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 on getting to a revise-and-resubmit?

In our new "how can we help you?" thread, a grad student asks:

I'm trying to understand how I can get past the review process and get at least an R&R (revise and resumbit).

I have this intuition that the reason reviewers are rejecting my paper is not because it lacks arguments for my thesis but because they simply do not agree with the overall thesis I am making. To be sure, there are things I need to improve in my arguments. But- and here is where the problem starts- I cannot see how this *cannot* be made in an R&R.I also get comments by the reviewers saying that I make interesting points that need to be clarified. Only a very small percentage of papers get accepted as they are initially submitted, so how can reviewers expect a paper to be in the perfect shape possible? They know, we know, that every paper they receive is most likely going to be revised. So the changes that need to be made here and there cannot really be the reason that the reviewer rejects the paper- if that was the case then he would simply suggest the changes to be made in an RnR. So there must be something else that makes them reject the paper.

It took me quite a while to find my feet publishing, as I think one sort of learns through trial and error which sorts of things reviewers tend to get hung up on. But, in part one learns that stuff by getting R&Rs and seeing their comments. Which returns us to the OP's query: how to get an R&R in the first place. While it may be possible that (some) reviewers recommend rejecting a paper simply because they disagree with its thesis, that's not really something one can control. So, maybe the thing for the OP to do here is to solicit some outside readers to give them feedback? I'm not sure. Also, the OP may just want to keep submitting their paper. I've had particular papers rejected numerous times before getting an R&R, and eventually published many (though not all) of them.

What do readers think?

Posted in ,

19 responses to “Tips on getting to a revise-and-resubmit?”

  1. a popular referee

    Please DO NOT just keep sending your papers in to journals after they are rejected. It is not a good strategy and it is bad for the system as a whole. Instead, you need to solicit feedback from peers, and present your papers at conferences before you submit them to journals. You need a good honest, critical assessment of your papers. I am very skeptical of your proposed explanation, that referees disagree with your conclusion and thus reject your papers.
    I have refereed about 230 papers, about half for leading journals in my sub-field. People are sending in very unfinished papers … and sending them in again and again. Instead, focus on getting one paper published.

    Reply
  2. I review twice a month

    So here are a few possibilities you may consider:
    1. If your arguments work, does the paper make a contribution? Is the contribution important enough? Sometimes it is work spelling out the stakes of your paper. What theoretical or practical implications may follow? Tell people in the relevant field why they should care.
    2. Are the background settings, e.g. the premises, reasonable enough? Sometimes it is difficult to accept some assumptions, e.g. let’s assume that tribalism is correct or let’s assume that abortion is wrong. If you have such assumptions, it is really worth having a story of why such assumptions can be made.
    3. Do the arguments work?
    4. Have you considered obvious objections? Remember that these may not be real objections. Sometimes they can be easy-to-have misunderstandings.
    5. The introduction is very important. My supervisor told me that some reviewers decide to reject the paper just before they finish the introduction. Try to make the introduction a good balance of being informative, being enticing, and being brief.
    6. Do enough literature review to make sure that your argument hasn’t already been made or refuted.

    Reply
  3. Anony

    I am going to go mostly against the first comment here and say: JUST KEEP SUBMITTING YOUR PAPER ELSEWHERE.
    Publishing is way more of a crap-shoot that most people want to admit. When I get a rejection, I read through the comments, give it a day, and then read through them the next day. If any comments strike me as worthwhile enough to demand a thorough re-working of my paper, I do so. Far more often, the comments are about things that the next reviewers will almost assuredly not care about. In those cases, I just immediately submit it elsewhere.
    One of my papers (I think it is my best) was rejected eight different times. Almost every major suggestion among the reviewers was different. If I kept chasing the last reviewer’s worries, I would have done nothing but waste time, since the next reviewer would not have the same worries (hell, the changes might introduce new worries!).
    Also, it is not your duty to fix the problems with the publishing system. It is a collective action problem that you cannot fix by being more stingy with your submissions.
    So, in general, when you get a rejection, I recommend giving legitimate consideration to the comments. Then, unless a comment calls for an absolutely necessary re-working of your paper, just get it submitted somewhere else.
    And don’t try to divine the reviewer’s motives. Just treat it like a dice roll that didn’t go your way (this also helps to limit the sting of rejection).

    Reply
  4. Richard Y Chappell

    It can be a frustrating process. My best advice (fwiw) is to focus on making clear from the start how and why the moves you make in the paper are novel and interesting. If you rely on a premise that you expect many referees may reject, take a moment to explain why they should still find the conditional claim (if one accepts this premise, the conclusion follows) philosophically surprising and significant.
    It would be nice if referees thought about this sort of thing as a matter of course, but if they’re not antecedently sympathetic to your project then you may need to hit them over the head with it.

    Reply
  5. Investor

    Publishing is basically a lottery in my experience. 1 in 10 times you get some amazing reviewer that really helps improve your work. 9 in 10 times you get people who are incompetent. I no longer submit to journals. I know many of you have to in order to compete in the job market, or you think you do. The way you succeed at that is to write as much stuff as you can and blanket the journals with as many papers as you can possibly write just in order to get 1 R&R. You just keep going like that. Getting an R&R is mostly a matter of luck.

    Reply
  6. A slightly less popular referee

    Not as experienced a referee as the posters above, but nevertheless quite experienced. (Also I have a fair amount of publications, almost all of which have been R&R:ed, if that matters.)
    I think the basis for referees’ judgements can vary widely – even wildly. Some are very charitable, perhaps too charitable(!), whereas others are extremely harsh. This means that it is not beyond the realm of possibility that some referees will reject based on which theses are defended; some may well find some theses too implausible to publish.
    Moreover, referees’ judgements are typically based on overall impressions of papers. This means that they can bite at extremely different things. One referee will find engagement with literature important, another referee will find that that detracts from an original contribution. One will find it important to write in what they deem to be proper academic English (typically only second-language speakers care about this, in my experience), another would find it racist to criticize langauge (typically native English speakers have this attitude). One will think it is very important that a paper is rigorously developed, another will think that having an exciting theoretical vision is as important for publication… So, again, it is not inconceivable that someone could reject a paper because they disagree with a thesis.
    But you should expect a fair amount of random noise in the process. One philosopher’s professional standards are not another philosopher’s professional standards. In my personal case, I think I risk being the harshest when I review (and publish on) things I like to believe myself. I hold these theories to strict standards because I know the literature on them the best and because I really care about getting them right.
    Nevertheless, because of this wide variety of disciplinary expectations, you can ask yourself what the most common disciplinary expectations are. At least statistically, those are what you would run into the most often. Then what do analytic philosophers care about? I won’t try to write a comprehensive list, but a few that stand out straightforwardly to me are:
    One thing that matters a lot is paper structure. Personally I find most of the work in piecing a publishable paper together consists of coming up with a good structure for an argument, more often than not a formalized one (though not necessarily formalized!). You start with an intro and early paper structure that clearly spells this out. Then you can spend the rest of the paper defending the claims in it. And analytic philosophers hold structure in very high regard, so referees are typically receptive to this.
    When it comes to paper substance, it is probably helpful to be concerned with issues that typically concern philosophers. For example, it is often thought that certain kinds of luck can undermine knowledge (Gettier cases), action (deviant causal chains), and responsibility (the problem of moral luck). So if you can appeal to a consideration that has to do with how luck undermines (or doesn’t undermine) something else, analytic philosophers are likely to listen. Whereas they are much less likely to be concerned with whether a consideration is in tension with what someone like Derrida said. (Of course, this is not to say that you shouldn’t be innovative, but if publishing a paper in a timely manner is of the essence, you’re likely to do it quicker if you move within established disciplinary expectations of what matters.)
    When it comes to writing style, it is nice to have flair, but much more important to make your substantive points clearly and in a way which is easy to follow. (You’re writing to say something that hopefully is true, or at least contributes to the search for truth, not to be pleasant to read.)
    Etc. I am sure you can add more points to the list. But you get the gist.

    Reply
  7. Lazy, stupid, & mean

    Echoing #5 from “I review twice a month”: everything at the beginning of the paper has an outsized effect on your success in the refereeing process. Your introduction, but also your title, your abstract, and even your keywords. This has a big effect on who will referee your paper, and on what that referee will expect going in. Sometimes your title/keywords/abstract can funnel your paper towards a referees who are broadly hostile to your ideas, such that you keep getting rejected over and over again.
    In your introduction, you really want to draw the reader in and them curious about how your argument will go. One thing I focus on is framing the paper around a first-order puzzle/question (i.e., “what is X?) rather than around an academic literature/debate (S says P about X, but I will argue not P). It’s less boring and it makes your paper feel less derivative.

    Reply
  8. Lazy, stupid, & mean

    Echoing #5 from “I review twice a month”: everything at the beginning of the paper has an outsized effect on your success in the refereeing process. Your introduction, but also your title, your abstract, and even your keywords. This has a big effect on who will referee your paper, and on what that referee will expect going in. Sometimes your title/keywords/abstract can funnel your paper towards a referees who are broadly hostile to your ideas, such that you keep getting rejected over and over again.
    In your introduction, you really want to draw the reader in and them curious about how your argument will go. One thing I focus on is framing the paper around a first-order puzzle/question (i.e., “what is X?) rather than around an academic literature/debate (S says P about X, but I will argue not P). It’s less boring and it makes your paper feel less derivative.

    Reply
  9. Lazy, stupid, & mean

    Echoing #5 from “I review twice a month”: everything at the beginning of the paper has an outsized effect on your success in the refereeing process. Your introduction, but also your title, your abstract, and even your keywords. This has a big effect on who will referee your paper, and on what that referee will expect going in. Sometimes your title/keywords/abstract can funnel your paper towards a referees who are broadly hostile to your ideas, such that you keep getting rejected over and over again.
    In your introduction, you really want to draw the reader in and them curious about how your argument will go. One thing I focus on is framing the paper around a first-order puzzle/question (i.e., “what is X?) rather than around an academic literature/debate (S says P about X, but I will argue not P). It’s less boring and it makes your paper feel less derivative.

    Reply
  10. Lazy, stupid, & mean

    Echoing #5 from “I review twice a month”: everything at the beginning of the paper has an outsized effect on your success in the refereeing process. Your introduction, but also your title, your abstract, and even your keywords. This has a big effect on who will referee your paper, and on what that referee will expect going in. Sometimes your title/keywords/abstract can funnel your paper towards a referees who are broadly hostile to your ideas, such that you keep getting rejected over and over again.
    In your introduction, you really want to draw the reader in and them curious about how your argument will go. One thing I focus on is framing the paper around a first-order puzzle/question (i.e., “what is X?) rather than around an academic literature/debate (S says P about X, but I will argue not P). It’s less boring and it makes your paper feel less derivative.

    Reply
  11. Lazy, stupid, & mean

    Echoing #5 from “I review twice a month”: everything at the beginning of the paper has an outsized effect on your success in the refereeing process. Your introduction, but also your title, your abstract, and even your keywords. This has a big effect on who will referee your paper, and on what that referee will expect going in. Sometimes your title/keywords/abstract can funnel your paper towards a referees who are broadly hostile to your ideas, such that you keep getting rejected over and over again.
    In your introduction, you really want to draw the reader in and them curious about how your argument will go. One thing I focus on is framing the paper around a first-order puzzle/question (i.e., “what is X?) rather than around an academic literature/debate (S says P about X, but I will argue not P). It’s less boring and it makes your paper feel less derivative.

    Reply
  12. Lazy, stupid, & mean

    Echoing #5 from “I review twice a month”: everything at the beginning of the paper has an outsized effect on your success in the refereeing process. Your introduction, but also your title, your abstract, and even your keywords. This has a big effect on who will referee your paper, and on what that referee will expect going in. Sometimes your title/keywords/abstract can funnel your paper towards a referees who are broadly hostile to your ideas, such that you keep getting rejected over and over again.
    In your introduction, you really want to draw the reader in and them curious about how your argument will go. One thing I focus on is framing the paper around a first-order puzzle/question (i.e., “what is X?) rather than around an academic literature/debate (S says P about X, but I will argue not P). It’s less boring and it makes your paper feel less derivative.

    Reply
  13. Niles Crsne

    People often say that publishing is a matter of luck, a crapshoot, whatever. These comments are to some degree illuminating. You can write a great paper and then it gets rejected in the actual world but not in nearby possible worlds. I suspect this has happened at some point to everyone who has published a few papers. It’s incredibly frustrating, especially when you care about the thesis, so there is a temptation to condemn the peer review system in philosophy.
    There are also reasons to think the peer review system is a bit more predictable than these comments suggest. Notice that the same people routinely publish in the top journals. You see plenty of people with 3 or more in top 5 journals. You see far more with 3 or more in top 10 journals. Some of these people are still in graduate school, or fresh out, so they haven’t had time to roll the dice over and over again. Notice, also, that papers in each of these journals tends to resemble other papers in the same journal from the same subdiscipline. The writing style is similar, the kinds of moves made are similar, the framing is similar, etc. Each journal has its own distinct personality. If you read enough of a journal, you get a sense of its personality and you can use that to your advantage when deciding where to submit. If you just treat it like a game of chance, you decrease your odds by neglecting important respects in which it is a non-stochastic process. None of this is to deny that you can sometimes do everything right and still get a rough review (or a series of them).

    Reply
  14. Assistant Prof

    Comments on rejections are often fairly unhelpful. There isn’t that much correlation between the things that referees chose to complain about and the things that actually led them to reject the paper.
    I think the best advice in this situation is just to focus on learning what kinds of papers journals want, and also on developing the best paper possible (not always a different thing!). Repeated referee comments should be taken into account, but one-offs might not be very helpful.
    Please do remember also, as some have mentioned, that rejection is the norm and there is a lot of noise in the system.

