You are the author, if you can improve the manuscript, do it. I've changed things even at the proofs stage. However, if the changes become too significant, you risk repeated review cycles or rejection.
However, if the changes become too significant, you risk repeated review cycles or rejection. This. As someone who has worked in academic editing in another field, I can say that this is a possibility.
Depends on the extent and the significance of the changes. Editors appreciate authors who strive to improve the manuscript. In the modern publishing world, where most of what is published is not worth the hard drive space where it is stored, any attempt at quality will give you brownie points.
I know that various scholars of my acquaintance (including some senior scholars) have run up against this problem when their changes are extensive. At the least, it often delays the publication of the article. That is what I meant.
I would absolutely do it. Your name is on that. You can't take that back once it is published. If you have the opportunity to make it its very best, then you must.
Do you mind sharing a bit more information? Are you now using a new/revised statistical model, or has your friend simply given you advice regarding how to better write the analysis/methods sections with greater clarity? What are the other aspects of the paper that you believe you can improve upon, but which the reviewers missed? Additionally, how "impactful" (for want of a better term) is the journal
( ... )
I used a bog-standard logistic regression with quasibinomial errors, as taught by MJ Crawley. Now you ask, I realise that I don't know this journal's impact factor! My co-author chose the journal.
Ok, I'd go look up the impact factor. If the journal's impact factor is high, it's worth locking down publication and then working with the editor to make changes later according to i_strannik's advice. If the impact factor is low, the reason the reviewers didn't catch any additional errors could be that they're not as seasoned, conscientious, or skilled as reviewers for high-impact journals. For a low-impact journal, I'd go ahead with all the changes you want to make and carefully/clearly explain your rationale for each change in your cover letter. If they reject your paper again, you've at least improved your paper and can resubmit to a higher-impact journal or to a different moderate-impact journal.
Comments 20
However, if the changes become too significant, you risk repeated review cycles or rejection.
Reply
This. As someone who has worked in academic editing in another field, I can say that this is a possibility.
Reply
Editors appreciate authors who strive to improve the manuscript.
In the modern publishing world, where most of what is published is not worth the hard drive space where it is stored, any attempt at quality will give you brownie points.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Just my two cents.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment