Resubmission etiquette

By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD · 2026-08-27

Quick Answer

• Treat resubmission as a professional conversation with the editor, not a silent second attempt, and address every prior concern in your response letter.
• Acknowledge the previous review outcome directly in your cover letter and explain what changed in the manuscript before you resubmit.
• Understand that journal policies differ, and no source guarantees acceptance or protects you from being blacklisted, so follow each journal's stated instructions.

Understanding Resubmission in Academic Publishing

Resubmission occurs when you send a manuscript back to the same journal after rejection or revision, or when you submit it to a different journal after a prior rejection. The process carries emotional weight because authors often interpret rejection as a judgment on their work or their competence. In practice, rejection is a routine part of scholarly communication, and editors expect authors to resubmit work that has been improved.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices establishes the framework for how journals handle peer review, editorial decisions, and author conduct. These practices do not prescribe a single resubmission script, but they do define the expectations for transparency, honesty, and professional communication that apply when you contact an editor again. Authors who understand these expectations can approach resubmission with a clear strategy instead of anxiety about offending anyone.

The practical problem you face is straightforward. You have received a decision that was not acceptance. You believe the work has merit. You want to try again without damaging your relationship with the editor or your reputation in the field. The solution lies in understanding what editors need from you, what the journal's policies require, and how to communicate your changes clearly.

Core Principles of Professional Resubmission

Editors Are Not Your Adversaries

Editors manage a portfolio of submissions and depend on reviewers to make decisions. Their goal is to publish sound, useful research that fits the journal's scope. When an editor rejects your paper, they are making a judgment about the current version of the manuscript, not a permanent statement about you or your research program. This distinction matters because it changes how you frame your resubmission communication.

Your cover letter should reflect this understanding. You are not apologizing for existing or pleading for a second chance. You are presenting a revised manuscript that addresses the concerns raised, and you are doing so with the professionalism that the Committee on Publication Ethics expects from authors. The tone should be factual and respectful, without flattery or defensiveness.

Transparency About Prior Review

Journals vary in whether they ask about prior submissions. Some journals ask directly whether the manuscript has been submitted elsewhere. Others do not ask but expect honesty if you volunteer the information. The safe professional choice is to disclose prior review history when the journal requests it and to mention it in your cover letter when you believe it is relevant.

The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources gateway provides access to authoritative texts on research conduct and publication practices. These resources consistently emphasize that honest communication with journals is a foundation of ethical research. When you hide a prior rejection, you risk being discovered later, and that discovery can damage trust more than the rejection itself ever could.

The Response Letter as Your Primary Tool

The response letter, sometimes called a rebuttal letter or point-by-point response, is the document that explains how you addressed each reviewer comment. This letter is the single most important piece of your resubmission package. It shows the editor that you read the reviews carefully, that you took them seriously, and that you made concrete changes.

A strong response letter has a simple structure. You list each reviewer comment, then state what you changed and where in the manuscript the change appears. If you disagree with a comment, you explain why, with evidence and reasoning. You do not ignore comments, and you do not dismiss them without explanation.

Choosing Between the Same Journal and a Different Journal

Factors That Favor Resubmitting to the Same Journal

Resubmitting to the same journal makes sense when the editor invited a revision. An invitation to revise and resubmit is not a rejection. It is a conditional opportunity. The editor believes the paper could be published if you address the concerns. In this case, you should follow the journal's revision instructions exactly, including any deadline, and submit your revised manuscript with a detailed response letter.

Resubmission to the same journal also makes sense after a rejection when the editor's letter suggests that the paper was close to the journal's threshold. Some rejection letters include language about being unable to accept the paper in its current form or about the paper being better suited elsewhere. These phrases signal different things, and you should read them carefully. If the editor says the paper does not fit the journal's scope, resubmitting the same paper to the same journal is unlikely to succeed. If the editor says the science has merit but the presentation needs work, a revised resubmission may be appropriate.

Factors That Favor a Different Journal

Submitting to a different journal is often the right choice after a rejection, especially when the rejection was based on scope or when the reviewers raised fundamental concerns that you cannot fully address. The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for many study types, and these guidelines can help you identify whether your manuscript meets the standards of the journal you are considering. If your manuscript does not follow the relevant reporting guideline, a different journal with different requirements might be a better fit.

Journal selection criteria should include the journal's scope, audience, review speed, acceptance rate, and indexing status. The National Institutes of Health Grants and Funding pages describe how grant applications are reviewed, and the same logic applies to journal selection. You want to match your work to a venue where it will be evaluated fairly and where it will reach the readers who can use it.

The Journal Finder Approach

Journal finder tools can help you identify potential venues, but they are starting points, not guarantees. You should examine each candidate journal's aims and scope, recent articles, and instructions to authors. You should also check whether the journal is indexed in the databases your field uses and whether it has a reputation for ethical publishing practices.

The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices can help you evaluate a journal's ethics infrastructure. Journals that follow these practices have clear policies on peer review, authorship, data access, and conflict of interest. Journals that lack these policies may not provide the professional environment you want for your work.

How to Write the Resubmission Cover Letter

Structure of an Effective Cover Letter

Your cover letter for a resubmission should be brief and factual. It should include the manuscript title, the manuscript number if one exists, and a statement that you are resubmitting a revised version. You should state that you have addressed the reviewers' comments and that you have enclosed a point-by-point response.

If you are submitting to a different journal, you should mention that the manuscript was previously reviewed elsewhere and that you have revised it in response to those comments. You do not need to name the previous journal, and you should not criticize the previous reviewers or editor. You should simply state the facts and describe the improvements you have made.

What to Include and What to Omit

Include a summary of the major changes you made. This summary should be specific. Instead of saying that you revised the manuscript, say that you added a power analysis, reanalyzed the data with a mixed-effects model, or rewrote the discussion to address alternative interpretations.

Omit complaints about the review process, personal remarks about reviewers, and any language that suggests you are entitled to publication. Omit lengthy justifications of why the reviewers were wrong. If you disagree with a comment, address it in the response letter with evidence, not in the cover letter with emotion.

The Tone That Builds Trust

The tone of your cover letter should match the tone you would use in a professional conversation with a colleague. You are not groveling, and you are not bragging. You are presenting your work and your revisions with confidence and humility. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices emphasize honesty and transparency, and your cover letter should reflect those values.

Writing the Point-by-Point Response

Organizing Your Response by Reviewer

Organize your response letter by reviewer, then by comment number. This structure makes it easy for the editor and the reviewers to find your responses. If the journal uses a specific format for responses, follow that format exactly.

For each comment, restate the comment briefly, then describe what you did. If you changed the manuscript, give the section and page number where the change appears. If you did not change the manuscript, explain why, with reference to the literature or to your data.

Distinguishing Substantive Changes from Editorial Changes

Substantive changes affect the science. They include new analyses, revised interpretations, additional experiments, or reorganized arguments. Editorial changes affect the presentation. They include grammar corrections, formatting adjustments, and clarifying language. Both types of changes matter, but substantive changes carry more weight in the resubmission decision.

Your response letter should make the substantive changes obvious. If you added a new analysis, say so clearly and explain what the analysis showed. If you revised your interpretation, explain what changed and why.

Handling Disagreement Professionally

You will sometimes disagree with a reviewer's comment. This situation is normal, and editors expect it. The professional response is to explain your reasoning with evidence. You might cite a source that supports your approach, or you might explain why the reviewer's suggested change would introduce an error.

The EQUATOR Network's reporting guidelines can help you justify your methods. If a reviewer suggests an analysis that is not appropriate for your study design, you can cite the relevant reporting guideline to show that your approach is consistent with field standards.

Practical Steps for Preparing Your Resubmission

Step 1: Read the Decision Letter Carefully

Read the decision letter multiple times. Identify whether the decision was a rejection, a major revision, a minor revision, or an invitation to resubmit. Identify the specific concerns the editor raised and the concerns the reviewers raised. Make a list of every concern, and use that list as your checklist for revision.

Step 2: Decide on Your Target Journal

If you are resubmitting to the same journal, confirm that the journal accepts resubmissions after rejection. Some journals do not, and you should not assume. If you are submitting to a different journal, use journal finder tools and the journal's own website to confirm that your manuscript fits the scope.

Step 3: Revise the Manuscript Thoroughly

Address every concern you identified in Step 1. Do not skip concerns that seem minor. Reviewers notice when their comments are ignored, and editors notice when a response letter is incomplete. Use the relevant reporting guideline from the EQUATOR Network to check that your manuscript includes all required elements.

Step 4: Write the Response Letter

Write the response letter after you have completed your revisions. This order ensures that your responses match what you actually did. If you write the response letter first, you may promise changes that you do not make.

Step 5: Prepare Your Submission Package

Assemble your cover letter, response letter, revised manuscript, and any supplementary files. Check the journal's instructions for file formats, naming conventions, and submission system requirements. The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources can help you confirm that your methods are described completely enough for readers to evaluate.

Step 6: Submit and Track

Submit through the journal's online system and keep a record of your submission confirmation. Track the status of your submission and respond promptly to any requests from the editorial office.

Records and Measurements for Resubmission Management

What Records to Keep

Keep a file for each manuscript that includes the original submission, the decision letter, the reviewer comments, your response letter, and the revised manuscript. Keep this file even after the paper is published. You may need it if questions arise later about the review process or the changes you made.

The ORCID for Researchers pages describe how to maintain a researcher profile that links to your publications. Keeping your ORCID record current helps you track your publication history and ensures that your work is correctly attributed to you. This record becomes part of your professional identity, and it is worth maintaining carefully.

How to Measure Your Resubmission Success

Track your resubmission outcomes by journal and by manuscript. Note how long each review took, whether the resubmission was accepted, and what changes were required. This record helps you make better decisions about where to submit future work.

The National Institutes of Health Grants and Funding pages describe how reviewers evaluate grant applications, and the same principles apply to journal review. Reviewers look for clear research questions, appropriate methods, sound analysis, and meaningful conclusions. If you track which of these elements reviewers consistently question, you can strengthen those areas in future manuscripts.

Using Records to Improve Your Process

Your records should tell you whether you are submitting to appropriate journals, whether your manuscripts are ready for review, and whether your response letters are effective. If you consistently receive the same type of comment from different reviewers, that pattern suggests a weakness in your manuscript preparation process.

Common Failure Patterns in Resubmission

Submitting Without Meaningful Changes

The most common failure pattern is resubmitting a manuscript that has not changed in response to the prior reviews. This pattern signals to the editor that you did not take the review seriously. Even if you disagree with the reviewers, you must make some changes or provide clear reasons for not making them.

Ignoring Reviewer Comments in the Response Letter

Another failure pattern is submitting a response letter that does not address every comment. Editors notice when comments are skipped, and reviewers notice when their specific concerns are not acknowledged. A complete response letter is a sign of professionalism.

Using an Aggressive or Defensive Tone

A third failure pattern is responding to reviews with hostility. You may feel that the reviewers misunderstood your work, but expressing that feeling in your response letter will not help your case. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices expect authors to engage with peer review constructively, and editors respond better to reasoned arguments than to emotional reactions.

Submitting to an Inappropriate Journal

A fourth failure pattern is resubmitting to a journal whose scope does not match your manuscript. This pattern wastes your time and the editor's time. Before you submit, read the journal's aims and scope and examine recent articles to confirm that your work fits.

Welfare and Professional Context for Resubmission

The Emotional Reality of Rejection

Rejection is difficult, and the emotional response is real. You may feel discouraged, frustrated, or even ashamed. These feelings are normal, but they should not drive your resubmission decisions. Give yourself time to process the decision before you plan your next steps.

The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources gateway includes texts on the research process that acknowledge the challenges of publication. These resources can help you understand that rejection is a common experience and that persistence is part of a successful research career.

The Professional Obligation to Respond

When you receive a review, you have a professional obligation to consider it seriously. This obligation exists whether you agree with the review or not. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe peer review as a process that improves research, and your participation in that process includes responding thoughtfully to feedback.

When to Escalate a Concern

If you believe that a journal has treated you unfairly, you have options. You can contact the editor to ask for clarification. You can contact the publisher if you believe the editor has violated the journal's policies. You can also consult the Committee on Publication Ethics resources for guidance on handling disputes.

Escalation is appropriate when you have evidence of unethical conduct, such as a reviewer who uses your ideas without permission or an editor who does not follow the journal's stated policies. Escalation is not appropriate simply because you disagree with a decision.

Limitations and Boundaries of Resubmission Advice

No Guarantee of Acceptance

No source can guarantee that a resubmission will be accepted. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the standards for ethical publishing, but they do not promise outcomes. Your resubmission may be rejected again, and that outcome does not mean you did anything wrong.

Journal Policies Vary

Journal policies on resubmission vary widely. Some journals welcome resubmissions after rejection. Others do not accept them. Some journals have formal appeal processes. Others do not. You must check each journal's policies before you submit.

Jurisdiction and Institutional Rules

Your institution may have its own rules about publication and authorship. Your funding agency may have requirements about where and how you publish. The National Institutes of Health Grants and Funding pages describe expectations for grant recipients, and the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for data sharing. These requirements can affect your resubmission decisions, and you should be aware of them.

Professional Escalation Criteria

When to Contact the Editor Directly

Contact the editor directly when you have a factual question about the decision or the review process. For example, you might ask whether the journal accepts resubmissions after rejection, or you might ask for clarification about a reviewer comment that you do not understand.

When to Contact the Publisher

Contact the publisher when you believe the editor has not followed the journal's policies. For example, if the journal promises a decision within a certain time and the editor does not respond to your inquiries, the publisher may be able to help.

When to Consult Ethics Resources

Consult the Committee on Publication Ethics resources when you believe that ethical misconduct has occurred. The Core Practices describe the standards for authorship, peer review, data, and conflicts of interest. If you believe these standards have been violated, you can seek guidance from COPE or from your institution's research integrity office.

At a Glance

Practical Assessment Steps for Your Manuscript

Assess the Decision Letter

Read the decision letter and classify the outcome. Is it a rejection, a major revision, a minor revision, or an invitation to resubmit? Write down the editor's stated reasons for the decision.

Assess the Reviewer Comments

List every reviewer comment and classify each one as substantive or editorial. Substantive comments require changes to the science. Editorial comments require changes to the presentation. Make a plan for addressing each comment.

Assess Your Manuscript Against Reporting Guidelines

Use the EQUATOR Network to find the reporting guideline that applies to your study type. Check your manuscript against the guideline's checklist. Identify any missing elements and add them before you resubmit.

Assess Your Target Journal

Confirm that your target journal's scope matches your manuscript. Read recent articles from the journal to understand the style and depth expected. Check the journal's instructions to authors for specific requirements.

Assess Your Response Letter

Before you submit, read your response letter as if you were the editor. Does it address every comment? Does it explain what you changed and where? Does it maintain a professional tone? If you would not be satisfied with the response letter, revise it.

The Role of Data Management in Resubmission

Data Availability Statements

Many journals require a data availability statement that explains where your data can be found. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes expectations for data sharing that may apply to your research. If your funding requires data sharing, your resubmission should include the appropriate data availability statement.

Preparing Data for Review

Reviewers may ask to see your data during the review process. Be prepared to share data when requested, and be prepared to explain your data management plan. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy can help you understand what a complete data management plan includes.

Data as Part of Your Response

If a reviewer asks about your data, your response letter should address the question directly. You might describe your data collection methods, your data cleaning procedures, or your analysis code. The National Library of Medicine's Research Methods Resources can help you describe your methods accurately.

Maintaining Your Researcher Identity During Resubmission

Keeping Your ORCID Record Current

Your ORCID record links your name to your publications. When your manuscript is accepted, it will appear in your ORCID record if you have linked your account to the journal. Keeping your ORCID record current ensures that your publication history is accurate.

Tracking Your Submission History

Your submission history is part of your professional record. Keep track of where you have submitted each manuscript and what the outcome was. This record helps you avoid submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time, which is a form of duplicate submission that the Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices address.

Building a Professional Reputation

Your behavior during resubmission contributes to your professional reputation. Editors talk to each other, and reviewers may see your name on multiple manuscripts. A reputation for professionalism, honesty, and responsiveness will serve you well throughout your career.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should I tell a new journal that my paper was rejected elsewhere?

Yes, when the journal asks, and it is wise to mention it in your cover letter. Transparency about prior review history is consistent with the honesty expected by the Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices. You do not need to name the previous journal, but you should state that the manuscript was reviewed elsewhere and that you have revised it in response to those comments.

Can I resubmit to the same journal after a rejection?

Sometimes, but you must check the journal's policy. Some journals accept resubmissions after rejection, especially if the editor's letter suggests that the paper could be reconsidered with major changes. Other journals do not accept resubmissions after rejection, and submitting anyway may be considered a violation of the journal's policies.

How long should I wait before resubmitting?

There is no universal waiting period. If the journal invited a revision, follow the journal's deadline. If you are submitting to a different journal, take the time you need to revise the manuscript thoroughly. Submitting a poorly revised manuscript quickly is worse than submitting a well-revised manuscript later.

What if I disagree with a reviewer's comment?

Explain your disagreement in your response letter with evidence and reasoning. Cite sources that support your approach, and explain why the reviewer's suggested change would not improve the manuscript. Editors expect authors to push back when they have good reasons, and a well-reasoned disagreement can strengthen your credibility.

Should I appeal a rejection?

Appeals are appropriate when you believe the review process was unfair or when you have new information that changes the decision. Appeals are not appropriate simply because you disagree with the reviewers. Check the journal's appeal policy before you contact the editor.

How do I choose between resubmitting and submitting to a new journal?

Consider the editor's stated reasons for the decision, the nature of the reviewer comments, and the fit between your manuscript and the journal's scope. If the editor invited a revision, resubmit to the same journal. If the rejection was based on scope or if the reviewers raised concerns you cannot address, submit to a different journal.

What should I do if a journal does not respond to my resubmission?

Wait a reasonable time, then contact the editorial office to ask about the status of your submission. If you do not receive a response, you may need to escalate to the publisher. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the expectations for timely editorial decisions, and you can reference these expectations in your inquiry.

How can I avoid being blacklisted by a journal?

Follow the journal's policies, respond to reviews professionally, and do not submit the same manuscript to multiple journals at the same time. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the standards for ethical conduct, and journals take these standards seriously. Authors who follow them are unlikely to be blacklisted.

Using the Evidence

Related Articles

• Multiple Genome Alignment
• Multiple Sequence Alignment
• Pathway Enrichment Multiple Testing
• Protein Multiple Alignment Quality
• Ncbi Multiple Sequence Alignment Viewer

References and Further Reading

• Research Methods Resources. National Library of Medicine.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Core Practices. Committee on Publication Ethics.
• NIH Grants and Funding. National Institutes of Health.
• ORCID for Researchers. ORCID.
• Data Management and Sharing Policy. National Institutes of Health.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.