The Philosophers' Cocoon

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

I’d like to understand in what situations, as a reviewer, one would firmly reject a paper that they have already reviewed once. Over the past year, I have experienced two cases where my papers were rejected after a round of major revisions, which has made me quite apprehensive about “major revision” decisions. If possible, I would also greatly appreciate any advice on how to handle major revisions (I realize this may be a lot to ask, so even brief suggestions would be very helpful).

It would be great to hear from reviewers on this. Like the OP, I really struggled with major revisions early in my career (I had a bunch of them rejected after resubmission). I’ve gotten better with them, which I suspect is result of learning from trial and error “what referees tend to be looking for” in manuscript revisions. Alas, I’m not sure that I can put what I’ve learned there into a list of tips. But here’s one that strikes me offhand: be able to write a really good “response to reviewers” letter.

My sense is that if you can articulate clearly and in detail how each change you’ve made to the paper addresses each of the reviewers’ concerns (citing their comments, along with pages and/or passages in your revisions), reviewers may respond positively. (N.B.: in my experience, writing the letter can be a great way of determining whether your revisions are strong, as if you feel like you struggle to make the case for a particular revision in a letter, that can lead you to realize you need to keep revising!).

Do readers have any helpful tips for the OP?

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?