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

Referee report (only) from an Editor-in-Chief?

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

I recently submitted a manuscript to a top specialist journal and received an update directly from the Editor-in-Chief that I did not fully understand.

The Editor said (in their capacity as EiC) that they would not accept the current version, for stylistic and substantive reasons, but would reconsider it if substantially revised it along the lines they suggested. They then attached a surprisingly detailed and serious report they themselves wrote, outlining the revisions they would love to see should I decide to resubmit. The decision was officially "reject-and-resubmit," which I am not totally sure if and how it differs from a standard "revise-and-resubmit," or, maybe "desk-rejection-with-some-kind-explanation."

What this seems puzzling to me is that, since the report was directly produced by the EiC in a very short span, my paper was not read by any external referees. So even if I decided to make the substantial revisions the Editor asked for, it does not seem very likely that they would just override the referee reports, should they recommend rejection. (And rejection recommendations seem far more likely than a traditional R&R, in which cases the referees would already independently lean towards acceptance.)

But I was thinking: is it unwise to ignore this opportunity and just send it as-is to another journal? I am not particularly excited about the changes the Editor asked for, but this is a very prestigious venue. Also, does this (i.e., Editor asking revisions pre-peer-review) happen at other journals? And does this evidence favorably on my paper at the present journal, e.g, in that it would have a higher likelihood of Editor intervention should referee reports come unfavorably? Many thanks!

This does seem unusual to me, but if I recall a few journals are explicit that they do all of their reviewing "in-house"–which I presume to mean "by the editors." In that case, if the OP resubmits, it may just go back to the EiC. Then again, it may not. Since it's a top journal, if it were me, I'm probably go for it. And in any case, I'm not sure that a "reject and resubmit" is different than a "revise and resubmit." My understanding (which a few people conveyed to me earlier in my career) has been that revise-and-resubmits technically just are rejections with an invitation to resubmit.

But what do readers think of all this?

Posted in ,

11 responses to “Referee report (only) from an Editor-in-Chief?”

  1. Michel

    This was a desk rejection for which you were lucky enough to get comments. It did not pass the initial screening to see if it was worth sending to referees. If resubmitted with the alterations, it is likely to get passed on to referees for a regular review process.
    That’s my take, anyway.

    Reply
  2. anon

    Desk-rejections don’t usually come with an invitation to resubmit, unless the paper was desk-rejected because for purely non-substantive reasons (missing page numbers, 200 words too many, etc.) Since you got substantive and stylistic comments I would assume that this isn’t what happened. I agree it’s a bit odd but my inclination would be to take this as an R&R that went faster than normal because it was reviewed in-house. I think it’s fine also to ask the managing editor for clarification — that’s not the kind of thing that anyone would hold against you if phrased politely. Also — I have gotten at least one R&R that was originally phrased “rejection with invitation to resubmit”.

    Reply
  3. Bill V.

    Editors are extremely busy. This one would not have gone to so much trouble if they didn’t want you to resubmit. If the changes look reasonable to you, make them and send it back. The editor is clearly invested, so I suspect they will (as editors often and must do) substitute their own judgement if, for some reason, later referee reports don’t all agree. Another way to think of this: The EiC of a top journal just told you exactly what to do to get published in their journal–why would you not take advantage of this mentoring opportunity?

    Reply
  4. journals

    if this was Nous or PPR, all of my R&Rs from them have been phrased as “rejection with invitation to resubmit”, or something like that.
    Also, for what it is worth, that sounds like an R&R to me. I don’t think the editor in chief would have bothered to send you comments and give you an R&R if they didn’t intend to seriously consider publishing the paper (if you respond to/incorporate the comments). So personally I would just treat it no differently from how you would think if you got an R&R with comments from referees–would you pull the paper because you didn’t want to make the changes? Would you just make the changes? Or would you do something different, e.g. make some of them and try to explain in your letter why you didn’t make all of them? Then just do whatever that is.

    Reply
  5. The Real SLAC Prof

    I’m a little bit puzzled about why the OP thinks that rejection recommendations would be more likely than R&R recommendations for this paper, should it eventually go out to referees. Has the paper been rejected at multiple journals in the past?
    As others have said, I think the fact that the editor took the time to write the report is a sign that they are invested in the paper and would genuinely like the OP to revise and would be favorably disposed toward a revision that took into account their comments.
    OP says that they are “not particularly excited about” making the requested revisions. That could mean a variety of things. Perhaps the editor is making suggestions for revision that would fundamentally alter the paper for the worse, in the eyes of the OP. And, of course, the OP could make these changes, and still not end up placing the paper.
    To me, what to do depends on three things: First, how strongly and for what reasons does the OP resist making the requested changes? If the OP thinks that making the requested changes would take months and would actually make the paper worse, I would advise going on to the next journal. Second, I would encourage the OP to ask around their networks for info about the journal and editor in order to attempt to ascertain how much autonomy the editor is known to exercise in their capacity as editor-in-chief. If the editor is known to exert a fair amount of influence (this is the reputation of one top specialist journal in political philosophy, for example), then this might militate in favor of going ahead and making the changes, but if it is a journal that, for example, requires all associate editors to sign off on the paper before acceptance, then deferring to the editor’s initial recommendations seems less rational. Finally, and probably most importantly, how desperate is the OP for a publication? If the OP really needs a publication for tenure or job seeking purposes, then it might make more sense to make the requested changes, given that the editor seems favorably inclined to a revised version of the manuscript.

    Reply
  6. PhD Candidate

    If it’s Free and Equal (formerly PPA) then I had this happen to me, but it’s because they do most of their refereeing in-house. Fwiw, they usually do not allow for major revisions after the reject-and-resubmit. So you have to hope that after that you only get minor revisions when it goes to a second referee (which unfortunately didn’t happen in my case!)

    Reply
  7. OP — thanks all

    OP here — thanks to all for the very helpful and elaborate suggestions and comments! Just a few clarifications, in case these would be relevant presently or for future authors:
    The editor-in-chief was, indeed, known to exert a fair amount of influence, as The Real SLAC Prof mentioned (thanks for alerting me to this consideration). And this Editor seems to be known for swift desk-rejections, though I’m not aware of this type of R&R’s that they would issue to authors (alas, now I do).
    The changes the Editor asked for were of the major of the major sort (or so they seemed to me), which would require restructuring the paper and cutting sections that are central, in its current version, to the paper. But the changes were reasonably actionable — to the Editor’s credit, they outlined the changes in rather admirable detail. Indeed, I have not had and perhaps could not hope for a better editorial experience with journals!
    In this particular case, the Editor instructed me to formally submit again (should I decide to do so) as a brand new paper, so there was no chance for me to incorporate a cover letter explaining, say, why I chose not to make the changes. Perhaps this is evidence that this is not a traditional R&R — but perhaps formal categories matter not very much at this point so long as what the Editor meant is clear!
    Thanks again to all.

    Reply
  8. AGT

    I don’t find anything strange about this. For example, at Ethics, it is standard that an editor and/or EIC reviews the paper. The paper only after their positive review can be sent out to referees. And their review can take the form of a reject and resubmit. As they write on their website:
    “Manuscripts that pass an Editor’s initial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor who handles the subject area of the manuscript. Some additional papers are rejected without comments at that point. Manuscripts that pass the second internal screening are sent for review to two external reviewers. Submissions that receive two “reject” recommendations by the outside reviewers are rejected as a matter of policy; the Associate Editor handling the submission has no discretion about that decision. For submissions receiving any other combination of reviewer recommendations, the Associate Editor decides whether the manuscript should continue in the review process. Almost all of the papers ultimately accepted go through at least one round of revision and resubmission. Once the Associate Editor determines that a submission is in good shape and has received adequate support from outside reviewers, the manuscript moves to the last stage of the review process, a vote by the Associate Editors. A significant proportion of the submissions that make it to the vote stage are rejected. Our overall acceptance rate for original articles is about 4%.”
    The first and second initial screening might sound liken a quick and simply one, but in my experience it can easily end up like a proper review process.

    Reply
  9. Charles Pigden

    The EiC is telling you that although the paper won’t quite do as it stands s/he really likes it and would be likely to publish it with some revisions. This is a gift horse. Don’t look it in the mouth.

    Reply
  10. Overseas Tenures

    Pragmatically, make the changes and submit the paper. I concur with the above opinions that you have a much better chance with the resubmission than you would a fresh submission elsewhere, so even taking into account the work required, it makes sense to resubmit. If you really dislike the changes, then just save the original version and if your resubmission gets rejected, then send the original version elsehwere.

    Reply
  11. Niles Crane

    This happened to me once at a generalist journal that does not do much in-house. The editor liked the general idea of the paper, but they wanted some changes that would make it more publishable (everything they asked for was reasonable). I did the changes and it went out to external reviewers. One of them really hated the paper, and it was rejected.
    I don’t think of this as an R&R, even if it is literally an invitation to revise and resubmit. The probability of acceptance conditional on R&R is significantly higher than the base rate of acceptance. The probability of acceptance conditional on this kind of invitation from the editor is much lower, unless the editor is one of the reviewers, which is uncommon (I think) even at journals that do a lot of the reviewing in-house. It is a good sign that the editor wants you to resubmit. If you’re willing to make the changes, you should resubmit.But don’t think of this as a R&R.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading