On this page: what a “revise and resubmit” (R&R) decision actually means, how it differs from a minor revision, a major revision, and an outright reject-and-resubmit, how long the process typically takes, and how to approach the response document once you have one.
What “revise and resubmit” means
Revise and resubmit (commonly abbreviated R&R) is an editorial decision, most closely associated with journals in economics, political science, sociology, management, and other social-science and humanities fields, in which the editor invites the authors to submit a substantially revised version of a manuscript for further consideration, rather than issuing an outright accept or reject. It sits between a straightforward acceptance and a rejection: the editor has judged the manuscript’s core contribution promising enough to justify another round of work and, usually, another round of review, but is not yet committing to publish it.
The label itself is not universal. ANSI/NISO Z39.106-2023, the standardized vocabulary for describing peer review models, does not define “revise and resubmit” as a formal decision category — it standardizes terminology for identity transparency and review disclosure, not editorial-decision labels, which continue to vary by publisher and field. In STEM and biomedical publishing, the same underlying step is more often labeled “major revision” or simply “revise”; in economics and many social-science journals, “revise and resubmit” is the conventional term and carries a specific, well-understood meaning to authors in those fields, sometimes closer in practice to a conditional acceptance than a coin-flip decision. Whichever term a given journal uses, the underlying task for authors is the same: address the reviewers’ and editor’s concerns, document what changed, and resubmit within whatever window the journal specifies.
R&R compared to other editorial decisions
Journals vary in exactly which labels they use, but most editorial-decision systems fall into a small number of recognizable categories. Understanding where R&R sits among them matters because the response required, and the odds of eventual publication, differ meaningfully across them:
- Accept (or accept with minor, non-substantive edits). The manuscript is judged publishable largely as submitted; any requested changes are typically copyediting-level and do not require a further review round.
- Minor revision. The core contribution is sound. Authors need to address specific, bounded concerns — clarify a method, add a citation, tighten a discussion section — usually without the manuscript going back out to reviewers for a full second review.
- Major revision / revise and resubmit. Reviewers have identified substantive issues: methodological gaps, insufficiently supported conclusions, missing analyses, or framing problems. This requires genuine additional work, and the revised manuscript is typically sent back to some or all of the original reviewers for a further round of evaluation. This is the category R&R belongs to.
- Reject. The manuscript does not meet the journal’s bar, whether because of flawed methodology, insufficient significance, poor fit, or ethical concerns. It is closed as a submission; the authors are free to submit the (typically further-revised) work elsewhere.
- Reject and resubmit. Some journals use this label instead of, or alongside, R&R for cases where the required changes are extensive enough that the original submission is formally closed out, with an invitation to resubmit later as a brand-new submission (a new manuscript number, sometimes a new round of reviewers) rather than as a revision of the existing one. The practical effect on authors can look similar to R&R — substantial rework, then another review cycle — but the administrative handling and the loss of any priority date associated with the original submission differ, so it is worth checking exactly which of the two a decision letter is using.
Because the language is not standardized across publishers, the decision letter itself is the authoritative source for what is actually being asked of you — read it carefully rather than assuming a familiar label means the same thing at every journal. See Peer Review: What It Is, How It Works, and Why It Matters for the full decision-outcome list and how the surrounding review process works end to end.
Is a revise and resubmit good news?
Generally, yes, relative to the alternative of an outright rejection. An editor who invites a revision has already judged the manuscript’s underlying contribution worth pursuing; the decision letter is effectively saying that publication is plausible if the specific concerns raised are addressed convincingly. In fields where R&R is the conventional label — economics in particular — it is common practice for departments and researchers to treat a received R&R as a meaningfully positive signal, sometimes informally tracked as close to a conditional acceptance for CV and tenure-case purposes, even though the outcome is not guaranteed. That said, an R&R is not a promise: manuscripts that go through revision can still ultimately be rejected if the response fails to satisfy reviewers, and some journals will not accept more than one or two R&R rounds before making a final call.
Typical timelines
Timelines vary by journal, field, and the extent of the requested revisions, so treat any figures as general ranges rather than fixed rules. Two clocks generally run:
- Time allowed to revise. Journals commonly specify a window in the decision letter — anywhere from a few weeks for narrow, targeted revisions up to several months (sometimes six months or more) for R&Rs that require new data collection, additional analysis, or substantial rewriting. Missing the stated deadline without contacting the editor can result in the submission being treated as withdrawn or as a new submission rather than a revision.
- Time for the editor and reviewers to evaluate the resubmission. A revised manuscript that goes back to the original reviewers typically takes a further several weeks to a few months for a second decision, though this is often faster than the initial review round since reviewers are evaluating a narrower set of changes rather than the whole manuscript from scratch.
Authors managing a tenure clock, a grant reporting period, or a co-author’s availability should factor both clocks into their planning, and should not hesitate to email the handling editor if a stated revision deadline is genuinely not achievable — most editors would rather grant a reasonable extension than lose a promising manuscript to a missed deadline.
How to approach the response document
Once you have decided to revise, the deliverable is a point-by-point response letter (sometimes called a response to reviewers or rebuttal letter) submitted alongside the revised manuscript. At a high level, editors and reviewers expect a letter that:
- Addresses every comment from every reviewer individually, rather than summarizing or batching related points together.
- Quotes or paraphrases each comment before responding to it directly beneath, so an editor can match each concern to a specific reply without cross-referencing the original review.
- States clearly what was changed in the manuscript (and where — page, section, or line number) for each point that resulted in a text or analysis change.
- Responds respectfully and with evidence to any point the authors disagree with, rather than silently ignoring it or reflexively complying with a suggestion the authors believe is mistaken.
For a full treatment of this document — including the different categories of reviewer comment and three worked, illustrative examples of comment-and-response pairs — see Reviewer Comments to Author: Worked Examples and How to Respond. This page focuses on the R&R decision and process itself; that one focuses on drafting the response letter in detail.
What happens after you resubmit
Once the revised manuscript and response letter are submitted, the handling editor typically routes it back to some or all of the original reviewers, though editors sometimes make the call themselves for narrower revisions without sending it back out. Possible outcomes at this stage include acceptance, a further (second) R&R if concerns remain but progress was made, or, less commonly, rejection if the response does not adequately address the reviewers’ core concerns. A second R&R round is not unusual for manuscripts with substantial required changes, but most journals are reluctant to extend the process indefinitely, and a pattern of repeated, unresolved concerns is more likely to end in rejection than a third invitation to revise.
Frequently asked questions
Is revise and resubmit the same as rejection?
No. A reject-and-resubmit decision formally closes the original submission and asks for a new one; a straightforward reject closes it with no revision invitation at all. Revise and resubmit keeps the original submission open and invites a revised version of the same manuscript, generally signaling that the editor sees a realistic path to acceptance.
What is the difference between R&R and a major revision?
In most cases they describe the same underlying step — substantive, reviewer-driven changes followed by another review round — under different conventional labels. “Revise and resubmit” is the term most associated with economics and social-science journals; “major revision” is more common in STEM and biomedical publishing. Always read the actual decision letter rather than assuming the label alone tells you the scope of work required.
Can you get more than one revise and resubmit on the same manuscript?
Yes, it happens, particularly for manuscripts requiring extensive new analysis or data. It is not unlimited, however — most journals will move to a final accept or reject decision after one or two revision rounds rather than continue indefinitely.
What happens if I miss the revision deadline?
Policies vary, but many journals will treat a late resubmission as a new submission rather than a revision of the original, which can mean a new manuscript number and, at some journals, reassignment to different reviewers. Contact the handling editor before the deadline if more time is genuinely needed.
Should I resubmit if I disagree with the reviewers?
You can decline to make a specific change and explain why in the response letter, provided the explanation is evidence-based and respectful — reviewers and editors expect reasoned pushback on points that are genuine judgment calls, not silent non-compliance. Declining to engage with the substance of a comment at all, however, is more likely to result in rejection than a well-argued disagreement.
