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 (2026-27)
Job-Market Discussion Thread (2026-27)

recent posts

about

Serious misgivings about a paper in R&R?

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

I've recently received an R&R from a journal. However, I now have significant misgivings about the paper; I no longer like the way I framed the issue, my views have developed/changed since the manuscript has been under review, etc. The referee report suggested a number of changes. However, there are many things not mentioned by the referee that I would like to change. Frankly, I would prefer to scrap the manuscript altogether and rewrite it from scratch. What do people recommend doing in this kind of situation? Is withdrawing the manuscript unreasonable? If not, what do I say to the journal/editor? Some context: I am a junior academic with a non-tt but permanent position. I already have a handful of publications in respectable journals. I felt somewhat rushed in sending this manuscript out for job market reasons (it's one of the main positive contributions of my diss.), I'm now regretting doing so.

This seems like a tough situation. On the one hand, I don't think rewriting the entire paper from scratch is advisable for an R&R. I think I tried that once a very long time ago, and the response I received from reviewers was all-too-predictable: they were pretty outraged that I had the temerity to send in a completely different paper–which they felt was inappropriate for an R&R and basically wasted their time. In brief, I think an R&R probably has to be a revised version of what was previously submitted–at least if it is to have a real chance of acceptance. But maybe I'm wrong about this. Have others tried full-scale paper rewrites at the R&R stage and had success in the process?

As for withdrawing the paper, that's always an author's prerogative. But I'm not sure that anyone can answer the question of whether to do that better than the OP. Why? Because I guess it depends upon how unhappy they are with the paper, and whether they think they'd regret publishing any version of it that might get through the R&R process. From the sound of things (and given that it is one of the main contributions of their dissertation), it seems like the OP would regret publishing without full-scale rewriting–which would seemingly speak in favor of withdrawing. Finally, though, if the OP is still looking for a TT job, then what to do may depend upon whether publishing the paper would help or hinder their efforts at obtaining one (which could depend upon the kind of journal the paper is at). 

What do other readers think?

Posted in

8 responses to “Serious misgivings about a paper in R&R?”

  1. Walter

    I’d say do the revisions and publish the paper, if you can stomach it. Then, write the new version and publish that, too.
    I don’t think you need to love everything you publish. Publishing isn’t only about you, either. If you got an R&R, some pretty smart people think the paper is good and want to see it published, even if you don’t like it. So just get it out there, then get to work on the new, better version. People interested in the field may even benefit from seeing the development of your view.

    Reply
  2. my perspective

    As Marcus says, the author always retains the right not to submit a revised version of a paper. But, do not expect the referees or editors to review a substantially rewritten paper. What they have invited you to do is submit a revised version of what you submitted initially, revised in light of the referees’ reports. And, given this experience, the author should in the future think carefully before they send in a paper to a journal.

    Reply
  3. Michel

    You’re under no obligation with an R it’s basically rejection with a ‘save progress, try again’ button. I don’t think you even need to tell anyone you’re not going to pursue the revisions; nobody is waiting on you to do so, they’re just allowing you to within a certain timeframe.
    And yes: rewriting it from scratch makes it a new paper, and so not an appropriate resubmission under the R&To.

    Reply
  4. Declan

    I suppose one other thing to consider is that if the OP decides to rewrite the paper, if it is still significantly similar to the original paper then the journal that gave the R&R may not be very eager to accept the new version for publication. Depending on the paper/journal this might not matter very much, but if there aren’t lots of other places that the paper would be a good fit then this might be a consideration.

    Reply
  5. just do it

    I’d be surprised if you can’t rewrite it substantially, without making it look too much like its been rewritten substantially to those who aren’t paying as close attention. (You could probably also frame much of the rewriting as a response to some of the reviewer’s comments: “this comment made me realise that ….” etc.)
    And, if you follow that strategy, the worst case is that the reviewers don’t buy it…but then you can just submit it elsewhere.

    Reply
  6. Shay Allen Logan

    I’ve been there. I’ve pulled the paper. I’ve regretted it.
    More importantly: any paper where my attitude about it has changed by a comparable amount is a paper about which my attitudes have continued to whipsaw for some time. So I think for me at least, in such cases my own attitudes about the quality of the paper aren’t good guides to its actual quality.
    So now, when I have these feelings, I deal with them like an adult and suppress them and pretend they’re not there and then hope that distance solves the problem.

    Reply
  7. Cecil Burrow

    I’ve done this before after an R&R, and it has been accepted. Who knows, the reviewers might like the substantially revised paper better. I wrote a cover letter explaining the significant rewriting of the paper, vaguely connecting it with some concerns of the referees. There was a little bullshitting involved there – but who cares? It had definitely become a better paper. If the referees hadn’t liked it, then I would have just sent it off to the next journal on my list without losing much sleep.
    I strongly advise against publishing something you recognize as weak. I’ve come across too many cases where people have published things they know have serious problems, thinking that they can just fix it all in the next paper. That’s just contributing to the problem of the mass of junk philosophy out there. Especially as a junior philosopher, you don’t want to be seen as someone adding to that pile. If I see a junior job candidate who has published junky philosophy, I will assume that is all they aspire to or all they are capable of. And remember that on the job market, Murphy’s Law entails that you will end up being judged on your weakest paper.

    Reply
  8. Canadian PostDoc

    Just wanted to second just do it and Cecil’s comments. My approach to revisions involves a lot of throwing away everything I had before and starting from scratch. This is probably not the most efficient way to write, but my thinking feels trapped and limited by my previously written words if I try to make revisions by fiddling around with what I had before. Despite this rather radical approach, I have mostly had success with R&Rs. I think the real key is making sure that you substantially connect your changes to the comments from the reviewers in your letter.
    I don’t think that there is anything wrong with saying things like ‘Reviewer X’s objection to argument Y made me realize that Y needed to be replaced entirely by an alternative argument. The new argument addresses X’s worries by doing A, B, C, etc.’ Or ‘Reviewer X’s comment made me realize that by framing my argument in such and such way makes my point ambiguous, so for that reason I have restructured the negative portion of my argument by framing it around Y. This makes my point substantially clearer because…’

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading