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

Tips for revising papers?

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

I'm very good at generating new projects and writing initial drafts. But, revising is much harder and a specific difficulty I have (especially with more complex revisions like r&rs) is that it's harder to develop a sense of progress when working on a revision. So far, I've tried making lists of specific changes so the work doesn't feel invisible/non-existent. This has been a medium success. I'd like to know if other people have techniques they use to approach this part of the writing process.

Good query, and I'm curious to hear from readers. One thing that I do with R&R's is to color-code each major reviewer concern, highlighting the reviewer's comments in a PDF or Word doc with different highlight colors for each concern. Then, what I'll do is to match that color code in my revisions by using those same colors of text for my revisions. That way, I'm able to easily see in the manuscript which revisions address which concern. Finally, whenever I think I've addressed a concern well-enough, I'll use the strike-through function in the reviewer comments to indicate that I'm done with those revisions. Once all of the reviewer concerns are struck-through, I know I'm done!

Of course, it always helps to have an outside reader or two look through your revisions to help make sure that you've dealt with everything well. I've found this is especially helpful if I have any inkling of doubt whether I've dealt with a concern well-enough. Usually, if I'm honest with myself, I'll have a sense of which of my revisions might not be entirely adequate–and if an outside reader or two verifies that doubt independently, then I'll know that I have more work to do.

Anyway, these are just a few things that I do in revisions. Do you have any revising tips for the OP?

Posted in

5 responses to “Tips for revising papers?”

  1. Postdoc

    When it comes to R&Rs in particular, it is important to break down the comments you get and make sure you actually address each one well. I don’t do colour coding, but I have a separate document where I first address each comment with a reply and then indicate to the reviewer how the text looks where said reply has been inserted by copypasting the relevant section from the main document and adding the page number. What I do with that is then that I first write a draft reply to each reviewer comment, edit the text in the main document, and add that text to the replies document. Then I go back to edit the main text so it hangs together, and finally edit the replies to the reviewers again (which also might lead to some additional alterations of the main text). Only after that do I resubmit my papers (together with the replies-to-reviewers document on the side).
    This is a laborious process and often ends up with me submitting replies-to-reviewers documents that are as long as the main papers when I resubmit. However, my sense as a reviewer and sometimes-editor of others’ work is that this is much more thorough than most philosophers’ replies to reviewers. In particular, most authors don’t make it as explicit to reviewers how they address each concern, leaving the reviewers to do a lot of extra legwork to make sense of the authors’ revised texts.
    I have, however, got great results. I have 10 peer reviewed publications, all 10 have gone through R&R, and all my R&Rs have been accepted. Simultaneously, I hear relatively often how dismayed colleagues at my (postdoc) career level are when their R&Rs have been rejected. My suspicion is that they are not being thorough enough.

    Reply
  2. Michel

    I also highlight and strike through referee comments, though I don’t colour-code. When I’m revising for an R&R (as opposed to just revising on my own) I make my revisions in red text, so that they’re easy to see.
    Another thing I do that is good for showing progress to myself, and for preserving a record of the work done on the paper, is how I approach file management. Every time I open a paper to work on it, I save it as a new file. So when I start writing for the first time, that’s draft 1.0. When I open it the next day to keep going, that’s 1.1. I change the draft number (the first one) either once I’ve gone through and, in on go, made some really, really serious changes (e.g. totally reorganized my sections) or when the paper has been rejected (or R&Red) and I’m working it back up to snuff. At that point it’s 2.0, 2.1, etc.
    That way, it’s easy to see how much a paper has changed–if I’m at v. 1.25, that’s 25 days of work; if it’s 4.25, that’s four drafts, each with 10-25 or so days of work on them, three rejected or R&Red. But that way I also don’t lose anything to deletions, and can easily undo changes I’ve made. And I don’t forget which of ‘final draft’ and ‘final final draft’ and ‘best final draft’ is my actual final draft. And when something crashes and work is lost, at least it’s just that day’s work.

    Reply
  3. post post doc

    Post doc’s remarks are very useful. I read the referees’ reports, and then make a list of things I need to do. I number them, and some will even be raised by both referees. Then I address the concerns in an orderly fashion, checking off when it has been addressed. Then I read through the whole thing to ensure it all hangs together. Then I write a short report to the editor explaining what I did to address the concerns: R1 says blah blah blah … I now address this in Sect. 2; R1 and R2 both raise the concern that I blah blah … I have now elaborated on my presentation, and included an example to illustrate my point, etc. Like Post Doc, I have had great success with this. I am much further in my career, but like Post Doc, I do not recall having an R&R rejected after revisions. But I do not send papers in in the first place until the argument is really super clear.

    Reply
  4. cecilburrow

    Take all referees’ objections seriously, perhaps even more seriously than they need to be. If you think they can be addressed in a quick footnote or two, you probably haven’t really grasped the objection.

    Reply
  5. OP

    Thanks for the insights into your processes! I think the granularity of these approaches will be helpful.
    Michel, I never thought of organizing drafts that way – I like the idea. I use a paper planner with a “habit tracker” so I can keep track of daily writing on new projects, but numbering drafts and days sounds like it would be really helpful for revision.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to post post docCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading