits?

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, Columbo writes:

If you get an R&R from a journal, but you don't have time in the near future to do the revisions, are you at liberty to send the paper elsewhere as is? If it gets accepted there, then great; but if it doesn't, then you can do the revisions and send it back to the first journal. Put alternatively, does the time between receiving the R&R and submitting the revised version all count as "under review" time?

I'm glad Columbo asked, as another reader submitted the following reply, which I entirely agree with:

[P]rofessional norms suggest that you have to specify to the journal whether you will do the revisions or not. If you say that you will not revise the paper, I guess that once you send the paper back to the journal because another rejected it, it will be treated as a new submission. Just ask for more time to revise it, usually editors are reasonable.

I've been told that revise-and-resubmits are technically rejections with the opportunity to resubmit after revision. But just because this is technically true, it doesn't mean that it's appropriate to treat an RnR like any other rejection. The journal that issued the RnR spent their time and resources on it, as did their referees–and it's a clear (albeit often unstated) academic norm not to send a paper to another journal while it's under a revise-and-resubmit some place. Further, the consequences of violating this norm could be severe. It's entirely possible that if you send the paper to another journal, then one or more of the referees who read the paper at the first journal may get recruited to review the paper at the new journal–and so if your paper is rejected at the other journal and you later resubmit it as an RnR to the first journal, then one of more referees will cry foul to the editors. I'm not entirely sure what kinds of consequences this could lead to, but it's not out of the question (I think) that one could be accused of academic misconduct or banned from submitting to the journal.

So, long story short: my understanding is that if you get an RnR, you should either resubmit the paper to that journal only or inform the editors that you do not intend to resubmit the paper there. Maybe there are some people who risk violating these norms, but I'd strongly advise that it's not worth it. Does anyone else have any helpful tips or insights here? Are there any other norms the OP should be aware of?

Posted in

5 responses to “Norms for revise-and-resubmits?”

  1. Elizabeth Harman

    I disagree. If you’ve received an R and R verdict (and haven’t sent the paper back), you paper is not currently under submission and you’re free to submit it elsewhere.
    But it’s often unwise to do that. An R and R is a very positive sign, and you’re in general wiser to find a way to do the revisions reasonably quickly than to start a process with a new journal.
    Still, you haven’t done anything wrong if you submit somewhere else, get a rejection, and then resubmit to the first journal.

    Reply
  2. Assistant Professor

    As a reviewer I have noticed I am increasingly asked by journals to recommend a paper for acceptance, acceptance pending minor revisions, rejection with major revision, or rejection with no opportunity for resubmission. So I think that while an R&R in general is an opportunity to revise the paper and essentially try again, and hopefully a journal makes clear if they are contingently accepting a paper pending minor revision vs. providing the opportunity for a major revision, this might be something to clarify with the editor before declining the revision opportunity, if the answer is at all opaque.
    But overall agree with Marcus that you need to let them know if you are going to revise or not, and if it is simply a matter of timeline then ask for an extension and suggest a specific date by which you are certain you can complete the revision (rather than come back and ask for multiple extensions). I have never had an editor retract an R&R because I needed more time to complete it.
    I also recommend reading the review closely to determine what revisions you agree with and intend to take up, and which you don’t. You are not obligated to do everything a reviewer requests or recommends (though it is important to have good reasons for not taking up reviewer suggestions and I address each of their points in a response letter noting either how I made changes in light of their suggestions or why I decided it was outside the scope of the paper to take up a suggestion – but always gracious and appreciative of their comments). Sometimes a review looks really cumbersome, but a reviewer has mainly made suggestions or raised ideas that can be taken up in a future paper or which are parallel to the concerns of your paper, and the revision does not require as much work as it might at first seem.

    Reply
  3. JDF

    I agree with Elizabeth Harman. An R&R is an invitation, and unless it comes with a deadline, it is one which you may accept or decline at your leisure. So if you want to try the current version elsewhere first, you may.
    Still, it is likely inadvisable. An R&R signals interest in the essay which you cannot assume elsewhere. Since just about every essay gets an R&R before it is accepted, you’re in as good a position as you will likely be after the second journal renders a verdict.

    Reply
  4. Tim

    I have always assumed that an Revise and Resubmit meant the paper was still “at” the journal. For instance, for many journals, when you re-submit, the ID number isn’t a new one; its the old one with a designation like ‘R1.’ In the sciences, there is a category of “conditional rejection,” meaning the paper has been rejected. But, for that paper, they waive the requirement that the paper not be submitted to the journal before for subsequent submissions. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that language in a philosophy journal before, or seen any indications that this is how editors were thinking about things. But maybe I missed something…?
    More practically, it takes so long just to get a paper under review and accepted. So even if one was given a Revise and Resubmit decision, it is unlikely it will be accepted somewhere else before the deadline for the revisions come.

    Reply
  5. TT prof

    I think it’s a courtesy or even moral duty to let the editor know whether you’re resubmitting or trying elsewhere.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to TimCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading