How peer review works, and what a revision decision means
After submission, an editor screens your paper and, if it fits, sends it to two or three experts. In single-blind review the reviewers know who you are; in double-blind review neither side knows the other's identity; open review publishes names or reports. Reviewers recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection, and the editor decides.
A major revision is good news, even when it doesn't feel like it. It means the editor sees a publishable paper underneath the problems. Your job now is to convince the same reviewers, and the editor, that you took every point seriously.
Minor revisions need less work but the same care, since a careless reply can still send a paper back for another round. Even an outright rejection usually contains detailed reports, and those are worth mining before you approach the next journal, because the same objections tend to resurface with a new set of reviewers.
Building a revision plan
The first read of reviewer reports is often an emotional one. We help you get to the practical stage faster by breaking every report into numbered comments and sorting them in a simple table.
| Type | Example | Usual approach |
|---|---|---|
| Clarification | "The sampling frame is unclear." | Revise the text and quote the change in the letter |
| Additional analysis | "Control for firm size." | Run it, report it, and explain what changed or didn't |
| Literature | "Engage with recent work on X." | Add and discuss the most relevant sources |
| Disagreement | "A qualitative design would suit better." | Explain your rationale respectfully, adding a limitation if fair |
| Out of scope | "Extend to a second country." | Acknowledge it as future research with a brief justification |
Where two reviewers contradict each other, we help you pick a defensible path and say so openly to the editor.
Writing the response letter
A good response letter makes the editor's job easy. Each comment is quoted, followed by your reply and the exact location of the change, with the revised wording reproduced where it helps. Thank reviewers briefly once rather than in every reply. Disagree with evidence, not adjectives. Never leave a comment unanswered, even if the answer is a single sentence.
You draft the replies; we review them line by line. We often suggest cutting defensive phrasing, replacing vague promises ("we have clarified this") with specifics ("we added two sentences to Section 3.2 defining the sampling frame"), and confirming that page and line numbers match the final file. Where a reviewer asks for a new test, our statistical consulting team can work through it with you so you can explain it confidently in your reply.
Pre-submission peer review
Some authors come to us before the journal does. A mock peer review gives you a structured report on originality, methods, analysis, presentation and fit, written the way a journal reviewer would write it. It's a useful stress test for first-time authors and for papers moving into a new field, and it often surfaces the same objections a real reviewer would raise, months earlier and at far lower cost. Pair it with our wider publication support if you also need help with journal choice and formatting.
Timing and what to send
Journals usually allow 30 to 90 days for revisions, and the clock moves faster than expected. Send us the decision letter, all reviewer reports, your submitted manuscript and the journal's guidelines as soon as you have them. A revision plan is typically ready within three to five working days, and letter feedback within two or three days of receiving your draft. Everything you share stays confidential, reviewer reports included. Start with a free quote.
What you get
- A comment-by-comment revision plan, grouped by type and effort
- Advice on which points to accept, partly address or respectfully rebut, with reasoning
- Feedback on your draft response letter for tone, completeness and clarity
- A check that every change you describe actually appears in the revised manuscript
- An optional pre-submission peer review of your manuscript, written in the style of a journal reviewer
What we don't do
- Scientific decisions or the final reply, which belong to the authors; we advise and edit
- Invented results: any new analysis a reviewer requests is done with you or explained step by step
- Contact with editors or reviewers on your behalf
How it works
Describe your project
Level, deadline and what you need help with.
Agree a written scope
What's included, the price and the timeline.
Work in stages
Check-ins so you can steer the work.
Review and ask
Explanations and follow-up questions included.