In our most recent "how can we help you?" thread, a reader asks:

i recently got ‘conditional acceptance’ for my paper. what exactly are the norms here? Should I separetely write a report in which I address the reviewer comments and the changes I made? Or should I just revise the paper and send the final version without any report? Also, are small changes (that are not mentioned in the reviewer’s comments.. such as changing the title a bit) okay?

I always write a report explaining how I addressed the reviewer comments, though in my experience journal notifications usually ask one to do this anyway. But, if the OP's conditional acceptance didn't instruct them to write a reply to reviewers, I'm not sure if it would be a big deal if they didn't include one.

What do readers think?

Posted in

3 responses to “Norms for revising conditional acceptances?”

  1. academic migrant

    I would do it, though the past few times conditionals just went through the (handling) editor rather than any external reviewers. I do it to make the job of the decision makers easier.

  2. An editor

    If one has questions about a conditional acceptance, it would be very useful to email the handling editor to ask if they want a response letter with the new version. Ideally they will say exactly what the acceptance is conditional on, but if there is something you want or need clarification on, it’s worth just sending an email to the editor.

  3. I always include a letter saying how I responded to the reviewers’ comments. It is especially important when you need to explain why you did not follow some of their advice.

Leave a Reply to Bill V.Cancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading