The Resubmission Checklist: 20 Items to Verify Before You Hit Submit
By Dr. Zubair Khalid, DVM, MS, PhD ·
Quick Answer
- Verify every required file, formatting rule, and disclosure before resubmitting to avoid unnecessary administrative delays.
- Build a response-to-reviewers letter that addresses each comment directly and tracks changes in the revised manuscript.
- Confirm authorship, data availability, and reporting guidelines are current, since journals and funders enforce these standards.
Understanding the Resubmission Process
Resubmitting a manuscript after peer review is a distinct stage in the publication workflow. The editor has invited you to revise and return the paper, not to submit a new one. This distinction matters because the expectations for a resubmission differ from those for an original submission. The journal will compare your revised files against the reviewers' comments, the original submission, and the journal's own formatting rules. Missing files, inconsistent data statements, or unaddressed reviewer concerns can send the manuscript back to you for another round of corrections.
The practical goal is to make the editor's verification work as simple as possible. When the editorial office can confirm that every requested change is present, that all files are named correctly, and that all disclosures are complete, the manuscript moves forward to the next decision point. When the office must chase missing items, the timeline stretches.
This checklist covers the 20 items that matter most at the resubmission stage. It is organized by file types, formatting requirements, consistency checks, and the response letter. Use it as a working document, not as a substitute for the journal's specific instructions.
At a Glance
| Checklist Area | What to Verify | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Response letter | Every reviewer comment addressed, with page and line references | Editors use this letter to judge whether the revision is complete |
| Manuscript files | Final version, tracked changes, clean copy, and supplementary files | Missing or mismatched files cause administrative delays |
| Author information | ORCID records, affiliations, and author order match the original submission | Identity and authorship standards are enforced by journals and funders |
| Data and ethics | Data availability statement, reporting guidelines, and ethics approvals | Funders and journals require transparent research reporting |
| Formatting | References, figures, tables, and word count match journal style | Formatting errors trigger technical checks before editorial review |
Core Principles of a Successful Resubmission
The Editor Is Your First Reader
The editor who invited the revision is the first person to read your resubmission. That editor needs to see quickly that you have engaged seriously with the reviewers. A response letter that is organized by reviewer and by comment number is the most efficient way to communicate this. Each response should state what you changed and where the change appears in the revised manuscript.
The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the responsibilities of authors and editors in peer review. These practices include handling submissions fairly and maintaining the integrity of the record. When you respond to reviewers, you are participating in that process. Your response letter is part of the peer review record.
The Journal's Instructions Are the Contract
Every journal publishes instructions for authors. These instructions define the file types, formatting rules, and disclosure requirements for resubmission. The instructions may differ between the original submission and the revision. For example, the journal may require a point-by-point response letter only at the revision stage, or it may require a specific file naming convention.
Read the instructions for the revision stage, not the original submission stage. If the journal asks for a clean copy and a marked copy, provide both. If the journal asks for a separate title page, provide it. The instructions are the contract for the resubmission.
Reporting Guidelines Shape the Manuscript
Reporting guidelines are checklists that describe the minimum information needed for a complete and transparent report of a study. The EQUATOR Network maintains a library of these guidelines for different study types. If the journal or the reviewers have asked you to follow a specific guideline, the resubmission must show that you have done so.
The guideline may require a checklist that maps each item to the section of the manuscript where it is addressed. This checklist is often a separate file. If the checklist is missing, the editor may return the manuscript without sending it to review.
The 20-Item Resubmission Checklist
Files and Documents
1. Revised Manuscript File
The revised manuscript must be the version that incorporates all changes. The file should be in the format the journal requires, usually a Word document or a PDF. The file name should match the journal's naming convention. If the journal asks for a file name that includes the manuscript number, use that number.
2. Marked or Tracked Changes Version
Many journals require a version that shows the changes from the original submission. This is often a tracked-changes version or a version with highlighted text. The marked version allows the editor and reviewers to see exactly what changed without reading the entire manuscript again.
3. Clean Version
The clean version is the revised manuscript without any markup. This is the version that will be typeset if the manuscript is accepted. The clean version must match the marked version exactly. A mismatch between the two versions is a common reason for a manuscript to be returned.
4. Response to Reviewers Letter
The response letter is the document that addresses each reviewer comment. It should be organized by reviewer and comment number. Each response should state what was changed and where the change appears. The letter should also address any comments from the editor that are separate from the reviewer comments.
5. Supplementary Materials
Supplementary files include data files, additional figures, and other supporting documents. These files must be listed in the manuscript and in the submission system. The file names must match the citations in the text. A supplementary file that is cited but not uploaded is a common error.
6. Reporting Guideline Checklist
If the journal requires a reporting guideline checklist, the checklist must be uploaded as a separate file. The checklist should map each item to the page or line number in the revised manuscript. The EQUATOR Network provides access to the guidelines and their checklists.
Content and Consistency
7. Response to Every Reviewer Comment
Every reviewer comment must be addressed in the response letter. This includes comments that you disagree with. For comments you reject, the response should explain why you did not make the change. The editor needs to see that you considered the comment, even if you did not act on it.
8. Changes Reflected in the Manuscript
The response letter must match the manuscript. If you say in the response letter that you added a sentence to the Discussion, the sentence must be in the revised manuscript. A response letter that describes changes that are not in the manuscript is a serious problem.
9. Author Information
The author list, affiliations, and order must match the original submission unless the journal has approved a change. Changes to authorship require the agreement of all authors and the journal. The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices state that authorship should be determined by the authors and that all authors must agree to the final version.
10. ORCID Records
The ORCID record for each author should be current and should include the author's affiliation and works. The ORCID for Researchers page explains how researchers can maintain their records. A current ORCID record helps the journal and the funder verify the author's identity and output.
11. Data Availability Statement
The data availability statement must be present and must match the journal's policy. If the journal requires a data availability statement, the statement must be in the manuscript and in the submission form. The statement should say where the data are available or why the data are not available.
12. Data Management and Sharing
If the research was funded by the NIH, the data management and sharing policy applies. The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy describes the expectations for data management and sharing. The manuscript should include a data availability statement that aligns with the funded data management plan.
13. Ethics Statements
The ethics statements must be present and must match the study. This includes the ethics approval for human or animal research, the consent statement for human participants, and the clinical trial registration number if applicable. The statements must be in the manuscript and in the submission form.
14. Conflict of Interest Disclosures
The conflict of interest disclosures must be present and must match the manuscript. The disclosures should cover all authors and all financial and non-financial interests. The COPE Core Practices include the handling of conflicts of interest.
15. References
The references must be complete and must match the journal's style. The reference list should include all citations in the text, and the text should include all references in the list. A reference that is cited but not listed, or listed but not cited, is a common error. If you added references during the revision, paste the final list into the Citation Checker to confirm each new entry matches a real Crossref or PubMed record before you upload.
16. Figures and Tables
The figures and tables must be present and must match the text. The figure files must be in the format the journal requires, and the resolution must be sufficient for publication. The figure captions must be in the manuscript and must match the figure files.
17. Title and Abstract
The title and abstract must match the content of the revised manuscript. If the revision changed the study's findings or the scope of the paper, the title and abstract must be updated. The title and abstract are often the only parts of the manuscript that are read by a wide audience.
18. Keywords
The keywords must match the revised manuscript. The keywords should reflect the content of the paper and should be terms that a reader would use to search for the paper.
19. Cover Letter
The cover letter for the resubmission should state that the manuscript is a revision and should reference the manuscript number. The cover letter should also state that the manuscript has been revised in response to the reviewers' comments.
20. Submission Form
The submission form must be complete and must match the manuscript. The form includes the manuscript type, the title, the abstract, the author information, and the disclosures. The form must match the manuscript, or the submission will be returned.
Practical Implementation Steps
Build the Response Letter First
The response letter is the document that the editor reads first. Build it before you finalize the manuscript. The response letter should be organized by reviewer and comment number. For each comment, state the comment, state your response, and state the change you made in the manuscript.
The response letter should be a separate document from the manuscript. It should not be a part of the manuscript file. The journal may have a specific format for the response letter, so check the instructions.
Use the Reporting Guideline as a Map
If the journal requires a reporting guideline, use the guideline as a map for the revision. The guideline checklist will tell you what information must be in the manuscript. Use the checklist to verify that the manuscript includes each item. The EQUATOR Network provides the guidelines and the checklists.
Verify the Data Statement
The data availability statement must be present and must match the journal's policy. If the research is funded by the NIH, the data availability statement must align with the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy. The policy requires a data management plan and a data availability statement in the manuscript.
Check the Author Records
The author records must be current. The ORCID record for each author should include the author's affiliation and works. The ORCID for Researchers page explains how to maintain the record. The journal may use the ORCID record to verify the author's identity.
Records and Measurements
What to Record
The resubmission process produces a set of records that you should keep. These records include the original submission, the reviewer comments, the response letter, and the revised manuscript. The records should be stored in a place that is accessible to all authors.
The records should include the dates of each step. The date of the original submission, the date of the review decision, and the date of the resubmission are all important. The journal may have a deadline for the resubmission, and the record should show that the deadline was met.
How to Measure Progress
The progress of the resubmission can be measured by the number of reviewer comments that have been addressed. The response letter should list each comment and the response. The number of comments that are addressed should equal the number of comments that were made.
The progress can also be measured by the completeness of the submission. The checklist can be used to measure the completeness of the submission. Each item on the checklist should be checked off when it is complete.
Common Failure Patterns
The Response Letter Does Not Match the Manuscript
The most common failure is a response letter that describes changes that are not in the manuscript. The editor will check the response letter against the manuscript. If the changes are not in the manuscript, the manuscript will be returned.
The Supplementary Files Are Missing
The supplementary files are often the last thing that is uploaded. The files may be cited in the manuscript but not uploaded. The editor will check the supplementary files against the manuscript. If the files are missing, the manuscript will be returned.
The Data Availability Statement Is Incomplete
The data availability statement must be present and must match the journal's policy. The statement must say where the data are stored and how the data can be accessed. The statement must also match the funding agency's policy.
The Reporting Guideline Checklist Is Missing
The reporting guideline checklist is a separate file that must be uploaded. The checklist must map each item to the page in the manuscript. If the checklist is missing, the manuscript will be returned.
The Author Information Is Inconsistent
The author information must be consistent across the manuscript, the submission form, and the ORCID records. The author order must match the original submission. The affiliations must match the original submission.
Limitations and Professional Escalation
Limitations of the Checklist
The checklist is a working document, not a guarantee. The journal's instructions for authors are the binding document. The checklist may not cover every requirement of the journal. The author must read the journal's instructions and follow them.
The checklist does not cover the scientific content of the manuscript. The checklist covers the administrative and formatting requirements. The scientific content is the responsibility of the author.
When to Escalate
The author should escalate to the editor when the author cannot resolve a problem. The author should contact the editor if the author cannot meet the deadline for the resubmission. The author should contact the editor if the author cannot address a reviewer comment.
The author should escalate to the funder if the funder has a data management requirement that the author cannot meet. The NIH Grants and Funding page provides information about the NIH grant policy and the requirements for the grant.
Build a Revision Verification Matrix Before You Resubmit
A response letter and a clean manuscript are necessary, but they do not guarantee that every change is consistent across all files. Authors frequently discover after submission that a change described in the response letter was applied to the main text but not to the supplementary file, or that a figure caption was updated while the figure file itself remained the old version. A revision verification matrix closes this gap by creating a single document that maps every requested change to its exact location in every affected file.
What the Matrix Tracks
The matrix is a table with one row for each reviewer comment or editor request. Columns track the comment source, the action taken, the manuscript location, and the status of that change in each related file. A practical matrix has these columns:
| Column | What It Records |
|---|---|
| Comment ID | Reviewer number and comment number, such as R1C3 or Editor Note 2 |
| Comment summary | A short restatement of the requested change |
| Action taken | What you did in response, such as added text, removed a section, or reanalyzed data |
| Manuscript location | Section, page, and line number where the change appears |
| Related files affected | Supplementary files, figures, tables, or data files that must also change |
| Verification status | Confirmed, pending, or not applicable for each related file |
The matrix is not a replacement for the response letter. The response letter is the document you send to the editor. The matrix is an internal working document that you use before submission to confirm that every change is complete and consistent.
How to Build the Matrix
Start the matrix the day you receive the decision letter. Do not wait until you begin revising. Create one row for every comment from every reviewer and from the editor. This includes comments that you plan to reject. A comment you reject still requires a row because you must verify that the manuscript does not contain the disputed content and that your response letter explains the rejection.
As you make each revision, update the matrix row. Record the exact location of the change in the revised manuscript. Then list every other file that could be affected by that change. For example, if a reviewer asks you to add a sensitivity analysis, the affected files include the main manuscript text, the results section, possibly a supplementary table, and the data availability statement if the new analysis uses a file that must be shared.
Verify Each Row Before Submission
The verification step is where the matrix earns its value. Work through the matrix row by row on the day you plan to submit. For each row, open the revised manuscript and confirm that the change is present at the recorded location. Then open each related file and confirm that the change is reflected there as well.
A common failure is a change applied to the main text but not to the corresponding supplementary figure. For example, a reviewer asks you to update a figure to include error bars. You update the figure file and the caption in the main text. But the supplementary methods file still describes the original analysis without error bars. The matrix row for that comment lists the supplementary methods file as a related file. The verification step catches the mismatch before submission.
Record the Verification Date
The matrix should include a verification date for each row. This date records when you confirmed that the change is present in all listed files. The date is useful if you make further edits after verification. Any edit made after the verification date requires you to recheck every row that could be affected by that edit.
For example, you verify the matrix on a Monday. On Tuesday, you notice a typo in the Discussion and fix it. That fix does not affect the rows for reviewer comments about the methods. But if the typo fix changes a sentence that you added in response to a reviewer comment, you must recheck that row. The verification date tells you which rows need rechecking.
Use the Matrix to Build the Response Letter
The matrix also simplifies the response letter. Each row contains the comment summary, the action taken, and the manuscript location. You can assemble the response letter directly from the matrix rows. This ensures that the response letter matches the manuscript because both are derived from the same verification document.
The Committee on Publication Ethics Core Practices describe the expectation that authors respond to reviewer comments in a transparent manner. A matrix that links each comment to a verified change is a practical way to meet that expectation. The editor can see that you tracked each comment through to a confirmed location in the files.
When the Matrix Reveals a Problem
The matrix will sometimes reveal a change that was not fully applied. The most common finding is a change described in the response letter but missing from the manuscript. The second most common finding is a change present in the main text but missing from a supplementary file. When the matrix reveals a problem, fix the file before submission. Do not submit and hope the editor does not notice.
The matrix also reveals comments that you have not addressed at all. A row with no action taken and no manuscript location is a comment that you missed. The verification step forces you to confront that row before submission instead of discovering the omission after the editor returns the manuscript.
Store the Matrix with the Submission Records
Keep the matrix with the other records of the resubmission. The matrix is part of the audit trail that shows how you responded to each comment. If the editor asks a question about a specific change, the matrix helps you locate the change quickly. If a coauthor asks why a particular sentence was added, the matrix shows the comment that prompted the addition.
The Research Methods Resources collection from the National Library of Medicine provides background on research documentation practices. The matrix is a documentation practice that supports the integrity of the revision process. It is not a document you send to the journal, but it is a document you keep for your own records and for the records of your research group.
A Practical Check Before You Submit
On submission day, run this final check using the matrix. Confirm that every row has a verification status of confirmed. Confirm that every row has a manuscript location recorded. Confirm that every related file listed in the matrix is uploaded to the submission system. Confirm that the response letter includes every comment ID from the matrix. If all four confirmations pass, the resubmission is internally consistent. If any confirmation fails, resolve the issue before you hit submit.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I write a response to reviewers letter?
Organize the letter by reviewer and comment number. State each comment, state your response, and state the change in the manuscript. The letter should be a separate document from the manuscript.
What is the difference between a marked and a clean manuscript?
The marked manuscript shows the changes that were made. The clean manuscript is the final version without any changes. The journal may require both versions.
What is a reporting guideline checklist?
A reporting guideline checklist is a list of items that must be in the manuscript. The checklist maps each item to the page in the manuscript. The EQUATOR Network provides the guidelines and the checklists.
What is a data availability statement?
A data availability statement is a statement in the manuscript that says where the data are stored and how the data can be accessed. The statement must match the journal's policy and the funding agency's policy.
What is the NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy?
The NIH Data Management and Sharing Policy is the policy for NIH-funded research. The policy requires a data management plan and a data availability statement in the manuscript.
What is the role of ORCID in the resubmission?
The ORCID record is a unique identifier for the author. The record should be current and should include the author's affiliation and works. The ORCID for Researchers page explains how to maintain the record.
What should I do if I cannot meet the deadline for the revision?
Contact the editor before the deadline. The editor may be able to grant an extension. The editor should be contacted as soon as the problem is known.
What should I do if I disagree with a reviewer comment?
State your disagreement in the response letter. Explain why you did not make the change. The editor will decide whether the response is acceptable.
Related Articles
- Feasibility of a Research Study: How to Assess Before You Start
- Variant Calling Workflow: Design Decisions Before You Start
- Bioinformatics Careers: What You Need to Know Before You Start
- Cross-Sectional Study Limitations: What You Need to Know Before You Start
- What Can You Do With a Biology Degree
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.