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

Conditional acceptances: making changes that go beyond what is requested?

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

I resubmitted a paper of mine to a journal, after a round of revisions, back in October. Yesterday, I finally received the verdict of "acceptance with minor revisions" with a few comments from the editors' that should be easy to accommodate. However, since giving this paper as a job talk, I've come to think that a few portions of it should be reframed/rewritten.

Do people have recommendations for how to approach doing this? The options, as I see them, are to either (1) just go ahead implement the revisions and resubmit the paper with a note or (2) email the editors with (something like) a request for permission to make the changes I want to make. Is one of these approaches likely to be better received?

Hmm. Good questions, and I'm curious to hear what readers think. I guess I'd be inclined to do neither. In part this is because I once had a paper rejected under similar circumstances in which I made changes that weren't asked for. So, since then, I've been mostly inclined to do what reviewers ask and let the paper be (papers can always be improved, so unless it's not something you would be proud to publish without the changes, why take the risk?). But I guess if I were the OP and I really did want to make the changes, I'd go for option 2. It just seems to me safer to ask!

What do readers think? Do any of you have any tips or salient experiences to share?

Posted in ,

13 responses to “Conditional acceptances: making changes that go beyond what is requested?”

  1. anon recently tenured

    I don’t think “acceptance with minor revisions” is necessarily equivalent to a conditional acceptance, but maybe that’s splitting hairs. I definitely would NOT implement the revisions without asking the editors, and I’d probably not make the changes at all. But if I were going to, I agree with Marcus that you should consult with the editors first.

    Reply
  2. anon

    Yeah, my reaction was identical to the one Marcus describes.
    If you’ve had some insights that will change what you say about the issue in a bigger way than the small edits they have asked for, just save that for your next publication.
    You’ve gotten to the penultimate stage with your October manuscript submission. But if you change it significantly, I could see the editor just wanting to restart the peer review process. It could be a different enough manuscript to really justify that (from their point of view).

    Reply
  3. Michel

    I have the opposite reaction: just do it. Yes, it’s true, the referees might decide to reject. But these are changes you think the paper needs, and they’re framing rather than substance changes. Besides which, everyone is already on board, so they’re likely to agree that these changes improve things.
    If you think doing so will substantially improve the paper, then do it and flag it for everyone.

    Reply
  4. Randolph

    Interesting. I regularly identify things that need tweaking, over and above the reviewers’ suggestions, but often they are spurred by reflection on the referee reports, which I note in my letter without consulting the editors first. I’ve only done this for straight R&Rs though. This has only amounted, I should add, to an additional paragraph here, and a footnote or two there, so not exactly ‘reframing or rewriting’, which I agree might be risky.

    Reply
  5. M

    I would go for (2) and explain clearly and succinctly why those changes are important for the argument. I would not publish the paper “at any cost”: this is your work, and it will be tied to your name forever. You have to be proud of it. Plus, publishing a second paper on the same topic is not easy: someone has already done it. You.

    Reply
  6. whatever

    Just do what they ask and nothing more.

    Reply
  7. practical advice

    my own practical suggestion aiming at the least hassle: do not do any substantiate changes at this stage, which risks rejection and frustration; try to implement your idea of reframing in a minimal way that both you and the editor are likely to be happy with. (It is normal to do minor changes beyond what the editor asks.)
    Although you can certainly ask the editor about it per option 2, I still think it is too much hassle and creates some more burden for the editor.

    Reply
  8. Blake

    Since it is an “acceptance with minor revisions,” I’d hold off on changes. The paper is accepted. Time to move on! Congrats!

    Reply
  9. c

    I think this depends on how radical the changes you want to implement are. If it’s really just a reframing, rewriting some sections, and doesn’t involve substantively changing the argument, it sounds to me like it’s probably fine to implement them. I would just make a note of these changes in your cover letter when you resubmit the paper.

    Reply
  10. Hermias

    Please make your paper good, not ‘good enough’. For what my experience is worth, reviewers and editors give pretty wide latitude to changes in the final revision. It’s your paper, it’s your 15 aeons of obscurity, so say what you need to say.

    Reply
  11. Gift Horse

    I’ll just repeat that there’s a real possibility of losing a paper if you make substantial revisions at what should have been the end of the review process.
    As a reviewer, if we’ve got to the point where the journal says conditional accept with minor revisions, and the paper comes back with major unrequested changes to the framing of the paper, I am likely to excuse myself from the unnecessary extra round of reviews. The editor may get cold feet themselves or send it out to a replacement reviewer who hates it. Both editors and reviewers are doing you a service, usually unpaid, and unexpected requests for more of that service are not especially welcome.
    I would only make major changes at that point if I think the paper as it stands is actually wrong and I don’t want my name on it, so there’s nothing to lose.

    Reply
  12. cautious

    To follow up on Gift Horse’s insightful remarks, often when authors try to “improve” their papers they actually make them worse. As others have suggested, the extras you want to add are a good start on a new paper. I once did this. After getting a paper into print on a new topic (new for me), I had more I wanted to say. I resisted revising my paper further, got it published, and then published the second paper, which went much faster through the reveiw process.

    Reply
  13. cecl burrow

    I just want to point out that my intuitions go against many here, though I suppose it depends on the precise case we are talking about.
    If you think there is something fundamentally wrong with the original framing, then you should fix it, even if there’s a risk of rejection. (In my experience the risk is low, for what it is worth.) There’s nothing worse than talking with someone about a kind of obvious problem with a paper, and being told ‘yeah, I’m going to address that in another paper’. On the other hands, if there is nothing obviously wrong with the original framing but it’s just that you current feel more attracted to a slightly different framing, then I could go either way.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading