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

Making changes in a “revise-and-resubmit” not asked for by reviewers?

In our June “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:

I’m wondering what the norms are around making revisions in an R&R that were not asked for by the reviewers. I suppose there are a variety/continuum of cases to consider, but here’s what I especially have in mind: A manuscript has been under review at a journal for 6+ months. In the meantime, I’ve continued researching and thinking about the topic. Naturally, there are now some minor changes I wish I had made to the paper (an added sentence here, a reworked footnote there, etc.). Should I think of an R&R as an opportunity to make these changes, even if they are unrelated to the reviewers’ comments?

Minor changes like those the OP describe definitely seem fine to me. I’m not entirely sure what the norms are for more significant changes.

What do readers think?

Posted in ,

11 responses to “Making changes in a “revise-and-resubmit” not asked for by reviewers?”

  1. Daniel

    I don’t know what the norms are but I feel empowered to make any changes I want to make when I’m revising a paper that has not yet been accepted anywhere. If they don’t like the revisions they can reject the paper. If the changes you want to make are minor then it seems to me obvious you should make the changes. It is likely they won’t even be noticed, let alone objected to.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    100% fine, and if you get an R&R, just say that some of the comments by the reviewers have led you to rethink X, Y, Z and changed the manuscript accordingly.

    Reply
  3. Anonymous

    Make whatever revisions you want to an R&R … but realize some of your revisions may lead to an editor to reject your paper. I think many people are not very objective about whether the changes they make to a paper are in fact improvements. You might find you are going down a rabbit hole … and one the referees does not want to enter.
    I am later career, and I have often found it better to keep a paper short and focused, and then write a second paper on the general theme, exploring the great ideas you have developed since writing the first paper. But do not think you have to say it all in one big fat paper.

    Reply
  4. OP

    This is helpful, thanks for the replies. A further question: do these changes need to be specifically flagged in the reply to reviewers letter? Since reviewers may not be rereading the whole paper carefully, I worry that it may come off as though I’m trying to sneak something past them.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      The changes you describe (an added sentence, reworked footnote) sound minor enough that a simple “As a result of the reviewers’ feedback, I have also made minor revisions to wording and editing throughout” should suffice. If there’s something that significantly changes the argument of the paper, you could point it out, but no, I don’t think every single change needs to be pointed out individually.

      Reply
    2. Anonymous

      For the record, the referee SHOULD be rereading the paper carefully. (After all, they have often had 3 to 6 months to do it)

      Reply
      1. Anonymous

        I think the key here is “not reread the whole paper”, which seems fine to me. If the author says they only made changes to sections 1 and 3, there’s no general reason for me to carefully reread section 2.

      2. Anonymous

        I would think referees have an obligation to reread the whole paper when reviewing an R&R. That is what I do. I have refereed over 200 papers (counting R&Rs), most for the key journals in philosophy of science. By the time I am seeing an R&R, usually, I have read many more papers and I may not remember the main argument. (I think I read about 5 papers per week … or a book every two or three weeks).

    3. Anonymous

      As with all changes, I think you should somehow highlight them to reviewers (track changes, italics, bold, whatever). If it’s trivial stuff, like correcting grammar, it’s fine not to. But when in doubt, just highlight it, there’s no harm.

      Overall, transparency is key. You can make all kinds of changes, but you should always let reviewers know about them. Changes beyond what reviewers demand are not per se reason for rejection, but (as with any change) reviewers might just not like them.

      Reply
  5. Anon

    You can leverage it by briefly noting additional changes/value-adds at the end of your letter.

    Reply
  6. Anonymous

    It’s a good practice (and common in my subfield) to color changed passages on the resubmitted paper or to include a track changes copy with the letter. This way the reviewers can inspect the exact changes made. As a reviewer I really dislike getting a resubmission without the changes visually marked in some way. As far as the initial question, I think it’s perfectly normal to make some incidental wording/clarification changes at the R&R stage on top of those responding to the reviewer comments. I’ve never had anyone care about this.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

Continue reading