    Reply
  15. Tim

    Here’s an alternative interpretation for OP. Sometimes, for whatever reason, a reviewer just doesn’t like your paper. The reviewer has also written a report. But that report is a post-hoc justification for why they don’t want the paper published. It’s not actually a report that carefully engages your paper. So when you read such a report, it feels trivial–raising small issues that could be easily be fixed, for instance. And perhaps you might feel frustrated that it wasn’t an RnR. But it was never going to be a RnR because the report is not a good faith engagement–its just a post-hoc rationalization.
    In such cases, I think the best response is just to ignore the reviewer and send it back out. After all, in such cases, the report is not a good faith engagement of your work, and you might not get anything of value thinking about it.

    Reply
  16. Anonimous Reviewer 2

    In addition to what others have already said about originality, framing, and clarity issues, I want to further emphasize the importance of receiving feedback. As a reviewer, I have received (although not often) papers that looked like early drafts, dissertation chapters, or grad seminars papers. Journal articles should be polished before submission. Receiving feedback on whether the article is ready to be submitted usually helps, especially if one has not have yet developed a “submission readiness sense”. What I usually do before submission is to ask myself two questions. (1) Would I be happy to see my paper published in its current state? (2) Does is it already look like papers published in the journal I am targeting? You will obviously go through some rounds of revisions based on the reviewers’ comments, but aiming to submit the best work you can usually helps (at least in my experience).

    Reply
  17. Untenured Ethicist

    A few rejections can be just bad luck. If a paper gets rejected many times (say, more than ten), the problem is more than bad luck. It’s unlikely to be lack of polish, either, unless you are completely ignoring constructive feedback from reviewers.
    A large number of rejections usually signals one of two things: either the central argument really doesn’t have merit, or there is something about it that rubs people the wrong way. It may be worth continuing to try to publish a paper in the latter category. You may have an argument that deserves to be published, and you may luck into friendly reviewers. Be aware that reviewers’ reactions to your paper can be an indication of how hiring committees or tenure committees could react to your paper. Maybe you should take the risk, but be aware that you are taking a risk.
    Don’t ask me how I know this.

    Reply
  18. The Real SLAC Prof

    The people who decide how to move forward with the submission are (or at least should be) the editors. So there can sometimes be a disconnect between what the reviewers say (e.g., this point needs greater development) and the the final verdict. It is also the case that reviewers sometimes share their harshest criticisms in a direct message to the editors and do not include these criticisms in the report for the author. Given this, I wouldn’t necessarily interpret the content of the reports as a definitive statement of why the paper was rejected.
    As the above comments indicate, people are divided about the best strategy regarding rejections: some insist that one should immediately send the unedited or lightly revised paper out again, while others insist that you should always revise before submitting elsewhere.
    I take the middle path: I do try and address every serious issue that comes up, unless addressing it would require a complete overhaul (in cases where I don’t think a complete overhaul is in order). By “addressing” each issue, I don’t necessarily mean making all the changes called for by the critical report, but I do try and forestall criticisms that I can forestall.
    One thing I do that I haven’t seen mentioned above: I try and read between the lines to deduce who wrote the report. People often reveal themselves in their reports through, say, their expressed indignation that a particular forthcoming article wasn’t prominently cited in the manuscript. Sometimes, having a good idea of who wrote the report can better help me address the stated concerns. However, if I receive what I see as an unreasonably critical report and I think I have figured out who wrote it, I have occasionally asked that the person be excluded as a potential referee when I make a new submission. In my experience, this request has been honored, but obviously your mileage may vary.

    Reply
  19. fun

    Assuming a given paper’s argument MIGHT be worth developing, but is not yet in publishable shape, there are two things that I think can help flip it from the reject bucket to the R&R bucket. Putting some serious time into these two things as an author is what changed my outcomes early in my career, and as I’ve done more reviewing in mid-career, I better understand why.
    First, it helps if the paper is a pleasure to read. Clear, as short as possible, lively writing, engaging examples. Some papers are just a slog to read. If I’m unsure the argument will eventually be worth publishing, and if I dread the prospect of reading a revision, I’m more likely to recommend rejection. If I’m unsure, but enjoyed reading the paper, then I’ll look forward to reading a revision.
    Second, it helps to demonstrate qualification/competence in the area. The easiest way to do this is by appropriately citing relevant literature in a way that immediately demonstrates to reviewers that you’ve put in the time. If a borderline reject/R&R paper shows little or no familiarity with relevant lit, it makes me worry that the author is writing so far outside their areas of competence that they may not be able to convert an R&R.
    These are both things I think we should all be doing all the time, but they weren’t emphasized in my grad school experience. We were trained to write in a hunkered-down defensive style that was a miserable slog to read. Our seminar papers naturally tended to cite the major texts we were focused on, and there was (appropriately, in grad school) little expectation that we more generally master the literature on our chosen seminar paper topics.
    Those grad school habits in earlier career resulted in a bunch of outright rejections. When I started caring more about making my writing fun to read and demonstrating my competence in the subject I’m writing on, my publishing luck changed pretty much right away.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading