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

Should reviewers suggest stylistic or structural changes?

In our newest “how can we help you?” thread, a journal reviewer asks:

I would not appreciate my structural and stylistic suggestions to be used to reject a paper whose main argument I judged to be valuable. Is it better not to mention it altogether in an environment where many journals are aiming for ever higher rejection rates?

Why not just say in your reviewer report, “I don’t think my stylistic/structural suggestions should be treated as a condition for the journal to publish the paper. However, I do think the paper would read better if the following changes were made…”?

What do readers think?

Posted in

16 responses to “Should reviewers suggest stylistic or structural changes?”

  1. Anonymous

    I don’t think poorly written papers should be published, where structural and stylistic faults contribute to making a paper poor, especially when the paper can be improved along these dimensions.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    I generally have a section that I lable something like “not at all important and not a decision-criteria, just thoughts I had while reading the paper that you could consider.” I make it clear to the author and editor that nothing in that section needs to be changed for the paper to be accepted and its up to the author what to do but I thought they were worth mentioning (things like typos or stylistic ideas or examples I thought could be a little better).

    Reply
    1. Daniel

      This is what I do too.

      Reply
  3. Michel

    I think they should be made. Where appropriate I might note they’re not to be held against the paper. But often, style and structure are integral to conveying a paper’s content, such that a defect of one is a defect in the other.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    Reviewers should keep their mouths shut about the aspects of style which are governed by a journal’s house style.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Kind of a weird take. Like, yes? But…..does that happen often? Also reviewers are not really responsible for knowing the house style (and most journals these days don’t require the article be in the style until final submission) Either way, can’t editors just….ignore a comment that recommends something that opposes house style?

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        Happens all the time!

  5. Anonymous

    I tend not to emphasize it. I normally using the term “falls within disciplinary standards.” If the stylistic and structural features are so bad that they fall outside disciplinary standards, then I reject it. But if they fall inside the standards–as in, I routine read papers that are written in a similar manner–then I note that they fall within standards even if I think they could be improved in someway. I might add a sentence about how they could be improved in some way, but no more.

    Reply
  6. Charles Pigden

    I am with Marcus and Anonymous number 2. Generally speaking , if a paper is publishable as it stands don’t go for ‘Revise and Resubmit’ but instead list the changes and problems that the author ‘might like to consider’, stressing that addressing these problems should not be a condition of publication. Given that editors are often looking for reasons to reject, a ‘revise and resubmit’ can be a death sentence. This is an area where the best (according to the reviewer) can be a ferocious enemy of the good (in terms of getting decent papers published). I have once or twice suggested a ‘revise and resubmit’ for a paper where the English was bad (the author or authors were non-native speakers) and there were serious problems with the argument, but in those cases I was very careful to stress how profound and valuable I took the underlying ideas to be and how important it was that an improved version should be published. If you think that a paper despite its defects deserves to see the light of print (or at least online publication) you should be very chary about demanding that the said defects be rectified.

    But if this is the right policy for referees there is a corollary for submitters. If you get a referee’s report with an extended set of ‘the author might like to consider’ comments, do take them seriously. For what the reviewer is often saying is ‘I would really like to go for “revise and resubmit” but I don’t want to kill your paper’. They like your paper well enough to want to see it published, but they may also think that there are things that are seriously wrong with it. Don’t ignore their comments since they are coming from a friend.

    Reply
  7. dazesensationallye39c0dc2cd

    I think editors make a lot of mistakes, but generally I still see them as capable of distinguishing between substantive objections to a paper’s arguments and stylistic concerns. In most cases, they don’t need to be told that the latter shouldn’t sink a paper.

    And the feedback is useful to the author. So if you have it, I see no reason not to share it.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    I have been an associate editor at multiple journals. In my opinion, reviewers should always distinguish, as explicitly as possible, between major comments (reasons for rejection, or issues that need to be addressed in a revision) and minor/mere suggestions (which should be left to the discretion of the author). These should ideally be in separate sections of a report, or at least flagged explicitly.

    As a referee, I sometimes initially draft a report recommending R&R and then discover that all of my comments fall under the latter category. I then instead recommend acceptance and clarify that the comments would (I think) help improve the paper but that it’s already above the bar for publication.

    Reply
  9. Anonymous

    In line with some of the above comments, I recently received an accept with no revisions decision, but where each reviewer had said ‘this paper could be accepted as is, but here are some potential ways to improve it’. The editor then gave me the opportunity to make those changes if I wanted before sending the paper off for publishing. All of the suggested changes were helpful.

    In this case, most of the changes were minor structural ones/typos, but some were substantive (including a suggested objection to consider). I think that the fact both reviewers were clear to insist that none of these changes were rejection/r&r worthy is largely the reason I got a no revisions decision rather than an r&r/minor revisions.

    Reply
  10. Anonymous

    In a recent referee report I got, for a journal that’s known for rejecting papers even when referees don’t recommend it, a referee recommended accept and still left a bunch of comments. But they were very, very explicit that the comments should not be grounds for rejection, in a way that heaped praise on the paper. I was very grateful and also don’t think the paper really merited it — it was in my view a publishable but not special paper. I wouldn’t be totally surprised if the referee agreed. However, I do think the tone likely helped to achieve the desired effect, which was that I got to read a large number of their helpful comments and the paper was still accepted.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Just out of curiosity: What journals are “known for rejecting papers even when referees don’t recommend it”?

      Reply
      1. Not OP

        Ethics—they vote on everything that makes it past reviewers and the vote isn’t pro forma

      2. OP

        Yes, and also a number of other selective journals, like Phil Review at least, are known to reject rather than send something for a second round of revisions. I remember a controversial-ish thread about this in the recent past, but personally I think it’s fine — editors don’t have a ton of options when they receive more publishable submissions than they have space. Some places — Nous, PPR, Imprint, occasionally some others, will close for submissions for a while to deal with this problem. For journals that don’t want to do that, often they will have to go against reviewers’ judgments, frustrating as it is for all involved.

Leave a Reply to MichelCancel reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading